Morals are natural

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwise

Once again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

In a series of studies, scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer sympathy and selfless help to others, and even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

Link

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?

the same place that it says Cain married his sister or cousin, the same place that says fathers can have sex with their daughters if the mother is no longer having sex with the father, the same place that says I asked Vrai to remove/move his posts - in Nuck's imagination only.

[This_person]

Once again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Once again, you suggest I misrepresent a position.

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Or, are you really the misrepresenter? It's okay, we all know what the answer to that last question is

Your right, it really is obvious who This_Misrepresentation really is.

Originally Posted by This_person

Atheists do not act within "morals", because they don't have any. They have society's rules of conduct, but those aren't "morals". That doesn't mean they act incorrectly, just not out of morals.

Well i guess your right, when you stated Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle you werent trying to claim morals were a construct of religion.

I mean it wasnt obvious when you posted all kinds of examples of religions/beliefs and how they had a foundation of value. But heres the really cute part, this was you, wasnt it? posted:

Originally Posted by This_person

I believe atheists have an equation for what determines life, a belief in man's thoughts and theories to try and determine how life works - but no deeper foundation for what makes up right and wrong and therefore no foundation for morals and values. Without a belief system, life can have no higher meaning..

See here is the confusion, when you stated

Originally Posted by This_person

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

That wasnt you claiming morals come from Religion?

Are you sure? Because further on you stated:

Originally Posted by This_person

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

It really sounds as if your saying Atheists (withouth religion) cant be moral, since morals are religious based and Atheists dont have religion.

Nope... I'm pretty sure your saying morals come from Religion

Hell, just as with every other topic you post in, your dishonesty comes back and bites ya

Originally Posted by This_person

See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Where does it say anywhere that God didn't give any animal a conscience of any sort?

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Your right, it really is obvious who This_Misrepresentation really is.


Well i guess your right, when you stated Athiests can have no deeper meaning to human life than that to cattle you werent trying to claim morals were a construct of religion.

I mean it wasnt obvious when you posted all kinds of examples of religions/beliefs and how they had a foundation of value. But heres the really cute part, this was you, wasnt it? posted:


See here is the confusion, when you stated


That wasnt you claiming morals come from Religion?

Are you sure? Because further on you stated:

It really sounds as if your saying Atheists (withouth religion) cant be moral, since morals are religious based and Atheists dont have religion.

Nope... I'm pretty sure your saying morals come from Religion

Hell, just as with every other topic you post in, your dishonesty comes back and bites ya

And, here's where we get into the semantics again.

You said:

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You and I realize that Religion and Morals are not the same.

Others on here (This_Misrepresentation for instance) claim otherwise

To which I asked

Originally Posted by This_person

Can you show me any post, any time, ever, that I suggeseted religion and morals are the same?

Now, to prove I said they're the same thing, you show a bunch of times where I said the foundation of morals comes from religion. That's not what I asked for, nor what you accused me of.

What I said goes right along with what I said in this thread, which is:

Originally Posted by This_person

I think the argument is generally that religion provides a moral standard that is unchanging. The moral standards are, well, standard.

The basis for each atheist's morals is whatever that particular atheist feels is correct at the moment, and is variable based on that atheist's mood, life experience, etc., etc. An atheist's moral standard is, well, not a standard at all over time.

This is where the phrase moral relativity comes in to play. What may be okay in one instance is not okay in another, or when compared to what could be worse.

Morals are not religion, religion is not morals.

Morals are a standard by which one lives. Religious morals are constant, atheists "morals" are variable, based on the atheist's mood.

Morals and religion, what you claimed I said originally, is neither what I said, nor what you "proved" I said.

But, that's not a shock.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.

That's right, because cattle do whatever feels right to them at the time, or whatever will keep them in good standing with the herd.

This is why people suggest that religions "change with the times", because they don't understand that morals are a constant for a religion, not a fad.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

And, here's where we get into the semantics again.

You said:To which I askedNow, to prove I said they're the same thing, you show a bunch of times where I said the foundation of morals comes from religion. That's not what I asked for, nor what you accused me of.

What I said goes right along with what I said in this thread, which is:

Morals are not religion, religion is not morals.

Morals are a standard by which one lives. Religious morals are constant, atheists "morals" are variable, based on the atheist's mood.

Morals and religion, what you claimed I said originally, is neither what I said, nor what you "proved" I said.

But, that's not a shock.

We're not falling for it, you and I both know that i was replying to Im_Me in response to Religion and Morals and the fact that some of the misguided feel morals are/were created by Religion. In other words without Religion there would be no Morals.

You know this was the theme of the conversation, especially since the very first post in this thread is how Morals do exist in Nature, without any Religion to guide, create or support a Moral code. When you were called on it, you thought you could refute it by claiming you never stated such a thing, but either forgot or didnt realize that you had posited this very thing yourself.

Yet instead of admitting you did claim Morals are a product of Religion, you go off on yet another of your non-related diatribes. Its nothing more than we expect from you, sadly you'll probably never realize you have alot in with the liberals you claim to be against.

Even though you think Morals are dependent on Religon, as i quoted you stating numerous times, go ahead and continue to ignore evidence that should logically lead you to believe otherwise. Intellectual Honestyh has never been your "thing", when you get caught in a logic trap of your own making you rely upon your non-sequitor arguments, out of context quotes, or blatant misrepresentations of what a posters point is.

So go ahead and continue with your selective editing, the fault is clearly mine. i attempted to treat you like an adult who is capable of admitting a mistake and owning up for their own error. This wont happen again, you'll be relegated to the same status as Nono, Forestal, NHBoy, Andy and every other libtard poster, who would rather make posts befitting a forum Troll, instead of someone interesting in discussion.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You can argue that God gave some/all Animals a sense of Morality, but that gets back to the Univerality of a position. As far as we can tell, Animals do not follow religion, yet they have Morals.

That wasnt the gist of many conversations that have been held on this forum about the origin of Morals.

Some have attempted to claim that Morals stem from Religion. Without religion there would be no morals and that we would be no different than ...

what was it again?????

Ahh yes, we would be no different than cattle.

Why does having a religion have to follow having a conscience or vice versa? If that were the case I would say you have no conscience since you don’t believe in a religion.

But since animals can’t really communicate with humans I think it’s safe to say “we don’t know”. In all reality, at this point, I don’t care. I’m still struggling to figure out the conscience of humans (or lack thereof in many cases).

But my arguments on morals and religion are that they both go hand-in-hand. One didn’t create (or result from) the other. Perhaps it’s the “chicken or the egg” debate. Which came first? Of course it’s quite obvious that some can have morals without believing in a God. But do you have those morals out of a vacuum or are they in you from a God that instilled those morals in us from creation? Just as God created us with a conscience and morals He also created us with choice. You chose not to believe. That certainly doesn’t make you an amoral person. And because I believe doesn’t mean I have more morals than you. God created us all the same. The only differentiating factor being our desire to chose.