Morals are natural

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

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.

Of course there would be morals. As I've repeatedly said, morals are the standards by which one lives.

The difference would be that the morals would be variable, based on mood, social norms of the time, what you can get away with without being caught, etc.

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.

But, that's not what was suggested. You suggested that I think morals and religion are the same thing.

Now, maybe words don't mean much to you, but they mean something to me. I do suggest that consistent morals, a foundation that is standard and solid, comes from religious moral codes, as opposed to the atheist moral code which consists of whatever feels good at the moment. I don't deny that at all. But, that doesn't mean I think morals and religion are the same thing, which is what you claimed my stance was.

Words matter, and how you communicate matters.

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.

But, I don't claim morals are a product of religion. I claim consistent morals are. Standards that are unchanging. Not "if it feels good, do it" morals that atheists have.

Again, I've suggested that many morals from religions are abhorant to me. I've used the woman who was stoned in the Middle East for allowing herself to be raped as an example - they attacked the victim of a horrendous crime because she allowed herself to be put into a position where she could be raped. That is their religious moral code, and I find it despicable. But, it's consistent, hard, strongly felt by their religion, and that makes it a strong moral code - just in conflict with my own.

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.

Well, I will agree that the first post you found, from Dec 2007, was poorly worded on my own side. I was trying to suggest the difference between a consistent moral code from religion and an inconsistent moral code, or standard of conduct, that society would provide an atheist. I will admit I could have worded that better. It's still consistent, in context of the whole discussion, with what I'm saying here, but I could have worded it better so that when you take it out of context it would be more difficult for you to misrepresent it.

As for the second quote you brought up from me, let's look at the whole thing:

Originally Posted by This_person

I absolutely do NOT think that Christians have a monopoly on the understanding of morals and values.

I believe that Christians have a deep foundation for determining right and wrong, that determination being what makes up morals and values to a Christian.

However, I believe that the ancient Greeks had a foundation also. I disagree with Zues being the almighty, but they had a foundation to make up their morals and values.

I believe Wiccans have a foundation that make up their beliefs of right and wrong - those beliefs making up their determinations of morals and values.

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.


I told you I'd give you my theory when you answered. You haven't answered (or, rather, you have by being unable to give me an answer). My theory is that American atheists are surrounded by religious people (83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians - I'll find the poll again if you dispute), and that atheists have been surrounded by values and morals so much they've adopted the bigger picture of the religious people's morals and values as their own while declaring they don't believe in the system that gives the morals. And, they don't even realize it.

Now, why did you leave that bolded line out? Is it because it directly refutes what you're trying to ascribe to me? But, you suggest it is I who misrepresent

The rest of the quotes merely mirror everything I've said in this thread, so there's no point in going over it again and again and again.

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.

I agree the fault is yours, but in a whole different way than you suggest.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

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.

So we're clear, your equating Conscience with Morals?

Originally Posted by PsyOps

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).

Thats why the study and article, states it is based on the observations of the events that occurred.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

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.

That is the reason for posting the article. Its hard to claim that Morals stem from religion, when its been observed that Animals also seem to display moralistic traits.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

If morals are natural, how do you explain Congress?

[libertytyranny]

I believe that the ability to have morals is inborn. That we are able to understand and adhere to a code of conduct. However, the morals themselves can vary from cultures..and even species...so they must be FROM somewhere..arguably somewhere different.

[Cowgirl]

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.

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.

Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

I don't think he meant "mood" as in the immediate happy/angry/sad mood. But overall long-term mood. Like "climate" as opposed to "weather".



If that's the case, "mood" is probably poor word choice. Demeanor or somethign similar would be more appropriate.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Cowgirl

Right. Because I know killing someone is wrong, but look out if I get pissed off! Suddenly killing someone becomes ok!

Well, actually, yes.

Now, do I think that on something like killing someone it's easy to adjust the mood sufficiently - no.

But, let's take a smaller, more realistic issue. Let's say stealing, for instance. If you're hungry, and the store clerk is looking the other way while you are penniless, is it okay then to steal a cookie off the shelf?

After you answer the expected, "no, of course not", ask yourself why.

You'll likely answer that you know right from wrong.

Well, okay, how do you know "right" from "wrong"? Think of the four year old that hasn't been fully inculcated into the American culture (which, btw, we have a higher percentage of declared Christians in this country than Isreal has declared Jews) - would that four year old take the cookie, especially if they thought they wouldn't get caught?

You know the answer to that least question is "yes". So, I ask you again, how do you know "right" from "wrong"?

I submit to you that your moral code has been instilled in you through your society, which is primarily Christian. Without that culture, without that moral code that's in your upbringing, I suspect that the average atheist would be like the four year old - because what foundation does the atheist have except their own gut feel, their own culture, their own experiences?

This is the root of my argument - if you believe in nothing, then you have nothing to base your decisions on except yourself. That means what's happened to you, how you feel about things, your own character. Without a society that helped shape and mold that character to norms of right and wrong, where would you be? Like the four year old that hasn't had that happen to them yet.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So we're clear, your equating Conscience with Morals?

Can you have a conscience without morals?

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Thats why the study and article, states it is based on the observations of the events that occurred.

Either way I have no problem with believing animals have some sort of moral compass. I’m not sure how this equates to where it is from God or not.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

That is the reason for posting the article. Its hard to claim that Morals stem from religion, when its been observed that Animals also seem to display moralistic traits.

Again, how does animals having morals prove or disprove the existence of a God? If animals do have morals who’s to say that they don’t have some sort of belief in God? And just because they don’t behave as we do in congregating to worship this God doesn’t mean they don’t have their form of observance/worship towards God. Perhaps they communicate on a completely different level. We like to use human understanding to explain things animal. The two are starkly different and I think that is the fatal flaw of the human paradigm: somehow things must comply with human understanding and rules. This holds true in explaining the universe in general. We see things from human eyes and are limited to that. Perhaps there are different perspectives that our disbeliefs and ignorance won’t allow us to see.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Can you have a conscience without morals?

Nope, thats why i wanted the clarification. I think we both agree they are either the same or work in tandem, irregardless i wanted to make sure i understood your comment.

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Either way I have no problem with believing animals have some sort of moral compass. I’m not sure how this equates to where it is from God or not.

Then that will make a boring discussion without a debate

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Again, how does animals having morals prove or disprove the existence of a God? If animals do have morals who’s to say that they don’t have some sort of belief in God? And just because they don’t behave as we do in congregating to worship this God doesn’t mean they don’t have their form of observance/worship towards God. Perhaps they communicate on a completely different level. We like to use human understanding to explain things animal. The two are starkly different and I think that is the fatal flaw of the human paradigm: somehow things must comply with human understanding and rules. This holds true in explaining the universe in general. We see things from human eyes and are limited to that. Perhaps there are different perspectives that our disbeliefs and ignorance won’t allow us to see.

Once again, i'm not debating whether God gave the animals Morals, this is an example of Morals without Religion (2 different things)

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, actually, yes.

Now, do I think that on something like killing someone it's easy to adjust the mood sufficiently - no.

But, let's take a smaller, more realistic issue. Let's say stealing, for instance. If you're hungry, and the store clerk is looking the other way while you are penniless, is it okay then to steal a cookie off the shelf?

After you answer the expected, "no, of course not", ask yourself why.

You'll likely answer that you know right from wrong.

Well, okay, how do you know "right" from "wrong"? Think of the four year old that hasn't been fully inculcated into the American culture (which, btw, we have a higher percentage of declared Christians in this country than Isreal has declared Jews) - would that four year old take the cookie, especially if they thought they wouldn't get caught?

You know the answer to that least question is "yes". So, I ask you again, how do you know "right" from "wrong"?

I submit to you that your moral code has been instilled in you through your society, which is primarily Christian. Without that culture, without that moral code that's in your upbringing, I suspect that the average atheist would be like the four year old - because what foundation does the atheist have except their own gut feel, their own culture, their own experiences?

This is the root of my argument - if you believe in nothing, then you have nothing to base your decisions on except yourself. That means what's happened to you, how you feel about things, your own character. Without a society that helped shape and mold that character to norms of right and wrong, where would you be? Like the four year old that hasn't had that happen to them yet.

And yet the animals in the article developed Morals without the fear of Going to Hell to drive them.