First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
What's your opinion on Moral intelligence/knowledge?
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
In this forum you can either post your opinion like you do on other forums about what you think or you can start a debate with another crunchyuser.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.
Posted 7/10/08
Moral intelligence is more congenital whereas knowledge is obtained through learning.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 7/10/08
If you look at what is considered moral and immoral is other societies, you will see quite differently what "morals" are.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/10/08 , edited 7/10/08
You can find the beginning of this debate here
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-103609/Do-you-think-todays-generation-is-losing-its-intelligence.html?pg=13#12849200
and the previous post that I'm responding to is here
http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-103609/Do-you-think-todays-generation-is-losing-its-intelligence.html?pg=17#13370210

Well anything can be seen as biased but like what I said I was going to strive towards an unbiased response.

Bern34 wrote:
And yes, I am an atheist. I used to be a Christian (mainly because of Christian relatives), until around 8 then I began thinking for myself. I realized that God never done anything for me when I wanted his help, and I began thinking that the texts in the Bible are all manmade. This, in itself, is faith.

Maybe God has done things for you, you probably just haven't realized it. Defending from a Christian point of view, He won't give you everything because maybe it's not the best for you. Movie stars and music stars usually get what they want since they have a motherload of money but do you think everything they do for themselves is good?
The way you defined faith is a little sketchy partly because I don't fully understand you but I'll assume that you have full faith in humankind alone. I have have full faith in humankind and God alike. I have faith that with pure human logic people would find that it is possible that there might be a God out there, I know one guy who's a senior in college and is a hardcore physicist and believes that there is a possibility that there could be a God but converted from Christian to athiest because there was no full fledged proof that there was a God and was just convinced with the limited knowledge he had.
The point I'm trying to say is with the accumilated limited knowledge that people may possess it is possible to reason that there isn't a God or that there is a God. Humans may have been on the earth way long before history was first recorded but with all that time humans have not accumulated all the knowledge that is out in the universe. That's something everyone agrees on.
So yes, I can see where you are coming from and why you think in such a way and I'm just conveying my knowledge to you so that you can fit in the new knowledge with your logic.
I hope that settles that.

Bern34 wrote:

People gain their morals from either themselves or a higher being.


people are listening to people who think they know what they're talking about and bash on those who are smarter than them.

Aside from the fact that you just contradicted yourself, I would like to clearly point out that I think people gain their morals from themselves or anyone (including “higher beings). When you say “higher being”, I hope you’re talking about the spiritual beings, and not people who are higher in status. People can gain their morals from their parents, right? From their friends, right? Morality is not just about faith; it can also be reasoned using the premise, “common sense”. You don’t need to believe in God to gain common sense such as “do not hurt people”, etc. It’s a simple “treat people how you want to be treated”. And yes, having faith in your parents, friends, etc. is definitely possible as well.

Well I'm sorry that I didn't fully explain myself. Oh wait, I did but you didn't quote the whole paragraph of the second quote.

What I mean by "stupider and stupider" is that it has become more apparent, especially in the first world countries, that morals are beginning to decline because people are listening to people who think they know what they're talking about and bash on those who are smarter than them. Two that come to mind are Oprah and Hitler. I don't know much about Oprah but I know there's good reason why people bash on her, that's all I can say. Hiter, that name in itself explains everything (unless you haven't learned about him in high school) especially when it is put together with the words "Death camp" (which makes military camp sound like unicorns and rainbows).

You didn't quote the entire first quote either but I'll just explain what I mean with both of them. When I mean people get morals from themselves I mean themselves as in mankind. They make up laws that seem to make sense to them or give them a selective advantage. If they gain morals from God then that means they are incorperating laws that already existed before man could concieve of laws. This may not make sense but I already mentioned John 1:1 so don't complain. The moral laws that exists out there are what humans and God make, some laws are agreed by humans and God and some not. It's like two overlapping circles. Humans are one circle and God is another. The overlapping is what we and God agree on.
People like Oprah and Hitler can make moral laws that would exist in only the human side of the circle and would be part of the overlapping part of it. They're trying to oppose people who agree with the overlapping part of the circle. They could bash on Socrates all they want but Socrates isn't going to resurect and object to what he finds wrong. I hope that makes sense to you.

Bern34 wrote:

To me it seems more and more people are doing the first because many people who have faith in a higher being are starting to be asked why so and they can't answer, so people become convinced that they might as well rely on themselves

Are you sure about this? If you can’t explain God’s morals, then how can you explain your own? If someone questions your morals, how come you can’t explain God’s, but you can explain yours? I don’t think your proposition makes much sense.

You pose a really good question. Not even the bishops of the catholic church don't technically know everything that the bible says, they are continually learning. But how about this, how can you explain love even if you have experienced it multiple times, does that mean you don't believe in love altogether? How about Martin Luther King Jr.? If you support him just because you feel every person should have equal rights but don't know how to explain it with facts does that mean you should oppose him? If you do then does that make you anti-black? No.
You gotta have faith and either lean in one direction or another although you may not be able to explain your decision fully. And what I said in my quote about losing faith in God I meant that there is a chance that people would go athiest depending on how they're influenced.

Tell me, how do we “prove” a truth to be objective or subjective from an agnostic point of view? Give me an example.

You don't. Being totally agnostic means you don't know, "ag" mean no and "nostic" means knowledge. Therefore I can't give you an example, sorry.

Also since you gave that as a response to my question “Do you not think man kind are capable of realizing killing is a bad thing?” I’ll assume that you have no faith in man kind. -__-

I think you're trying to say killing as in murdering, you cannot equate killing with murdering although murdering is killing. I'll explain the difference, killing is not personal and murder is personal. If you accidentally killed someone in a car accident should you be charged with murder? As scary as it may seems God has commanded His people to kill but in his Name and not personally against the people they kill. You know the story of David and Goliath? Would David be a murderer? He lived to be a great king! There isn't much room for a loophole either. For example you are driving and are aware that where you're at it is very likely for people to jaywalk across the street. If you just daydreamed and accidentally hit and killed someone you are still held accountable because although killing that person was not personal you are not innocent to the idea that it was highly likely to hit people in the area. In this case killing is bad but in the David and Goliath story it is a step to move forward.
So in conclusion killing can be a rational choice (like war, somtimes,) or a bad outcome (like a car accident) depending on the situation but if it was not intentional or personal it doesn't make one a criminal at heart or in the mind but they still have to pay for the consequences. Murder is entirely bad. (Don't give me that hippie stuff either, sometimes war is a better option than peaceful negotiations at reasonable points in time like when a peaceful negotiation doesn't get you anywhere)

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Aside from the fact that from a Christian point of view if there is no God, we would not exist; I can easily prove this false by pointing out that from a practical perspective this is false because society will punish you whether he thought it was permitted or not.

You may say so, that if there was no God we would not exist, but then is there an atheistic theory that would be more valid? Theory of Evolution is one arguement but even a lot of atheists disagree with it. Who said 'society' as you put it is valid and correct?
I see that you keep bringing up the arguement that athiests can be as valid as theists but I've already responded to that.

And pointing out this quote without answering the Euthyphro Dilemma is a classic example of begging the question and not allowing this argument to move forward. I can support my argument against this quote if you answer this question so please, do so. You’re being an agnostic right? So please, answer it.

Well considering that Euthyphro's Dilemma wasn't sopposed to lead anywhere but bring up a proposition and since being agnostic means that I don't know, sure. That would be logical I suppose from your point of view. I think I already mentioned to you that faith and reason are just as important since I believe God and Supreme Law are one in the same, faith to God and reason to moral law.

I honestly don’t give a DAMN CRAP about other people’s love life...Will you please tell me why you care? Why I should care? Does it harm you? I don’t think so. If the thought of it harms you, then simple; STOP THINKING ABOUT IT.

Well it's nice to know. So if you got hit by a car and I saw you should I not care? Would that be moral? Am I debating morality with an immoral person? Gay marriage doesn't harm me directly but I do care about people so if people something I find wrong shouldn't it be okay to question it?
You also make it sound so simple to solve one's dilema. So if I'm poor should I just strive to get rich? Instantly? Getting rich is accomplicable but hard and time consuming. We can't just instantly have gayness not bother us if it does so. Also some people aren't bothered by the fact that they're gay so for them to stop thinking about it is out of the question. Like I said I think gayness is a type of mental sickness and should be treated properly(and a cultural acceptance but it can also be treated in the same way).

Cloning is immoral in my opinion. I think we should keep life forms naturally created and only have one of each people. Ever heard of—everyone is different? But if someone has a strong opinion that he/she wants to be cloned, then I don’t see a reason not to use him/her in an experiment.

I agree that cloning is immoral but have you heard of something called twin? Just a thought. But then in the last sentence you just went against yourself, unless you believe in subjective/anarchic thinking. That is if you find cloning wrong for you but okay for other people.
At least you agree with me on forced suicide and death row.

You can just go ahead and consume this knowledge for now, I'll answer back to your questions later. I have life to attend to. I promise I'll come back, and don't read into it.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.


Thank the Lord! I totally agree.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.


There are no moral phenomena, but only moral interpretation of phenomena.

Plus, your argument/opinion presents a fallacy of false dilemma. Contrary to belief by some, the absolute and unconditional are not signs of health, instead they belong strictly within pathology.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

excalion wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.


There are no moral phenomena, but only moral interpretation of phenomena.

Plus, your argument/opinion presents a fallacy of false dilemma. Contrary to belief by some, the absolute and unconditional are not signs of health, instead they belong strictly within pathology.


Excalion, if there are no moral phenomena, then are all phenomena immoral?
I totally don't get you're second paragraph. Maybe an extreme athiest could possibly considered immoral but I think most people are not either extremes, they're somewhere between atheist and theist at heart.
What's pathology?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 7/10/08

crunchypibb wrote:


excalion wrote:


digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.


There are no moral phenomena, but only moral interpretation of phenomena.

Plus, your argument/opinion presents a fallacy of false dilemma. Contrary to belief by some, the absolute and unconditional are not signs of health, instead they belong strictly within pathology.


Excalion, if there are no moral phenomena, then are all phenomena immoral?
I totally don't get you're second paragraph. Maybe an extreme athiest could possibly considered immoral but I think most people are not either extremes, they're somewhere between atheist and theist at heart.
What's pathology?


No, like I said, there exists only moral interpretation of phenomena. I never said "There are only immoral phenomena."
We must take care in distinguishing 'fact' from 'interpretation'. However, at the end of the day, I suppose all things we hold to be fact, are in actuality, only interpretation.

My second sentence just states that digs offered a fallacy of false dilemma.

Fallacy of False dilemma: Constructing an image to make it seem like there are only two choices and no other, when there are indeed other choices possible. For example, "You're either with us or against us" but completely disregarding the possibility that the individual could be completely apathetic towards the situation.
Neither with nor against us.

The truth about the abortion issue is that, even if we follow societal guidelines for morality, it remains a situational and conditional matter. A generalization will never be achieved because according to circumstance, both stances upon the issue may be justified. So one will never be able to say "It is always right to abort the fetus." nor will one be able to say "It is never right to abort the fetus." Just as there can be areas to tread upon between 'right' and 'wrong'. These usually come in the form of varying shades of gray.

Pathology is a study of disease. I say things unconditional and absolute belong strictly in pathology, because complete and utter adherence unto any particular thing basically signifies the will in that individual to give up truth in pursuit of personal justification.
--"All things have eyes, you have eyes, I have eyes, even the sphinx has eyes. And for that reason, there are many 'truths'. And for that reason, there is no 'truth'."

A casual stroll through a lunatic asylum shows that faith alone proves nothing.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 7/11/08

digs wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


digs wrote:

I think that God is the standard for morals (the morals in the Bible) I do not think that human intelligence can conceive morals because human nature is flawed and selfish. Morals make illogical sense to human beings because it is contrary to our sinful nature.


Actually biblical law does not always make sense to people. For instance, many people see good in lying. Not to hurt someone's feelings for instance. Some see it the commadments as dated (like a vatican council). Also, many object to the whole "sinful nature" thing. It can be seen as a perversion or going against human nature when humans do evil. If you do evil because of something good, like love, it is a perversion. If you do it because of a mental condition, it is against common human nature. If you do it because you are forced, like killing during a war, we are talking power - not will. In none of these cases are we talking sinful nature per se.

If so then how come athiests have some good moral laws too? I'm a Christian too but what you said doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying atheists are totaIly immoral then? I wanna help you man but you give a very weak arguement.


I wasn't really looking for an argument, I was just posting my opinion. I think atheists can be moral people, because they see the moral standard around them. You don't need to be a Christian to know what is bad and what is good. We would all agree that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, and so on. I don't think all non Christians are immoral people, but I think that they base their morals on what they want them to be. When there isn't an absolute standard, or when there isn't any rules, people create their own morals and it is subjective to how they feel (sorta how some say abortion is right, some say it is wrong, but only one can be right because there is no either or. Either it is wrong to kill a fetus, or it is right) When there isn't an absolute basis (Like the Bible and what God says is moral) then morals become what we make them.


There were ethics in communities that never had contact with christianity. There were ethics before christianity. Atheists aren't simply reacting to established moral rules. For instance, acceptance of homosexuals happens faster in non-christian communities (I consider it an ongoing process, although most people would SAY "yes, I accept them"). The christians has had to REACT to other people's ethics, like about environmentalism. In my own country, one of the biggest supporters of "physical education" dfor children was a priest. Christians also go according to will. That is the basis of theology. Although there are warnings about being wealth, the church conviniently does not push it. What is considered "killing" is also a subject that gets interpreted. Death penalty, war, crusades, self defence, etc. The big issues, like killing, are usually made absolute through law, even in non-religious communities. What matters most is law, not the churches' decision. From there it gets represented as a reasonable rule, and the failure to implement it is said to interact with consequences that people don't want. There is also ethics going on that has nothing to dow ith religion, like "common courtesy". And the christian ethics dopes have subjectivity. Vatican council, dogmas, church meetings etc, where people voice their SUBJECTIVE opinion and decide what god's will is. And how religious consider god's will is usually subjective to. Soldiers may have a looser definition of killing. Some use god's will as an excuse to the most hideous acts. All definitions and understandings varies a lot. The commandments are every thing from guidelines to absolute rules. Killing by the way, is a good example of when moral condemnation is not really always essential. Most people would object to killing, and found it disgusting even without any rule. Feeling nothing when killing someone, is a sociopathic trait. Sickness is the norm.

712 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Somewhere sunny.....
Offline
Posted 7/12/08
God is merciful, loving, kind, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, gracious. Though He is all these things, He is a JUST and HOLY God. that's all I got to say.
160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / Wonderland
Offline
Posted 7/12/08


Well it's nice to know. So if you got hit by a car and I saw you should I not care? Would that be moral? Am I debating morality with an immoral person? Gay marriage doesn't harm me directly but I do care about people so if people something I find wrong shouldn't it be okay to question it?
You also make it sound so simple to solve one's dilema. So if I'm poor should I just strive to get rich? Instantly? Getting rich is accomplicable but hard and time consuming. We can't just instantly have gayness not bother us if it does so. Also some people aren't bothered by the fact that they're gay so for them to stop thinking about it is out of the question. Like I said I think gayness is a type of mental sickness and should be treated properly(and a cultural acceptance but it can also be treated in the same way).

gay marriage does not harm people, so it really is not your busines, unles you know some gay person that lives in despair because he/she get married with the person he/she loves. and gayness is not an illness, the thing that some people says that it's a "unbalance in the mind" is just a theory, they have the same characteristics as us, if they're mentally ill will you put then in an aylum and make then take some weird pills just because they dont feel attracted to the other sex? or use some of those insane tecjniques to make them "sane" again?


Do you really think war is rational? What makes you think that war is better than peaceful negotiations? Care to elaborate? I think the world would be much better if we could resolve things with peaceful negotiations, or never have any dispute in the first place. In my opinion, killing is always a bad thing; if your argument is that sometimes there's no other choice, yes, but I'm saying that the things which caused it to happen should never happen in the first place. Anyway, I don't like it how you attack people who prefer peaceful negatiations by calling them "hippies"...

well sometimes it rational, when talking doesnt works, but of course that depends of the situation. It would be better if everything was solved with negotiations but they dont work always

4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 7/13/08

bubblyxsmiles wrote:

God is merciful, loving, kind, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, gracious. Though He is all these things, He is a JUST and HOLY God. that's all I got to say.


I r love you so much. That comment made me cry with joy. I just wish everyone would believe that.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.