"Evolution say rape not bad"

[TheDag]

I don't see how a God makes something wrong.

Quite simply if you believe there is a God and that God created everything then that God gets to make the rules! Bit like you get to make the rules for your house (well ok within the limits of the law but hopefully you get the idea)

 

[TheDag]

"Science" doesn't "believe" anything. I know science and scientists are often presented as a monolithic bloc, but please don't anthropomorphise what is, essentially, just a method.

Perhaps tell that to scientists who frequently present their findings as fact.

 

[SteveB28]

These statements might be your opinion. Got any justification for them being morally correct? by justification I don't mean because you said so or because a group thinks so.

Because that is what "morally correct" amounts to. It is the degree to which we behave in a manner that is approved by our society as a whole. There are more specific elements, but that is the guiding principle.

 

[SteveB28]

Quite simply if you believe there is a God and that God created everything then that God gets to make the rules! Bit like you get to make the rules for your house (well ok within the limits of the law but hopefully you get the idea)

Which is all about obedience but has little to do with morality.

 

[Armoured]

Perhaps tell that to scientists who frequently present their findings as fact.

They present their findings as what they are - their findings. Again, when a scientist makes a claim, it is the scientist making the claim. It is not science making the claim.

 

[TheDag]

Because that is what "morally correct" amounts to. It is the degree to which we behave in a manner that is approved by our society as a whole. There are more specific elements, but that is the guiding principle.

Nope that is just your right because you say so. Sorry but that won't fly. As I said I will not accept the argument that it is right because a group says so. Yet you give that exact response. Clearly not all agree with that view anyway. So why are they wrong? Yes I expect more than because you say so. If you want to argue that if the majority believe something it is right then please think again because the majority have often been wrong.
Your view also results in the there are no absolutes because right and wrong is determined simply by where you happen to live. Yet when people move they don't change what they believe to match what locals think which they should.

Which is all about obedience but has little to do with morality.

Well if that was the whole story then I would agree but that is getting off topic to explore that further.

 

[SteveB28]

Nope that is just your right because you say so. Sorry but that won't fly. As I said I will not accept the argument that it is right because a group says so.

I'm afraid the facts are not found in what you accept. They are plainly obvious. Human beings have, throughout the course of our history, formed moral codes and subsequently altered or modified them, to suit the prevailing societal expectations. This isn't a matter for debate - it's a demonstrable fact.

That you would wish to overlay this with an supported claim that a supernatural being is involved is entirely your problem.

Yet you give that exact response. Clearly not all agree with that view anyway. So why are they wrong? Yes I expect more than because you say so. If you want to argue that if the majority believe something it is right then please think again because the majority have often been wrong.

You seem a little incoherent - are you well? I didn't argue that the majority could never be wrong about something - clearly, the majority once used to think the sun orbited the earth. What I said, fairly clearly, is that morality is determined by group consensus. There is a difference there.

Your view also results in the there are no absolutes because right and wrong is determined simply by where you happen to live. Yet when people move they don't change what they believe to match what locals think which they should.

But their behaviour may. And that's the measure of morality. How one behaves. Whether or not that behaviour is considered 'good'.

Well if that was the whole story then I would agree but that is getting off topic to explore that further.

When you say that the 'maker' sets the rules, it is you who have determined the breadth of the 'story'. I merely pointed out your error.

 

[dazed]

I think I kinda like whenever I hear a Christian basically make the argument that if there were no God, they'd pretty much rob you, kill you and sodomize your corpse. Why... There'd be no reason not to! Who could resist?!

What's the different? A Christian can rob, kill and sodomize someone and ask the Lord for forgiveness. And it will be given.

 

[Paradoxum]

Quite simply if you believe there is a God and that God created everything then that God gets to make the rules! Bit like you get to make the rules for your house (well ok within the limits of the law but hopefully you get the idea)

I don't see why that would make some things morally right or wrong.

Imagine a group of future humans being able to create a virtual reality world, and conscious Artificial Intelligence that is stuck in the programme. The AI would be justified in rebelling against the creators, if the rules are repressive and oppressive. Or put another way, in the film 'The Matrix' the humans were justified in breaking the rules in the Matrix.

Or, if humans in the future were able to create a planet, and then put people on it, those people would be justified in revolting against oppressive rules.

So I wouldn't agree that creating something means the residents have a moral duty to do what the creator says.

(And I think its morally acceptable to kids to break the rules parents make for their house, if the rules are wrong).

 

[GrimKingGrim]

These statements might be your opinion. Got any justification for them being morally correct? by justification I don't mean because you said so or because a group thinks so.

That's all you get buddy. How about because the law says so?

 

[Children of the light]

Yes I agree everybody should listen to music.

 

[EatingPie]

I think I kinda like whenever I hear a Christian basically make the argument that if there were no God, they'd pretty much rob you, kill you and sodomize your corpse. Why... There'd be no reason not to! Who could resist?!

What's the different? A Christian can rob, kill and sodomize someone and ask the Lord for forgiveness. And it will be given.

Are these things you guys really believe? More specifically...

When you hear a statement like that in the quote from the OP, do you actually conclude they're saying that's something they would do?

And is Christianity about doing whatever you want, to whoever you want, whenever you want, and then just asking forgiveness?

-Pie

 

[Children of the light]

Well I think Morality is just inside of our head, and that what we are doing right now.

I don't get it why are you so upset?????

 

[EatingPie]

I'm not sure if I'm being rude by jumping in, and my apologies if so.

I'm afraid the facts are not found in what you accept. They are plainly obvious. Human beings have, throughout the course of our history, formed moral codes and subsequently altered or modified them, to suit the prevailing societal expectations. This isn't a matter for debate - it's a demonstrable fact.

You do know this is a logical fallacy?

http://corkskeptics.org/2011/05/03/the-common-sense-fallacy/

Your post did make me wonder, however. Is there any historical record of societies which initially formed moral codes? You would need that to show a demonstrable fact.

-Pie

 

[Children of the light]

We have to be kind to everybody!!!!!!

And I think we should stop!!!!!

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cute Tink]

These statements might be your opinion. Got any justification for them being morally correct? by justification I don't mean because you said so or because a group thinks so.

I didn't say that these statements were "morally correct". They were specific statements directed at the things I quoted right before them.

However, society agreeing on something or disagreeing on something generally makes it either legal or illegal - which isn't a statement on morality necessarily. It certainly doesn't make it absolute by any means, since there will always be those who disagree.

In further response to what I had quoted, though, having a judge who will hold you accountable for your actions doesn't demonstrate an absolutely correct morality either. If the judge has faulty morals, then how does that make it "morally correct"?

 

[Cute Tink]

I have nothing to say about people I do not know, but I hope I can offer something to the "tangents."


I see morality as a set of rules and behaviors practiced to show other humans that we value them. They are human, therefore they are worthy of respect, therefore we need a way to show our respect to them. Morality (don't kill, don't covet, don't steal, don't step on toes, etc.) is how we express this sense for inherent value.

So, from this view, all morality, from every culture, serves the same purpose: to express how valuable other people are to us. The moral expression differs, sure, but not the intent.

So there is your indication of absolutes. All morality exists because human beings value each other inherently, and we need a way to express that each one is valuable (important, worthy of respect, etc.).

-Pie

These are interesting ideas to think about. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but very thoughtful.

 

[Children of the light]

No no no !

 

[Cute Tink]

No no no !

More specifically?

 

[dazed]

And is Christianity about doing whatever you want, to whoever you want, whenever you want, and then just asking forgiveness?

-Pie

Er, so which part of the John 3:16 and Matthew 7:7 I didn't understand?