Hey, Atheists...

[Injeun]

This has to be one of the silliest attempts at analysis about the Traditional Christian faith I've ever heard.

And, as far as the propagation of additional denominations and sects go, Mormonism is simply one more among many. It ain't the antidote it claims to be.

You can just reel this this propaganda piece back in and set it where it should be ------------ on the shelf.

How is it "silly"? The LDS Church isn't another bible based religion. Even this forum would support that fact. LDS such as myself are persona non grata here: "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you." (John 16)

 

[Bradskii]

... but there's more to moral decision making than merely making the identification of the act itself.

Of course. You firstly have to decide if what you have been told is valid in the first instance. Then you have to decide if it's relevant to you. Then you have to decide what the possible outcomes might be for complying or not complying. Then you decide whether you actually comply or not.

As you rightly say, it's 'moral decision making'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course. You firstly have to decide if what you have been told is valid in the first instance.

This is the most difficult part of the moral decision making process.

Then you have to decide if it's relevant to you.

Yes, so by this second point, the mere claim that morality is based on intuition is shot to hell since it becomes a compound problem.

Then you have to decide what the possible outcomes might be for complying or not complying.

Most people don't even make it this far in the moral decision process.

Then you decide whether you actually comply or not.

Yes, and this should be the easier part of the process being that if one can get through the first three stages, then he just about has it made at this point.

As you rightly say, it's 'moral decision making'.

Yes, for better or worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How is it "silly"? The LDS Church isn't another bible based religion. Even this forum would support that fact. LDS such as myself are persona non grata here: "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you." (John 16)

Right. The LDS Church is a non-trinitarian, heretical cult. We all know this and your lifting of John 16 to prove your point comes from the Trinitarian tradition, not the deviations therefrom. Maybe stick to quoting your book of Mormon for what that's worth since you don't really have the right to quote from the New Testament.

 

[Bradskii]

As you rightly say, it's 'moral decision making'.

Yes, for better or worse.

It took some time to get there from here:

I get to decide for myself which moral principles I need to live by? Wow. That's a new revelation to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It took some time to get there from here:

I was able to achieve this goal because I'm smuh-art and I read a bunch of books.

 

[Bradskii]

I was able to achieve this goal because I'm smuh-art and I read a bunch of books.

That's a lot of reading in a week...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a lot of reading in a week...

Yes, it wheely is. And I've learned from only the best, such as Dr. Elmer Fudd.

 

[Injeun]

Right. The LDS Church is a non-trinitarian, heretical cult. We all know this and your lifting of John 16 to prove your point comes from the Trinitarian tradition, not the deviations therefrom. Maybe stick to quoting your book of Mormon for what that's worth since you don't really have the right to quote from the New Testament.

You said my post was silly. I asked how so. Rather than explain how it is silly, you proceed to make more baseless accusations about my religion which I didn't mention, and tell me I can't quote the bible as if it were a trespass to do so. Well, the bible doesn't belong to you. It belongs to God, as do I. So I will quote it where it is appropriate. I don't fear the truth. I'm not advancing my religion. I'm responding to the topic at hand, which is the moral foundation of modern Christians versus the moral foundation of Atheists. I contend they are essentially the same as morals are a matter of conscience, and possibly a plus to the Atheist column because they don't pretend to represent the living God or use scripture as a cudgel to beat people over the head.

We are all born the same into this strange world of philosophies, religions, tradition, and science. And we all try to navigate it to the best of our abilities. A great many get sucked into the behemoth of bible based religion and esteem themselves superior, simply by virtue of parroting the ancient testimonies of others. But from my perspective, there is nothing superior about their entrapment and the parroting of others words because they have no words of their own or personal knowledge of God of which to speak. They say that nothing can be added to Gods work. Which is appropriate because they have nothing to add themselves. It is dead ended and fruitless. So they chant the past because they have no hope in the future, but to be where Gods servants have gone, as if to endorse Paul or Peter should sneak them into heaven. How many times must God say, "Depart from me, I never knew you", before they get it, that they must know God for themselves and he them. And that they can't rely on borrowed oil for their lamps. The point being that the veracity of the morals of traditional Christians ends where there religion begins. And so they are no nearer to God than Atheists, if conscience is the moral standard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You said my post was silly. I asked how so. Rather than explain how it is silly, you proceed to make more baseless accusations about my religion which I didn't mention, and tell me I can't quote the bible as if it were a trespass to do so. Well, the bible doesn't belong to you. It belongs to God, as do I. So I will quote it where it is appropriate. I don't fear the truth. I'm not advancing my religion. I'm responding to the topic at hand, which is the moral foundation of modern Christians versus the moral foundation of Atheists. I contend they are essentially the same as morals are a matter of conscience, and possibly a plus to the Atheist column because they don't pretend to represent the living God or use scripture as a cudgel to beat people over the head.

...... Well, the truth is, today's atheists DON'T share the same moral set that Christians do. In fact, like some Christians, they can vary in their moral opinions, as well as on which Ethical Position should trump all others. So no, they are not "essentially the same" since so much of today's secular morality invokes Marxist and Nietzschean moral ideology, neither of which are copacetic with the New Testament morality (or Ethos).

Moreover, you actually ARE advancing your Mormon ideology here since you come in with "guns blazing" against Traditional Christianity. It's a fallacy to assume that if Traditional Christians are to blame for various hypocrisies that this then makes your own view automatically valid. It could be that neither view is valid and both have to be critically analyzed, or it could be the Traditional View of morality we find in the New Testament is valid, but your Mormon predilections, emanating from the Book of Mormon, are invalid as criteria by which to evaluate traditional Christianity.

We are all born the same into this strange world of philosophies, religions, tradition, and science. And we all try to navigate it to the best of our abilities. A great many get sucked into the behemoth of bible based religion and esteem themselves superior, simply by virtue of parroting the ancient testimonies of others.

Not all of us simply default to lazy, uneducated means of the sort of 'suckage' you're referring to here, however. Some of us are critical thinkers who apply rational deliberation and qualification to every claim that is sent their way.

But from my perspective, there is nothing superior about their entrapment and the parroting of others words because they have no words of their own or personal knowledge of God of which to speak. They say that nothing can be added to Gods work. Which is appropriate because they have nothing to add themselves. It is dead ended and fruitless. So they chant the past because they have no hope in the future, but to be where Gods servants have gone, as if to endorse Paul or Peter should sneak them into heaven. How many times must God say, "Depart from me, I never knew you", before they get it, that they must know God for themselves and he them. And that they can't rely on borrowed oil for their lamps. The point being that the veracity of the morals of traditional Christians ends where there religion begins. And so they are no nearer to God than Atheists, if conscience is the moral standard.

And from my perspective, there is absolutely nothing superior about either any of various Secular, Atheistic senses of morality, or the Mormon sense of morality. So, you can save everyone the trouble of having to sift through your parody of Christians and their moral failures and thereby implying that Traditional Christians couldn't possibly be any nearer to the Lord than anyone else.

Furthermore, biblically speaking, HUMAN CONSCIENCE isn't the moral standard, even if it is absolutely true than any and all of us can always to better morally than we so often do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For me, it's empathy.

For me, it's the values of Reality, Truth and the positive effects of Altruism.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But I would suggest that something else entirely happened.

1. People generally don't have any moral values. They simply have moral norms which are both completely subjective and intra-social. Once people in a certain group heard their peers making openly racist statements about white men, they too began making similar and general statements, despite being white themselves.

2. Moral drift. Whenever the moral norms of a larger group are widely dismissed and ignored, people seek moral norms to replace them. In a judeo-christian society, it's unsurprising these mirrored a judeo-christian society. Original sin=systemic racism. Turn the other cheek=free the criminal.

3. Moral bullying aka peer pressure. People simply want to be part of their group...so much so that the mere threat of being seen as part of the "out-group" is threat enough to adopt and promote behaviors seen as extremely immoral behavior (like racial discrimination in hiring).

So it's entirely unclear what your question about laws has to do....at all....with your question about morals. They aren't really connected in any significant way. At best, they have a very tenuous and momentary connection.

So you do not think there is any innate sense of right and wrong, not even related to some sense of empathy?

I do think morality or sense of right and wrong, has a strong influence on laws. And maybe property is the most concrete place such laws need to be established for the benefit of the common good.

 

[Bradskii]

So you do not think there is nay innate sense of right and wrong, not even related to some sense of empathy?

It has to involve empathy because morality is concerned with how we interact with others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This has to be one of the silliest attempts at analysis about the Traditional Christian faith I've ever heard.

And, as far as the propagation of additional denominations and sects go, Mormonism is simply one more among many. It ain't the antidote it claims to be.

You can just reel this this propaganda piece back in and set it where it should be ------------ on the shelf.

I'd say that the Abrahamic faiths....whether because of historic trends or similar genealogy...are more concerned with the morality of their adherents than most other faiths. Many pagan religions or nature focused religions use elaborate mythology to explain why the world or people are the way they are....some eastern or oriental religions focus entirely on the self and mastery of the self as a means to enlightenment....and there's useful knowledge in that. The big 3 Abrahamic religions seem to focus heavily on what is good and evil and the connection between man and God through actions of good and evil. Regardless of whether or not someone believes, I think all 3 clearly have lessons or teachings which reveal some fundamental aspects of human nature and our interactions with one another. Sure, they all have impediments to understanding. The Jewish people don't proselytize because they believe they are God's chosen people....and while they may end up as your judge, their views of morality are rarely going to be pushed upon anyone. The Christian faithful have many denominations as that poster pointed out...but it's largely due to their willingness to forgive and their value of self-sacrifice as a virtue. Christianity...regardless of what it did in the past....is less inclined to desire or even want a gunpoint conversion. Islam of course, believes it is the last of all religions....and has sought to destroy any that deny it as the final religion. They accept or demand conversion upon threat of death...and have little concern for the truthfulness of these conversions. After all, the penalty for apostacy is death....exactly the penalty of many who refused to convert before the prophet Muhammad. In the end, any Jewish or Christian people must submit to their Muslim superiors, or they may be removed from this world along with any other infidels as the will of Allah demands.

Obviously, it's all a bit more complicated than that but I prefer to keep it short for propaganda purposes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you do not

Negative.

think there is nay innate sense of right and wrong,

Positive.

not even related to some sense of empathy?

Negative.

It's hard sometimes keeping track of the question being asked in these double negative statements. It's not as if I am not trying....I am.

If that last sentence was difficult to read...do you see what I mean?

I think what you're asking me above is something like...

Do I believe that people feel some inherent or innate sense of "good and bad" based upon empathy?

Yes, I think many or maybe even most people do. Just FYI whenever I engage in discussions of morality, I use the terms "good and bad" or "good and evil" or "moral and immoral" so that we don't get anything confused. "Right and wrong" often carry a procedural context that implies a "correct and incorrect" way of doing something....but we aren't really concerned with procedure here, we're concerned with the moral dimension of a behavior.

Now, as to your question...I'd generally say yes....and that's because we are social creatures. As much as online personalities or self-help celebrities may fling around ideas like "being an alpha wolf" or "going your own way" or whatever...the reality seems to be that we are inherently social creatures. There are a few examples of a person who was so socially isolated from a very early age that they appeared to be "feral"....but as these examples extremely rare...and typically involve so little socialization that all language and hope of ever learning any language is lost. In those few cases, obviously, it would be extremely difficult to understand if such a person had empathy towards others....and supposedly just trying to get a feral person to a point of being able to handle day to day life is a very frustrating and lifelong effort. It's basically a "wild" person....with little hope of domestication.

That's not the sort of person you are talking about though....so I'm excluding them, considering only the vast majority of people who aren't impaired by extreme isolation or genetic abnormalities. Of those "normal" people....socialized within a peer group of sorts.....sure, feelings of empathy seem in some ways tied to moral norms? If that is what you are asking...

I don't know if that's innate in your opinion though.

I do think morality or sense of right and wrong, has a strong influence on laws.

Ok.

So if I were to start posting enforceable laws regarding (for example) your local zoning ordinances....do you think you would be able to explain the moral dimensions to these?

And maybe property is the most concrete place such laws need to be established for the benefit of the common good.

I think property was at the forefront of the minds of men who wanted to create something new....but lived under monarchies their entire lives. Property was always a luxury to them....and could be removed from their hands at a moment's notice.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So are atheists limited to "moral subjectivism" (which is commonly recognized to be not-morality-at-all)?

Why wouldn't it be morality? What else would it be?

And also....limited to? If morality is subjective we're all "limited" to it....

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you think that the only reason anyone would follow a rule is for fear of punishment?

That's really going to depend upon the rule....isn't it?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's hard sometimes keeping track of the question being asked in these double negative statements. It's not as if I am not trying....I am.

Probably why I sometimes don't understand myself.

Do I believe that people feel some inherent or innate sense of "good and bad" based upon empathy?

Was that really so hard?

Now, as to your question...I'd generally say yes....and that's because we are social creatures. As much as online personalities or self-help celebrities may fling around ideas like "being an alpha wolf" or "going your own way" or whatever...the reality seems to be that we are inherently social creatures.
Of those "normal" people....socialized within a peer group of sorts.....sure, feelings of empathy seem in some ways tied to moral norms? If that is what you are asking...

I don't know if that's innate in your opinion though.

It sounds very close to innate and yet also socially learned.

So if I were to start posting enforceable laws regarding (for example) your local zoning ordinances....do you think you would be able to explain the moral dimensions to these?

I think we could look for the practical dimensions and most likely find impact on justice which can be very close to moral.

I think my intention here was to better identify non religious moral orientations we might all be able to share without something like Christian Nationalism or sheria law telling us what is moral and legal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Was that really so hard?

You'd be surprised around here.

It sounds very close to innate and yet also socially learned.

Well....we're social animals so....what's the difference between innate and socially learned?

Surely you don't expect someone who spends their life without any contact with others to have some empathy for fictional people?

I think we could look for the practical dimensions and most likely find impact on justice which can be very close to moral.

So not the law itself but the enforcement of a law?

I think my intention here was to better identify non religious moral orientations we might all be able to share without something like Christian Nationalism or sheria law telling us what is moral and legal.

Oh....

Well if I'm being 100% honest...I recall when the "new atheists" (not really new...many weren't even atheists) pouring into sites like these and insisting upon some "humanist" moral code that perhaps might one day become more than a vague and fuzzy secular ideal....

And it always struck me as odd....since that's pretty close to "religion building" and frankly, they weren't very good at it.

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question though....

Perhaps what you'd actually like to know is how you might go about "changing someone's moral values". It's not an impossible task. I think you can get pretty far by picking the least "offensive" version of the moral position you want to impose upon others and repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it more. Meme it. Repeat it more. And when you get others to join in....you're almost there. Just keep repeating. You'd like to think there's no way this would ever work....

But I think you'd be surprised. People won't even need to know exactly what you mean. Keep it vague, malleable, and catchy. Repeat it enough times...and people will parrot it just to avoid being placed in the out-group. Think "workers of the world unite". Those workers had no clue what they were getting behind.

 

[dlamberth]

For me, it's empathy.

For me as well.