• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You seem intent on ignoring what I say
You seem to be intent on avoiding the reality of your own quoted posts.

There is no expectation. Only a rejection of future help if I feel at some point that I am being taken advantage of. I really can't make that clearer.
Initially, yes, but with a limit. I clarified that in my response.
And the question will remain: How long do you help out before you think you are being made to look foolish?
Refer to post #175
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,642
8,952
52
✟382,578.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well you answered my question directly. Your morality is based on "Giving for the sake of getting something in return".
Despite the poster clearly stating that was not the case? Did you read the post or did you impute your own meaning into what was written?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,642
8,952
52
✟382,578.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Exactly why biblical morality is the only source of morality that does not take "personal benefit" into account.
Yes it does. If you act the wrong way you go to Hell. That’s personal benefit.
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Despite the poster clearly stating that was not the case? Did you read the post or did you impute your own meaning into what was written?
Before you go jumping to someone else's defence, perhaps read the context of my posts and what I was responding to.

We were discussing "no expectations" of reimbursement, but by the posters own explanation, there is a limit, so "no expectations" actually has an expectation of reciprocation. That's not altruism that's reciprocal altruism as he stated. "Giving with an eventual expectation of getting something in return, otherwise, that person will be avoided. Also note, the explanation used a "friend" as an example.

Eventually I stop buying his beers and I actively avoid him. But if he does buy me a beer at some point because I helped him out then we're all good.

That's reciprocal altruism

He then contradicts his own statements here:
They see that helping each other, even without a need to be reimbursed, is a good way to live.
Perhaps we can call it limited altruism:
So I'm the type of guy who will buy those first two beers
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes it does. If you act the wrong way you go to Hell. That’s personal benefit.
We're talking about morality here and doing for others, not consequences for actions. As per the OP, we're specifically talking about the basis for morality.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,642
8,952
52
✟382,578.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
We're talking about morality here and doing for others, not consequences for actions. As per the OP, we're specifically talking about the basis for morality.
Yes. And the only reason to follow the Christian morality you describe where one is being taken for a ride is because one does not want to go to Hell. Which means the altruism you describe IS self serving.

Giving money to a charity that you are against (such as the IRA) is true altruism. And stupid.
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes. And the only reason to follow the Christian morality you describe where one is being taken for a ride is because one does not want to go to Hell.
That's not true for every Christian, as not everyone agrees on the concept of "hell".

But, that is again, beside the point. Biblical morality is the only true altruistic teaching that ever existed when you compare it to other religions. See my quoted post below.
So what's your morality based on then? Self-preservation? Giving something for the sake of getting something in return?

The law is a set of rules, that if observed should result in love as referenced by Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40

Do you know what the dictionary definition of "love" is?

love
noun

1) A strong feeling of affection and concern toward another person, as that arising from kinship or close friendship.
2) A strong feeling of affection and concern for another person accompanied by sexual attraction.
3)A feeling of devotion or adoration toward God or a god.

Do you know what the biblical definition of love is? (OG greek)

agape love
noun

selfless love of one person for another without sexual implications (especially love that is spiritual in nature)

(Notice how Jesus quotes the golden rule again).

Luke 6:27-36
Love for Enemies

27 “But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. 28 Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. 30 Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. 31 Do to others as you would like them to do to you.

Name another philosopher to ever walk the earth who claimed loving our enemies was a good thing? No person alive today can honestly say they are able to do this naturally. It can only be done supernaturally by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

What's your basis for morality then?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,642
8,952
52
✟382,578.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Biblical morality is the only true altruistic teaching that ever existed when you compare it to other religions.
Interesting claim you make. Can you support that claim with evidence?
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting claim you make. Can you support that claim with evidence?
Can you? No other religion that I'm aware of spoke of loving your enemies the way Jesus does. Even the supposed universal "golden rule" is uniquely different based on what it references in Leviticus.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,642
8,952
52
✟382,578.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
No other religion that I'm aware of spoke of loving your enemies the way Jesus does.
Why is that important? Other religions have different rules. Loving one’s enemies seems foolish.
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Why is that important? Other religions have different rules. Loving one’s enemies seems foolish.
Exactly what agape love seems like to many. Its not based on emotion or intellect, but what is inherently "good".

1 Corinthians 1:27

27 Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,850
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,697.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How under Atheism can you make reason & logic authoritative?

As an aside, modern Atheism relies upon materialism or naturalism in order to establish truth. I would disagree and say that they're not similar with Theism in any respect because their premise excludes God and instead relies upon the material world (without any justification for doing so) in order to discern reality.
I think materialism is even stronger than atheism as it not only disbelieves in gods but in anything immaterial or transcendent.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How under Atheism can you make reason & logic authoritative?
By providing a reason based and logical argument that shows your answer is better than your opponents.
As an aside, modern Atheism relies upon materialism or naturalism in order to establish truth. I would disagree and say that they're not similar with Theism in any respect because their premise excludes God and instead relies upon the material world (without any justification for doing so) in order to discern reality.
Because in the real world, that which is natural, and that which is material, are the only things proven to be real with an actual existence. Everything else is just make-believe, wishes, assumptions, and leaps of logic. If you are looking to establish the truth, you can’t rely on make-believe, wishes or assumptions, you have to go with what is real
 
Upvote 0

Tranquil Bondservant

Nothing without Elohim
Oct 11, 2022
870
794
Somewhere
✟11,245.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Because in the real world, that which is natural, and that which is material, are the only things proven to be real with an actual existence. Everything else is just make-believe, wishes, assumptions, and leaps of logic. If you are looking to establish the truth, you can’t rely on make-believe, wishes or assumptions, you have to go with what is real
Laws of logic, mathematics, information and the very concepts you used to formulate your argument are inherently immaterial and unable to be measured because they don't have physical properties. If you say they only exist within the mind, they still exist.
Can you explain that? I don’t see how I require that.
I hate linking wikipedia but this should be an easier article for you to start with if you're new to it.
There's no justification for inductive reasoning within naturalism & materialism.
I think materialism is even stronger than atheism as it not only disbelieves in gods but in anything immaterial or transcendent.
Then you must also disbelieve in the laws of logic you used to form your argument and the mathematics used to measure matter in your worldview. Modern Atheism is built on naturalism or materialism, it's how it establishes "truth". One is not strong than the other, one flows from the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YahuahSaves
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Laws of logic, mathematics, information and the very concepts you used to formulate your argument are inherently immaterial and unable to be measured because they don't have physical properties. If you say they only exist within the mind, they still exist.
Logic, math, and information don’t have an actual existence, they only exist in the thoughts of things that are real. IOW they are in the same category as make-believe. If mankind disappeared so would the logic, math, and information associated with mankind because those things do not exist by themselves. If mankind disappeared, everything else of the natural and material world will continue to exist, because those things have an actual existence not dependent on the existence of something else.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,665
72
Bondi
✟370,080.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Initially, yes, but with a limit. I clarified that in my response.
There is no thought of a limit or an expectation of a reward or even of being paid back when it is done. I don't expect to be taken advantage of so the action is purely altruistic. It becomes reciprocally altruistic purely by the fact that most people will do this and respond the same way. So There's a two way interaction that is common in all social situations which gives it the reciprocity. And done as per the golden rule because we each think we should treat each other as we would like to be treated. Where the altruism comes in.

And that two-way behaviour is terminated one the other person starts to take advantage. Unless you want to played for a fool, everyone will do this.
Refer to post #175
Except, apparently, you. As you've just noted a post where you simply reiterate the golden rule. So you just keep on keeping on giving. You don't seem to appreciate that the golden rule works both ways (I gave examples earlier) in that you don't want people treating you the way that you wouldn't treat them. So in your case 'if someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back.'

Seriously? You honestly expect me to think you actually live this way? Some guy takes your car and you make no effort to get it back? And if I send you my details and demand the ipad or tablet that you are reading this on, you're going to send it to me?

Let's keep this discussion based in reality, shall we?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Tranquil Bondservant

Nothing without Elohim
Oct 11, 2022
870
794
Somewhere
✟11,245.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Logic, math, and information don’t have an actual existence, they only exist in the thoughts of things that are real. IOW they are in the same category as make-believe. If mankind disappeared so would the logic, math, and information associated with mankind because those things do not exist by themselves. If mankind disappeared, everything else of the natural and material world will continue to exist, because those things have an actual existence not dependent on the existence of something else.
The very reason you can claim these things as true is because you hold to immaterial laws of logic. Ken, stop and think about this for the moment. The things you claim are material, is claimed as such because of logical inferences and arguments. If laws of logic are made up then everything you're saying you can't actually believe because you have no reason as to say why it's true. The very designation of something as material is because of logic. And Ken, the logic you've used to disprove the realness of logic (refuting yourself) is only real under a materialist worldview, which as you've demonstrated is incredibly incoherent. I'll say it one more time just in case it wasn't clear, the truth of your positions that you've just rebutted with are inherently dependent on the truth of laws of logic existing.

If mankind were to disappear animals would still use a rudimentary logic to act in the world.

Also, everything's existence (apart from God who is self existent) is dependent upon something. It's called causality. [Edit: Therefore just because something is dependant upon another thing for existence, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YahuahSaves
Upvote 0

Neutral Observer

Active Member
Nov 25, 2022
318
121
North America
✟42,625.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct. Not once. They don't defend their presuppositions, they ignore them. When I ask how can you determine which person is right when someone within the same worldview conflicts with your morality, they ignore it.
The case that's been presented to you many times is simply that morality is subjective. What one person believes to be immoral may not be the same as what another person believes to be immoral, it's as simple as that.

Your argument seems to be that since all standards of morality are therefore equally valid it's impossible for any individual or group to judge the actions of any other individual or group, because to do so would be to proclaim that their standard of morality is wrong, and if someone truly believes in subjective morality then such a conclusion simply isn't possible.

Therefore subjective morality can hold no authority over anyone but oneself.

But I would argue that your reasoning is flawed, because it misunderstands the nature of morality. Morality is simply an evolutionary trait, wherein the standards of behavior that best ensure the stability of society will inevitably be the ones that survive. In some sense this is good, and in some sense it's bad. It's good in that morality has evolved to embrace justice, and empathy, and the golden rule. And it's bad in that it tends to cling to the intolerances and prejudices of the past, wrapped up in the guise of gods, divine laws, and cultural taboos.

Morality is the way it is because it evolved that way. It's what you get when you take an individual's sense of right and wrong and filter it through the brutal lens of survival. On the one hand you get "an eye for an eye", and on the other hand you get "the golden rule". For better or worse, morality is part of us. It shaped us, just as much as we shaped it. Perhaps we needed a God, or a book, or an institution, to inspire and defend our better traits, but we have to be able to accept them for what they are, they're the hallmarks of our past, of where we as humans came from, and the better part of what we are.

Morality is more than just each person's subjective interpretation of right and wrong, or some objective writ sent down by God. It's right and wrong refined by our struggle to survive. At its core it's still subjective, but to think of it as simplistically as that, is to diminish the struggle that instilled it in us.
 
Upvote 0

YahuahSaves

Well-Known Member
Nov 19, 2022
1,759
714
Melbourne
✟37,853.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Except, apparently, you. As you've just noted a post where you simply reiterate the golden rule. So you just keep on keeping on giving. You don't seem to appreciate that the golden rule works both ways (I gave examples earlier) in that you don't want people treating you the way that you wouldn't treat them. So in your case 'if someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back.'
The "golden rule" you use and the golden rule Jesus uses are not the same. That's my point. The world's golden rule is to treat others well in order to avoid harm or for mutual benefit. It's based on survival. God's rules are not based on human emotions or intellect, but on something that is intended (when practiced) to transcend the ego. To love the way God loves. Is that easy for us to do? Absolutely not. Is it possible for us to do? everything is possible with God.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,053
15,665
72
Bondi
✟370,080.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The "golden rule" you use and the golden rule Jesus uses are not the same. That's my point. The world's golden rule is to treat others well in order to avoid harm or for mutual benefit. It's based on survival. God's rules are not based on human emotions or intellect, but on something that is intended (when practiced) to transcend the ego. To love the way God loves. Is that easy for us to do? Absolutely not. Is it possible for us to do? everything is possible with God.
No, I use exactly what Jesus reminded us to do. Treat others as we would like to be treated. So I buy a friend a beer. I help him because I would like people to help me. I don't treat him badly because I wouldn't like to be treated badly. But you? You literally quoted the bible telling you that if someone takes your property, don't even ask for it back. And I know, without any shadow of doubt, that you don't live like that. It's a farcical proposition. So why on earth quote it to me as if you expect me to live that way?
 
Upvote 0