by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:52 am
by CSN Founder » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:53 am
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:54 am
CSN Founder wrote:You don't need authority for morals.
by Ancient Humans » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:55 am
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:56 am
by Kalosia » Tue Jul 28, 2015 8:58 am
by Lordieth » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:00 am
by Aggicificicerous » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:01 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Ancient Humans wrote:You do not need someone or something to tell you the difference between right and wrong, you learn right and wrong through your own interpretation of the world.
But that's basically nihilism, can morals be objective if it's up to you to interpret them yourself?
by Geanna » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:02 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't morality a non physical thing? Yes most of us have a sense of morality, though it usually differs from person to person. I know that is a rather dumb argument, but it's not my point. If it's difficult to even prove whether we ourselves exist, is it possible to prove that certain actions are wrong without belief in a supernatural God?
From my understanding the skepticism around morality boils down to "what authority is there that makes doing x actions bad and others good?" I can't think of anything besides God that may constitute this authority.
What do you think?
(Also it's worth noting that I'm talking about objective morality)
by Shangri llama » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:02 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Ancient Humans wrote:You do not need someone or something to tell you the difference between right and wrong, you learn right and wrong through your own interpretation of the world.
But that's basically nihilism, can morals be objective if it's up to you to interpret them yourself?
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:02 am
Lordieth wrote:Richard Dawkins said it best, and I'm paraphasing here;
If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong. If you do things not because you think they're wrong, but simply because you fear hell, then I'd be worried to meet that kind of person.
It's demonstrable that it's entirely possible to be moral without God, so of course it's possible. Not only that, but your morals aren't fixed or bound by how you interpret your Gods' words. Being homoexual is not immoral by most modern societies' standards, but the Bible is fixed. Morality isn't.
by Shangri llama » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:04 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Lordieth wrote:Richard Dawkins said it best, and I'm paraphasing here;
If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong. If you do things not because you think they're wrong, but simply because you fear hell, then I'd be worried to meet that kind of person.
It's demonstrable that it's entirely possible to be moral without God, so of course it's possible. Not only that, but your morals aren't fixed or bound by how you interpret your Gods' words. Being homoexual is not immoral by most modern societies' standards, but the Bible is fixed. Morality isn't.
That's terrible, how can you feel comfortable with certain things being moral or not based on the circumstances?
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:05 am
by Jacobania » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:07 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Ancient Humans wrote:You do not need someone or something to tell you the difference between right and wrong, you learn right and wrong through your own interpretation of the world.
But that's basically nihilism, can morals be objective if it's up to you to interpret them yourself?
by Greater Tezdrian » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:07 am
by Cannabis Islands » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:07 am
by Yedmnrutika Gavr » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:07 am
by Jacobania » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:08 am
Greater Tezdrian wrote:Not in my opinion. It is perfectly possible for atheists to be moral, I just think that morality comes from God. Whether atheists recognise the ultimate source of their morality is immaterial.
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:09 am
Jacobania wrote:Hcnd of lawutland wrote:But that's basically nihilism, can morals be objective if it's up to you to interpret them yourself?
Nihilism, according to The Essential Researcher by Croteau and Worcester, is defined as "a philosophy that espouses a belief in literally nothing, and that advocates the destruction of all existing political, economic, and social institutions." (33)
How can the lack of an explanation for morality, an any way, be rationally correlated to nihilism?
by Greater Istanistan » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:09 am
by Lordieth » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:09 am
Hcnd of lawutland wrote:Lordieth wrote:Richard Dawkins said it best, and I'm paraphasing here;
If you need a book to tell you what's right and wrong. If you do things not because you think they're wrong, but simply because you fear hell, then I'd be worried to meet that kind of person.
It's demonstrable that it's entirely possible to be moral without God, so of course it's possible. Not only that, but your morals aren't fixed or bound by how you interpret your Gods' words. Being homoexual is not immoral by most modern societies' standards, but the Bible is fixed. Morality isn't.
That's terrible, how can you feel comfortable with certain things being moral or not based on the circumstances?
by Hcnd of lawutland » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:10 am
Cannabis Islands wrote:Nope, I am in no need of a God to tell me stealing is wrong and murder is immoral.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:10 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Basenja, Black Hat Organization, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Ha cha cha, Kalturkara, Lithuania LT, Socio Polor, Vassenor
Advertisement