Christian, Morality, and Materialism

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

My assertion is that morality should be irrelevant, useless if there is no God. You can have them, but they serve no purpose as a code of conduct.

I'll assert that morality should be irrelevant to a Christian as well.

The central premise of Christianity is that all men are sinners, and that it is not possible to achieve salvation as the result of adherence -- no matter how rigorous -- to any code of moral conduct. The sins are washed away by the blood of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus (a trick which works for any offense except that of blasphemy against the holy spirit). Wherever the faithful gather, the light of this gospel shines down upon a sea of nodding heads.

Yet the vast majority of the recipients of this good news then proceed to turn right back to the old system of Judaistic legalism that the coming of Jesus was supposed to have overturned. This is what is most conducive to maintaining the integrity of the church as a political institution; positions of power exist because of rules.

 

[Christian]

Yahweh wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I answered what I thought was a concern of yours.

Note: Morality is not an absolute set of laws which governs peoples lives.

Then, I’m not clear on how people are kept on line and it being a social tool. As I understand it, this social tool would require that people adhere to it.

Yep, most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] have a tendency to consider themselves to be good people.

Most atheists and Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Taoists and [Insert Group Here] would have a hard time trying to say they have never committed an immoral act while being honest at the same time.

If you put an atheist or other person on the spot and asked them "What are some immoral things you've done", it might create a bit of confusion. People have a habit of assuming "immoral" is equivelant to "absolute evil".

I agree.

Its also helpful to know about a little thing called Moral Relativism. Quick description: There is rarely a such thing as absolute morality that can be applied equally and universally across humanity. And with Moral Relativism, keep you sociology in mind: While some person's morals might differ from another's morals (such as instances involving the Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life crowd), for the most part people have a tendency to think alike (such as the fact very few people would consider torturing children for sport morally acceptable).

If you pay attention to the thread you will find this has been covered and who believes in MR and who does not.

Again, your concern that atheists wouldnt admit to immoral acts is a bit premature.

It is not a concern, it is a fact I have presented to you (as I know it from more than two years of posting in this forum)

Either you just arent asking, or you just arent listening, I find it hard to believe that not a single atheist you have met would admit to even a smidgen of immoral behavior.

You can search all my exchanges on this topic.

If you still have concerns, start a thread called "Confess your sins" or something, then plenty of the atheists and materialists on the board will answer accordingly.

Not a bad idea.

My Immoral behavior: Lots. One of the things I try to work on is not letting my ego become overinflated. And I occasionally busy my time poking fun at others behind their backs for a good laugh (thats a bit euphemistic, but it gets the point across). I've done lots of other bad stuff, but it wouldnt be in my best interests to detail it.

So, at least we are getting somewhere, finally, two examples from an atheist (are you a materialist as well?) of immoral behavior.

I hope you can clearly see that these behaviors might not be considered immoral to most MA.

Scribble wrote:
Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Let me say the same.

I can only conclude that you being intellectually dishonest in your responses to me on this specific thread.

I would be very easy to call your bluff and prove to you that you are indeed being intellectually dishonest.

I’m not going to comment on your responses with the exception of one (I can’t resist) because indeed, most present a ridiculous position

Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.

Really. This means that you are fugitive of the law for more than one legal offense. And maybe a legal definition of warrant is warranted (pun intended)

warrant
an order (writ) of a court which directs a law enforcement officer (usually a sheriff) to arrest and bring a person before the judge, such as a person who is charged with a crime, convicted of a crime but failed to appear for sentencing, owes a fine or is in contempt of court.

As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.

Loki wrote:
Can you give me the methodology that will enable me to measure/detect/define the consequence for "stealing a pen from work"?

From my own personal experience, stealing (in general) brings back the consequence of experiencing poorness (is that a word, [having a hard time translating in my mind from Spanish] *escasez*)

So if there are many tools involved, how do we separate the influence/impact of each tool on the overall result?

Because I can see short term, medium term and long term results from a particular tool. And please, I do understand the concept of isolating variables.

Would you concede that perhaps striking a child is immoral?

Yes, of course.

There certainly seems to be a pool of (anecdotal!) evidence to suggest that successful/well adjusted human adults are possible from a background that excludes corporeal punishment?

Absolutely, many children don’t need to be punished this way. Some do.

Totally agree ... just not sure how *you* can be sure that coporeal punishment is valid and moral. Your argument rests on "it's moral/valid if the result/outcome is positive. It's wrong/immoral if the outcome is negative".

Yes, correct.
If you strike your daughter at age 4, and have to wait until age 18 to see the result, and you admit there are many other 'tools' along the way, then how can you know?

But your premise is wrong here. I don’t have to wait till she is 18 to see results. As with any project or goal, there are short, medium and long term results.

I’ll give you an example. My Dad caught me smoking when I was about 7. He told me that if I really wanted to smoke, I would have my chance right there to smoke all I wanted and proceeded to buy a whole box of cigarettes. After, maybe, half the second pack, I was completely disgusted and nauseas. But he forced me to continue. I didn’t finish the box, but I never touched a cigarette in my life ever again. The tool worked.

Isn't it possible that striking your daughter is wrong, but if done only a few times it has no real lasting effect, and that the happy/sad 18 year old you end up with has nothing to do with being struck at age 4?

Well, I have seen the effect of spanking my daughter, the behavior has been corrected and proven to be very effective. (yes, of course, many will argue that other method are as effective or more so, but I can vouch for my results)

Despite your belief that it is *necessary* to strike (at appropriate times), and that failure to do so (ie, not striking, or striking too often) will have clear adverse effects, I can't see how you can possibly have measured this.

By the results.

But you admit your evidence is 'personal anecdotes' and 'stripture says so'. so I guess there's nothing more to be said here...

Ok.

Chicken and egg, Christian - which came first. Do you commit adultery because there are problems in your marriage, or do you get problems in your marriage because you commit adultery?

Ahh, but you see, committing adultery begins in the mind. There are consequences to this mental stray. I clearly say that the egg is adultery.

know of at least 7 people who have commited adultery - 5 are now divorced. *All* of them had severe marital problems prior to commiting adultery. At least 2 (I haven't actually asked all of them!) have said that the adultery was a consequence of the problems, not a cause. I'd have thought it's quite likely that in most cases the sequence is (a) marital issues, (b) adultery, (c) divorce.

No, Loki, (and please note why I believe the Bible is so consistent in its teachings.) The sequence is like this:

(a) mental adultery (b) marital issues, (c) execution of the mental plan to adultery (d) physical adultery, (e) divorce or other major problems.

I've admited that I can't see any guaranteed penalty for this scenario. You agree you cannot define a penalty either - you just believe there will be some sort of (clearly proscribed, but as yet unknown) penalty.

Correct.

So the consequences of an immoral act like "lying to your wife about how attractive the neighbor's wife is" might a toothache? But not all toothaches are the result of lying to the wife?

Correct, poor dental hygiene could be the culprit. (and you say I don’t have a sense of humor.)

Can you list *any* immoral acts for which you have discovered an illness/disease consequence (I'm curious to see what they might be)?

I can give my personal experience. But it would have to be a PM.

Perhaps this is the core of the issue - if you asked me to raise my son in such a way that he as totally immoral (perhaps amoral would be more correct?), I probably could.

Yes, amoral, I agree with the term. But this is not what I’m suggesting you do if MA is the correct reality.

But the point, Christian, is that I am not such a person, and neither is my son. If human society is to prosper/survive it needs to raise moral citizens - so we teach this to our children. If I am raised a moral citizen, then moral behaviour *is* in my best interests. The presence/absense of a god does not change this.

I hope you can see by scribble’s responses that it is not in your best interest to stay ONLY at the moral level. Would you have liked to be in the movie theater where scribble shouted FIRE? Or, would you like to be his next door neighbor, when he cranks up the volume and your daughter is trying to sleep?

No, I’m not criticizing or stating that MA are immoral or amoral. I’m saying that if follows logically that if MA is reality, then, it is in your best interest to create, support and adhere to standards of behavior that can be enforced externally. And leave this delusional that morality (an internal system of rules) is a good thing.

If you wont be accountable to a god, (because you are sure there is none) you should be accountable to someone or something (an entity) for 100% of your behavior. Now, that will assure you a better society.

daenku32 wrote:
Moral rules without external consequences are often called Phobias.

Are Phobias the inherent part of your definiton of Morals? Frankly, I don't consider lack of phobias as negative to my character.

You can call my moral rules phobias. If you don’t present at least one example of your moral rules, then I wont know why you make this distinction.


Fun2Bfree wrote:
Christian --it should be apparent that given enough time you would hang yourself with your own hypocrisy:

Oh, I see, waiting for me to make a mistake. Don’t need too long for that.


Which is it? Moral rules do or do not have consequences?

Do you know what PERSPECTIVE means? Please read the thread as many times as necessary to see that I’m not contradicting myself. If you have poor reading skills in this specific thread, that’s not for me to correct.

You claim I have no examples yet you have been given many--anything killing people- stealing, lying all of these are immoral in circumstances when they lead to more unhappiness and destruction---it all depends on the consequences--it all has to do with the goal..the end result the consequences..that is a Materialist viewpoint not a spiritual one...

Killing and stealing are illegal. Now, lying, that is a good example that can be a moral rule without being a social or legal rule.

Lying does not always lead to more unhappiness (from the MA perspective). On the contrary, lying can bring lots of joy. If I were a MA, I can thing of many situations where lying brings absolutely no negative external consequences.

If you think impure thoughts what is the consequence? If you say that it will eventually lead to some EXTERNAL CONSEQUENCE SOME ACTION which we agree is bad (leads to failure of our species to carry on in happiness and comfort) then the BAD MORALITY is in that action--not in the impure thoughts--UNLESS IMPURE thoughts routinely are part of the process that ends in external consequences...

I understand the MA perspective. Thoughts do not bring negative consequences. This is your view, I understand that. Now, please understand that that is not the Christian perspective. Impure thoughts bring negative external consequences to me.

Dymanic wrote:
I'll assert that morality should be irrelevant to a Christian as well.

Assert away.

The central premise of Christianity is that all men are sinners, and that it is not possible to achieve salvation as the result of adherence -- no matter how rigorous -- to any code of moral conduct. The sins are washed away by the blood of the sacrificial lamb, Jesus

I agree with this, you have it correct. (the position, the belief, I mean.)

If you are implying that because this is true, we don’t have to be moral, then you are incorrect. The main reason is that even if we have a ticket to heaven, we cannot escape the consequences of our actions. A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

A Christian can commit adultery and still go to heaven, yet, he will suffer the consequences of that action.

That seems to beg more explanation. What sort of consequences are we talking about?

It seems to me that being 'saved' is a binary property. You're either on the bus, or you're off the bus. But not being (or being) an adulterer is not what gets you on (or off) the bus. Are you saying that the Christian adulterer faces consequences in heaven -- in addition to the earthly consequences both he and the atheist adulterer face?

 

[scribble]

Scribble wrote:
Let me preface this by saying if you really meant anything you said in your last post, then I must be done with you. This has become a ridiculous game.

Let me say the same.

I can only conclude that you being intellectually dishonest in your responses to me on this specific thread.

I would be very easy to call your bluff and prove to you that you are indeed being intellectually dishonest.

Call it as you like. I'vew been completely honest. You are the one with the useless definiton of moral and the indecipherable definiton of MUST.

You're also the one who has decided not to respond to most of my last message. Even though I found your position ridiculous, I didn't ignore it. You are ignoring me because you have backed yourself into a corner: your ridiculous words are still drying and you can't step over them without getting yourself covered in wet ridicule.

I’m not going to comment on your responses with the exception of one (I can’t resist) because indeed, most present a ridiculous position

Nonsense. I have had warrants issued that I have never served. So have many, many, many, many, many others.

Really. This means that you are fugitive of the law for more than one legal offense. And maybe a legal definition of warrant is warranted (pun intended)

Do you find it so unbelievable that someone on this board might have been a 'fugitive from the law?' Do you find it so hard to believe that people sometimes avoid serving their warrants?

You are completely detached from reality. Enjoy your fantasies.

As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.

Well, I'm waiting.

I hope you can see by scribble’s responses that it is not in your best interest to stay ONLY at the moral level. Would you have liked to be in the movie theater where scribble shouted FIRE? Or, would you like to be his next door neighbor, when he cranks up the volume and your daughter is trying to sleep?

I arrived at my showing of Six Days and Seven Nights (an awful, horrible movie) a bit early and got a moment to say hello to THE ONLY OTHER COUPLE IN THE THEATRE. It was quite simple from that point to continue on to making fun of the movie with them (when we all realized how horrible hte movie was). Yelling FIRE was the least of the things shouted in that theatre.

My next door neighbor would ocassionally call the cops at my old apartment. I was always profoundly apologetic - and I really did feel bad. But that's not my point at all. My point was you said I MUST NOT play loud music at night. Well, you're wrong. I can and did.

Would you like to try using words that mean what you say instead of inferring necessity in supererogatory actions?

Lying does not always lead to more unhappiness (from the MA perspective). On the contrary, lying can bring lots of joy. If I were a MA, I can thing of many situations where lying brings absolutely no negative external consequences.

You're wrong. Lying is ALWYS bad, even if it's a "little white lie" - because it's not my place to dictate a false reality to another person. That would have the real world effect of causing them to be delusional - or angry at me if they saw through the lie.

Amazing how none of the moral rules you brought up fits your own definiton of having no consequences...

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Well, I have seen the effect of spanking my daughter, the behavior has been corrected and proven to be very effective.

But what else have you (perhaps) also achieved Christian? What other result might lurk behind the apparent short term gain? Perhaps your daughter has been taught that it's *sometimes* okay for a man to strike a woman. Perhaps the true lesson (the long term result) you've implanted is yet to show it's face?

You claim short, medium and long tern results for your actions - then claim that the actions are effective because the short term results are obvious. Perhaps the truth lies deeper?

Because I can see short term, medium term and long term results from a particular tool. And please, I do understand the concept of isolating variables.

How do you measure the long term results? How do you isolate the variables to achieve this long term meaurement?

I didn’t finish the box, but I never touched a cigarette in my life ever again. The tool worked.

Well, you've never touched a cigarette *so far*!! But even if it turns out that you spend your entire life a non-smoker (me too) perhaps this action of your father's leads (indirectly) to a drinking problem? Again, how do you measure and isolate the long term effects?

Ahh, but you see, committing adultery begins in the mind. There are consequences to this mental stray. I clearly say that the egg is adultery.

Well, we're just going to have to trade off assertions here, because I can see no way to prove my point (or disprove yours). I can assure you with as much sincerity as I can muster that the 2 cases I was referring too *absolutely cannot* be a case of 'mental adultery' leading to marital problems, leading to physical adultery. I'm not prepared to go into details on a public forum (and no, it's not my personal details!), but I was a close friend of a couple that went through such issues, and it was the woman who finally commited adultery - but the marriage problems went back years before. The seeds of that marriages' collapse were nothing to do with adultery - that was simply the final step in a long decay. In fact, within weeks of the adultery occuring, the marriage was over, and now 18 months later both parties are significantly happier - the woman in particular is finally out of a (verbally) abusive marriage, and has a child with a new man. They seem the picture of happiness. The adulterer (the woman) seems to have completely turned her life around, and is happier than at anytime that I've known her. She often makes comments along the lines of "the weight is gone" and "I feel so free" and "I can't believe that I used to live like that".

I'm sure you believe that the "negative result" of her adultery lies before her, and I guess if 10 years from now something has gone wrong in her life you'll claim it as proof that you were right. Basically, you can't lose, right? Even if the short term result here from the adultery appears to be a significant upgrade in the quality of both people's lives, you'll still claim any future pain as being the medium or long tern result?

The short term pain in that situation was carried by the man (the victim of the adultery). The marriage lasted about 4 days after the adultery occured. How do I read the short term result here????

I’m saying that if follows logically that if MA is reality, then, it is in your best interest to create, support and adhere to standards of behavior that can be enforced externally. And leave this delusional that morality (an internal system of rules) is a good thing.

But why is this suggestion more logical than mine, which is system where the standard of behaviour are created and supported externally, but enforced via a combination of external (legal) and internal (moral) checks?

You're arguing that there is a logical conclusion here. So put your argument into a clear logical format - premises, assumptions and conclusion.

Assumption : There is no absolute moral code.
Premise 1 : Morals are a standard of behaviour that are enforced internally (the negative consequences of immoral behaviour are self imposed).
Premise 2 : ????
...
Conclusion : Therefore, a perfect human would have no use for morals.

Can you fill in the gaps above? I still struggle to see how you get from the start to the finish.

 

[Christian]

Scribble wrote:
You're also the one who has decided not to respond to most of my last message. Even though I found your position ridiculous, I didn't ignore it. You are ignoring me because you have backed yourself into a corner: your ridiculous words are still drying and you can't step over them without getting yourself covered in wet ridicule.

You think so? As I said it is very easy to show your position is intellectually dishonest.

Do you find it so unbelievable that someone on this board might have been a 'fugitive from the law?' Do you find it so hard to believe that people sometimes avoid serving their warrants?

Might have been? Some of the dishonesty coming through here?

You are completely detached from reality. Enjoy your fantasies.

Am I? We’ll see.

Posted by me:
As I said it would be very easy to call your bluff and show proof positive your position is without merit.

Well, I'm waiting.

You state there are no rules you MUST follow and have rejected ten I have given. You claim you have broken those rules and you also taunted that as of that moment in the discussion you were breaking some of them (smoking and going out naked in public).

So, why not show me (us) with testable (verifiable) rules, that you can break them as well right here on this website: Here let me post some of the rules of this forum and please go ahead and prove me wrong by breaking them.

And sure you can cop-out by stating that if you really wanted to you could but you wont because you simply don’t want to or because you wont be manipulated by me. (or any other reason you wish to give for not braking them).

Here the rules MUST follow in this website that you claim you don’t have to follow:

The post is potentially criminal
-(e.g., kiddie porn, links to viruses, etc.). Such posts will be referred to proper legal channels.

So, go ahead and post child pornography or links to viruses.

The post is obscene
-Like the Supreme Court, we can't define it, but we know it when we see it. We want this to be a work-friendly website. We will allow links to sites but with a warning that the site could contain material considered objectionable. We do not want to be banned from libraries or schools because of sexual or violent content. At the same time, we do not want to censor discussion and dialogue. We also do not want to cause potential grantors to deny funding based on obscene or objectionable material.

So, go ahead and post pornographic pictures.

The post contains copyright-protected material without proper permissions.
-Note: while we accept the "fair use" doctrine, we also understand that copyright extends to the internet
-Examples of unacceptable (illegal) posts could include: a Dilbert cartoon, the entire text of a magazine article, etc.
-See http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/copynet.htm and http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht for a law firm specializing in web copyright issues for more information.
-Links to copyrighted material are ok, but do not quote the reference in full.
-All quoted material should be credited to the original author and a link given (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph. Nevertheless, forum administration reserves the right to modify quotes if such quotes are judged too complete.

Please go ahead and post copyrighted material as to clearly violate the “fair use” doctrine and that it constitute a federal offense.

Keep a civil tongue
The administrator may, with or without warning, suspend or ban users whom he feels are acting in a manner destructive of the forum or the goals of the JREF. Simply put, Don't be a Jerk. Such decisions may be appealed to Linda or Randi by email

Please go ahead and use the words that are not allowed in this forum as many times as you like.

Members of the Forum may be Suspended and/or Banned
-The default position of the JREF is that, within the guidelines noted above, no opinion and/or judgment is unacceptable. That is to say, the content of a post is presumed allowed, a priori.
-There are, as noted, exceptions. Similarly, no poster will be suspended or banned from the forum just because of the particular set of views he/she holds. However, the Administrator may suspend posters for violations of the rules. He will endeavor to give proper warnings, but may choose to suspend/ban without warning if the situation, in his judgment, requires it. For example, a person posting a virus, or a dozen commercial spam messages might find their access limited. Banning is, of course, the ultimate sanction on a forum.
-The policy of the JREF is to resist banning whenever possible, and to never ban simply for the point of view a poster may hold. Banning, when implemented, will be only in response to repeated and willful violations of forum rules or decorum. Except in the most extraordinary situations, no one will be banned without at least two warnings. Only the Administrators may ban a member.
-On Trolls and Trolling: In multiple conversations with Mr. Randi, Linda, Jeff, Hal, and Andrew, it was decided that trolls whose only purpose is to troll are counterproductive to a successful educational forum. It is the JREF’s desire that the forum exist as a venue for the sharing of ideas and concepts, not as caldron of incivility. We certainly recognize that the forum, in addition to being of educational value, it is also an online community that welcomes pure fun and entertainment as well. It is the stance of the JREF that trolling enhances neither. Therefore, trolling is not permitted. Trolling is a difficult concept to define, and therefore and only in the most egregious cases, will suspension or banning be considered as the sanction. Only forum administrators have the power to suspend or ban, and only after consultation with one another.

Please violate these rules as to have more than the warnings allowed by the administrators.

My next door neighbor would ocassionally call the cops at my old apartment. I was always profoundly apologetic - and I really did feel bad. But that's not my point at all. My point was you said I MUST NOT play loud music at night. Well, you're wrong. I can and did.

Oh, so did the cops make you comply? When they said that you must keep it down, did you say, no I wont?

You're wrong. Lying is ALWYS bad, even if it's a "little white lie" - because it's not my place to dictate a false reality to another person. That would have the real world effect of causing them to be delusional - or angry at me if they saw through the lie.

So, if a serial killer asks you if there is anyone else in the house, and a family member is hiding there, you would tell him the truth?

Or if a family member asks you think their child is cute (and you believe the child is very ugly) you would say he isn’t?

Just not to concede, I’m can guess what you are going to answer.

Amazing how none of the moral rules you brought up fits your own definiton of having no consequences...

Not amazing at all.


Loki wrote:
But what else have you (perhaps) also achieved Christian? What other result might lurk behind the apparent short term gain? Perhaps your daughter has been taught that it's *sometimes* okay for a man to strike a woman. Perhaps the true lesson (the long term result) you've implanted is yet to show it's face?

Perhaps. We’ll just have to wait and see.

You claim short, medium and long tern results for your actions - then claim that the actions are effective because the short term results are obvious. Perhaps the truth lies deeper?

Perhaps.

How do you measure the long term results? How do you isolate the variables to achieve this long term meaurement?

Because I don’t live in a vacuum and I’m not the only one who has educated kids this way.

Well, you've never touched a cigarette *so far*!! But even if it turns out that you spend your entire life a non-smoker (me too) perhaps this action of your father's leads (indirectly) to a drinking problem? Again, how do you measure and isolate the long term effects?

Loki, I’m 37 years old, I don’t smoke, don’t drink and I’m pretty sure that if I didn’t start when I was younger, it is very unlikely that I will start now or the future.

I can assure you with as much sincerity as I can muster that the 2 cases I was referring too *absolutely cannot* be a case of 'mental adultery' leading to marital problems, leading to physical adultery. I'm not prepared to go into details on a public forum (and no, it's not my personal details!), but I was a close friend of a couple that went through such issues, and it was the woman who finally commited adultery - but the marriage problems went back years before. The seeds of that marriages' collapse were nothing to do with adultery - that was simply the final step in a long decay. In fact, within weeks of the adultery occuring, the marriage was over, and now 18 months later both parties are significantly happier - the woman in particular is finally out of a (verbally) abusive marriage, and has a child with a new man. They seem the picture of happiness. The adulterer (the woman) seems to have completely turned her life around, and is happier than at anytime that I've known her. She often makes comments along the lines of "the weight is gone" and "I feel so free" and "I can't believe that I used to live like that".

I don’t know how you can know what thoughts went through her head. But, anyway, yes many things can lead to divorce as many things can lead to toothaches. (not trying to be funny.)

I'm sure you believe that the "negative result" of her adultery lies before her, and I guess if 10 years from now something has gone wrong in her life you'll claim it as proof that you were right. Basically, you can't lose, right? Even if the short term result here from the adultery appears to be a significant upgrade in the quality of both people's lives, you'll still claim any future pain as being the medium or long tern result?

I can’t judge those things. It would be impossible for me to. But, I’m sure she can. She can know for sure the consequences of her actions.

The short term pain in that situation was carried by the man (the victim of the adultery). The marriage lasted about 4 days after the adultery occured. How do I read the short term result here????

But this is a complex issue. You can’t really expect me to analyze this particular case in any meaningful way.

But why is this suggestion more logical than mine, which is system where the standard of behaviour are created and supported externally, but enforced via a combination of external (legal) and internal (moral) checks?

History and the world around us.

You're arguing that there is a logical conclusion here. So put your argument into a clear logical format - premises, assumptions and conclusion.

Assumption : There is no absolute moral code.
Premise 1 : Morals are a standard of behaviour that are enforced internally (the negative consequences of immoral behaviour are self imposed).
Premise 2 : ????

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective

And you know, we can test this in the real world. Show me any standard, and those that can be externally verified, are useful, those which cannot be verified are useless.

Can you fill in the gaps above? I still struggle to see how you get from the start to the finish.

I have tried.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

I don’t know how you can know what thoughts went through her head.

Which is why I conceded that I cannot prove my position here - I *know* this person, and my wife and I were about as close to this situation as you can get without actually being a participant, so I have some confidence in my understanding of the situation. In particular, I have enormous problems with thinking that the marital issues (which stretched back at least 6 years) were begun or accentuated by the woman endulging in 'mental adultery'. I have no doubt at all that adultery (mental, physical, emotional, whatever) occured once the marriage had essentially collapsed, but was still technically valid. The adultery was an effect, not a cause.

You disagree - we'll have to leave it there, I think.

I can’t judge those things. It would be impossible for me to. But, I’m sure she can. She can know for sure the consequences of her actions.

True - you and I can only guess and theorise. All I'll say here is to repeat that *at this time* she says she's happier. Very much happier. A new relatoinship, a new child, a new home, a new job. She's put most of her health issues behind her (for now?), and has rediscovered her skills at pottery - has been exhibiting some of her works, etc. I can't find anything in her life that appears to be worse that it was - most things are better by a wide margin.

But this is a complex issue.

Yep - despite the fact rhat you claim a clear and obvious relatoinship between "commiting adultery" and "marital problems"

You can’t really expect me to analyze this particular case in any meaningful way.

Nope - it's purely anecdotal. Just trying to explain why I have trouble believing in this "iron fist" of moral retribution for adulterers.

Let me be clear, Christian - I think that commiting adultery is actually *not* immoral under some circumstances, and totally immoral under others! It's the circumstances, not the act, that matter. However, in the vast majority of cases, I think that commiting adultery leads to (or occurs with) marital problems. What these problems are, how they manifest themselves, and what the ultimate outcome is, is complex!

I'd agree with you that if we took a sample 100 couples, and we watched for the act of adultery and what happens next, we'd probably see 100 cases of marital problems. I'd also argue that if we looked back to the time before the adultery that in perhaps 90 of those cases we'd see marital problems anyway.

In short, I'm afraid I can't see how you can call *all* adultery immoral, and I can't see how you can establish that it's anything more than another marital problem, rather than the root of the problems.

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective

You don't think that P4 is a little bit like assuming your conclusion? You're tying to reach the conclusion that internal rules are ineffective, and one of your premises is that internal rules have not been shown to be effective? So you're invoking the additional premise :

"P5: Things that have not been shown to be effective *must* be ineffective"?

And you know, we can test this in the real world. Show me any standard, and those that can be externally verified, are useful, those which cannot be verified are useless.

You know, perhaps you're right! For example, I don't think that adultery, incest, or striking children are inherently immoral behaviours - it's the circumstances that matter. In *most* circumstances, I believe this behaviours are immoral, but not all. The things that make the distinction are the objective, verifiable circumstances. Perhaps my "internal code" is nothing more than my attempt to measure and verify the objective circumstances?

 

[daenku32]

Christian, all I can conclude, is that what you ment as lack of morals for atheists etc, is nothing bad at all. Period.

You have succeeded in removing any good or bad insinnuations of your original comment. It has become to mean nothing of significance that would separate them of anyone else. Could have just said "Atheists breath air".

Unfortunately your original comment with it's english language describtions still exist, making it a deragatory remark.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Which is why I conceded that I cannot prove my position here - I *know* this person, and my wife and I were about as close to this situation as you can get without actually being a participant, so I have some confidence in my understanding of the situation. In particular, I have enormous problems with thinking that the marital issues (which stretched back at least 6 years) were begun or accentuated by the woman endulging in 'mental adultery'. I have no doubt at all that adultery (mental, physical, emotional, whatever) occured once the marriage had essentially collapsed, but was still technically valid. The adultery was an effect, not a cause.

You disagree - we'll have to leave it there, I think.

I agree that divorce can be consequence of many actions not just adultery. This is true. And I said that adultery leads to negative consequences not necessarily divorce.

Our disagreement is not here. Our disagreement is that you believe adultery (in certain circumstances) does not have negative external consequences. I believe it always has.

And here is evidence that I'm correct to say that morality is irrelevant to MA. I shall not commit adultery is a relative rule.

True - you and I can only guess and theorise. All I'll say here is to repeat that *at this time* she says she's happier. Very much happier. A new relatoinship, a new child, a new home, a new job. She's put most of her health issues behind her (for now?), and has rediscovered her skills at pottery - has been exhibiting some of her works, etc. I can't find anything inher life that appears to be worse that it was - most things are better by a wide margin.

Did she have children from her prior marriage?

Yep - despite the fact rhat you claim a clear and obvious relatoinship between "commiting adultery" and "marital"

It is complex because there are many moral choices and many moral consequences.

Let me be clear, Christian - I think that commiting adultery is actually *not* imorral under some circumstances, and totally immoral under others! It's the circumstances, not the act, that matter.

Yep, that is clear.

I believe it is an objective rule with consequences. Here lies the difference.

However, in the vast majority of cases, I think that commiting adultery leads to marital problems. What these problems are, how they manifest themselves, and what the ultimate outcome is, is complex!

Ahh, but when you say the vast majority of cases is because empirically you have seen a specific pattern.

In short, I'm afraid I can't see how you can call *all* adultery immoral, and I can't see how you can establish that it's anything more than another marital problem, rather than the root of the problems.

I call 100% of all adultery immoral because, to me, it is an external rule with external consequences.

You don't believe in such things.

You don't think that P4 is a little bit like assuming your conclusion? You're tying to reach the conclusion that internal rules are ineffective, and one of your premises is that internal rules have not been shown to be effective? So you're invoking the additional premise :

"P5: Things that have not been shown to be effective *must* be ineffective"?

Maybe it should read like this:

For things to be effective, they must be shown to be effective.

But it amounts to the same thing, I guess.


daenku32 wrote:
Christian, all I can conclude, is that what you ment as lack of morals for atheists etc, is nothing bad at all. Period.

You have succeeded in removing any good or bad insinnuations of your original comment. It has become to mean nothing of significance that would separate them of anyone else. Could have just said "Atheists breath air".

Well, it has implications, bigger than just a simple statement.

 

[Fun2BFree]

Christian-

You can criticize my reading ability but your writing and your words were quoted verbatim and NOT out of context--you have contradicted yourself all over the place. You speak of real world consequences coming from whatever it is you say is immoral and that by definition is a materialist position...if the bad consequences occur in the real world as a result of the bad behaviour that is an external not an internal rule...

You claim athiests are somehow always the rulemakers and the rule checkers on their own as opposed to the spiritual like yourself...ok who decides that for you Christianity's rule book is the correct one? Who decides if you are following the right rules and fudging the others (and the Bible both old and new is full of rules that I guarantee you are not following)..Who decides which are the really important rules? Who decides which action leads to which consequence and who judges the outcome in these cases like your abusing your daughter? Seems like it comes down to you and you alone everytime...the materialist likes to see some INDEPENDENT verification of observation..independent -as in not biased by foregone conclusions....I fyou think you are conducting your life in some objective fashion free from the biases both borne and apparently beaten into you---you are a liar and the one you are lying to is you.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

P1: There are internal and external rules of conduct
P2: These groups are mutually exclusive
P3: External rules can be objectively verified
P4: The only useful standards (set of rules) that have show to be effective are those that can be objectively verified.
C1: External rules are effective
C2: Internal rules are ineffective

I find this oddly disturbing. It demonstrates an essential lack of trust; basically it says that people will always make poor choices if left to their own devices. It demonstrates an obsession with the letter of the law that can only come from one who fails to grasp the concept of the spirit of the law. It demonstrates an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for making difficult choices in the face of uncertainty. It's like a kid who keeps asking, "whaddam I spozed to do?", because he doesn't get it that being a grown up means not constantly having to ask that; it means sticking your neck out sometimes and making a tough call -- and maybe getting it wrong, and then having to live with that.

As I see it, the ugly truth is that we are not only free to decide what is moral, we are obligated to do so -- and this despite the fact that the world is not black and white. It would be nice if all the answers really were in some book.

Never mind.

 

[Darat]

Hi Christian

Just been reading through this thread and it reminded of a discussion with you from a long time ago that touched on similar ideas.

One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

 

[Christian]

Fun2BFree wrote:
You can criticize my reading ability but your writing and your words were quoted verbatim and NOT out of context--you have contradicted yourself all over the place.

Listen, maybe this next device will help. Hopefully. I’m not contradicting myself, it is clear that I take different position according to the PERSPECTIVE I’m using.

So, maybe, this device will help. Have you ever heard of the THINKING HATS? I hope you have.

Ok,

[Materialist/Atheist hat on] There are no external negative consequences to breaking moral rules.[MA hat off]

[Christian hat on] There are external negative consequences to breaking moral rules

So, if you read carefully, you will see that that is what I was doing. Using different perspectives, using hats.

You claim athiests are somehow always the rulemakers and the rule checkers on their own as opposed to the spiritual like yourself...ok who decides that for you Christianity's rule book is the correct one?

This is a fair question. The Bible is the rule book for Christians

Who decides if you are following the right rules and fudging the others (and the Bible both old and new is full of rules that I guarantee you are not following)..Who decides which are the really important rules?

The results.

Who decides which action leads to which consequence and who judges the outcome in these cases like your abusing your daughter?

Well, now you are into legal territory, aren’t you? Abusing a child has legal standards.

And you have no right to tell me I’m abusing her. You are not entitled to that opinion on a public forum. You get that?

Do you get that your contempt for other people does not allow to accuse them of a felony? Do you get that.? Does that register? I hope it does.

you are a liar and the one you are lying to is you.

You are allowed to insult me. (but you are not allowed to use some words? Thank goodness.


Dymanic wrote:
I find this oddly disturbing. It demonstrates an essential lack of trust; basically it says that people will always make poor choices if left to their own devices.

Yes, most people will try to maximize their utility at the expense of others. The market economic system is based on this premise.

It demonstrates an obsession with the letter of the law that can only come from one who fails to grasp the concept of the spirit of the law.

I’m not sure this is the same topic.


Darat wrote:
One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

I say that all immoral acts have negative consequences. Does it amount to the same thing?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Perhaps it's just been a terminology problem - I may just now be catching up with SlimShady's comments way back near the start of the thread!

I think I may agree with you on most of this, but have been using different terms. But to help me understand, I need a little more info.

All thoughts/behaviours can be divided into two camps - moral, and immoral. You believe that the bible clearly details some of these behaviours (eg adultery). It may be ambiguous about some others (eg slavery?), and it may fail to mention others at all (human cloning?). In order to either validate, interpret or extend the biblical basis, it seems to me you are suggesting something like this :

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. See if 'negative consequences' follow
3. Repeat 1-2 a suitable number of times
4. If there is a 100% correlation between the behaviour and a negative consequence then the behaviour is immoral.

From this, we can build up a list of immoral behaviours with some confidence.

A few questions :

Are all behaviours that produce negative consequences immoral? (Not the same as saying all immoral behaviours produce negative consequences)

What about behaviours that produce both positive and negative consequences? Taking it further, what if a behaviour produces postive and negative consequences but in no fixed ratio (sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative)? Are such behaviours moral, amoral, immoral, or impossible?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect yourself only? Is this still immoral?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect others but not yourself? Is this still immoral?

What about a behaviour that has negative consequences in one social or historical setting, but not another? A woman walking the streets of New Yourk with her face uncovered is unlikely to cause any problems - but the same behaviour in a village in Iran is likely to cause disruption. Is the behaviour immoral in both, one only, or neither setting? Since you're arguing for an absolute standard, the answer must be 'both' or 'neither' - but how can we tell from just examining 'consequences'?

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
All thoughts/behaviours can be divided into two camps - moral, and immoral.

I agree.

You believe that the bible clearly details some of these behaviours (eg adultery).

Yes. It also gives guidelines, general principles that can be applied to specific situations.

It may be ambiguous about some others (eg slavery?), and it may fail to mention others at all (human cloning?).

I don’t see ambiguity (but let’s not get into that one). Even though it does not mention specific situations, the guidelines and principles give light about them.

In order to either validate, interpret or extend the biblical basis, it seems to me you are suggesting something like this :

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. See if 'negative consequences' follow
3. Repeat 1-2 a suitable number of times
4. If there is a 100% correlation between the behaviour and a negative consequence then the behaviour is immoral.

Let me modify this a little (or a lot).

1. Start with a thought or behaviour.
2. Read what the Bible has to say about it
3. Determine the morality based on it
4. By faith, know that there will be a negative consequence.

From this, we can build up a list of immoral behaviours with some confidence.

The list is in the Bible.

A few questions :

Are all behaviours that produce negative consequences immoral? (Not the same as saying all immoral behaviours produce negative consequences)

Loki, you are treating me like a kid here, but ok. I will play along.

Of course not, behaviors that produce negative consequences that are not immoral are called MISTAKES (and by the way, indispensable for growth)

What about behaviours that produce both positive and negative consequences?

Those are called learning experiences??? You really have little regards for my intelligence and common sense. I understand.

Taking it further, what if a behaviour produces postive and negative consequences but in no fixed ratio (sometimes more positive, sometimes more negative)? Are such behaviours moral, amoral, immoral, or impossible?

An expensive learning experience and a lucky learning experience??? If you hit your finger with a hammer, how do YOU classify that negative consequence?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect yourself only? Is this still immoral?

Are we done?

What about a behaviour where the negative consequences affect others but not yourself? Is this still immoral?

Guess not. Ok, this one might warrant a more philosophical answer. It is possible that a behavior be moral and bring negative consequences to other, e.g. killing someone in self-defense, wiping out a population of people that have a highly contagious deadly disease (did you see the movie 28 Days Later?)

What about a behaviour that has negative consequences in one social or historical setting, but not another? A woman walking the streets of New Yourk with her face uncovered is unlikely to cause any problems - but the same behaviour in a village in Iran is likely to cause disruption. Is the behaviour immoral in both, one only, or neither setting?

The problem Loki is that you are trying to punch holes in my worldview by exposing inconsistencies, but you are going about the wrong way. (the route of negative consequences, I guess taken from my statement that all immoral behavior has negative external consequences.)

Since you're arguing for an absolute standard, the answer must be 'both' or 'neither' - but how can we tell from just examining 'consequences'?

Ok, I have tested the Bible to be true because I have experienced the consequences. From there, I generalize that all immoral behavior has consequences.

I don’t go about it, testing the effect to arrive at the cause. I go about it, experiencing the effect of braking the principle.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

Yes, most people will try to maximize their utility at the expense of others. The market economic system is based on this premise.

Of course. But to assume that most people, in their attempts to better their positions, will practice treachery and brutality and unrestrained hedonism as an ordinary matter of course -- to begin with that assumption seems, frankly, pathological. Christianity is based on this premise. You assume that only external rules can be effective because humans, being sinful by nature, are not capable of formulating moral principles as the result of any internal process. Yet, humans have a natural capacity for shame and self-doubt (Romans 2:14,15). Christianity became a powerful political institution by capitalizing on this natural proclivity; reinforcing it, and utilizing it as a manipulative tool.

The Bible is the rule book for Christians

For one sincerely seeking answers, it is likely to be confusing and contradictory at best. For many, it seems to be primarily a weapon, in a game of power, intimidation, and one-upmanship.

I don’t see ambiguity (but let’s not get into that one)

Aw c'mon, be a sport. Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

... you are treating me like a kid here, but ok. I will play along.
...
The problem Loki is that you are trying to punch holes in my worldview by exposing inconsistencies, but you are going about the wrong way.

No, you misunderstand me. I'm asking such basic questions because I want to be sure I fully/finally understand your position. Seeking clarity, not laying a trap.

Would you are agree with this statement?

"If a thought/behaviour *cannot* have negative consequences in this world, then it cannot be immoral"?

 

[Christian]

Dymanic wrote:
Of course. But to assume that most people, in their attempts to better their positions, will practice treachery and brutality and unrestrained hedonism as an ordinary matter of course -- to begin with that assumption seems, frankly, pathological.

But that is not the assumption, is it?

Christianity is based on this premise. You assume that only external rules can be effective because humans, being sinful by nature, are not capable of formulating moral principles as the result of any internal process.

On pathology, I'm not sure I would put this way. But, yes, Christianity has the premise that humans are by nature bad.

If you think about it, all systems of control are based on this premise. For example, a home equity loan has requirements as to protect itself from default.

Aw c'mon, be a sport. Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

Sure, but with one condition: You have to agree to restate my position as for me to clearly known you understand my position (before commenting or attacking it)

No, you misunderstand me. I'm asking such basic questions because I want to be sure I fully/finally understand your position. Seeking clarity, not laying a trap.

Ok, I will take your word.

Would you are agree with this statement?

"If a thought/behaviour *cannot* have negative consequences in this world, then it cannot be immoral"?

If you are saying that it is impossible for an immoral thought/behavior not to have a negative external consequence in this world, then, I agree.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Christian

But, yes, Christianity has the premise that humans are by nature bad.

If you think about it, all systems of control are based on this premise.

I certainly agree with you that Christianity is a 'control system', and yes, degradation of the victim is a technique commonly used by those in the business of dominating others.

Check your rule book and tell us: Is slavery immoral, or not?

Sure, but with one condition: You have to agree to restate my position as for me to clearly known you understand my position (before commenting or attacking it)

Your position seems clear enough:

"the bible provides a reliable, consistent, and detailed set of moral guidelines."

 

[Darat]

Darat wrote:
One point we didn't conclude on then was the apparent contradiction in your view that morals can be "objective" yet at the same time an act is only immoral if it has negative consequences. (I think the example used last time was incest.)

Do you still hold that something you consider "objectively immoral" is only immoral if it has negative consequences?

I say that all immoral acts have negative consequences. Does it amount to the same thing?

But I thought we'd agreed that incest may not be immoral in some circumstances?