The Gospel

[lostnick3]

If your moral source is some particular thing, and it's okay to get your morals from that thing, why is it not okay to make that thing reason?

how are you going to reason morals

 

[delphi_ote]

how are you going to reason morals

Ethics, morals: try to do what is best for humanity. How do you define "best" and "humanity"? That's something we can debate.

How do you get morals from Jesus? Just do what he told you? Why him? That doesn't strike me as moral. It's lazy.

 

[BlackCat]

how are you going to reason morals

That's easy. I would consider what's best for me, and what's best for society. We are social animals, so figuring out how to make society a nice place is important, since we have to live in it. Generally, I have figured out that individuals can and should be able to do whatever they want, unless they're infringing on someone else's rights. It's kind've like the Golden Rule. As soon as they've infringed on someone else without their consent, it's immoral.

Sure, there will be exceptions, such as those who are mentally ill, but if society really thought about it, I think we could come to a reasonable consensus.

This is probably pretty idealistic, but as you can see, I've reasoned out morals, without needed god.

BlackCat

 

[RandFan]

yes! we have some agreement. i agree the relevance of believing god is tricky, the relevance of believing in the one true God is a conundrum. It is my thought that real science and God in this universe are playing by the same rules.

You've gone off on a tangent. I'm glad we are in agreement but I'm not sure to what degree we differ. Morals were likely constructed by humans and god was given credit for them to give them authority. It is a human trait that is demonstrated in different cultures that have different morals.

A good example is the urban myth that attempt to teach morals by using fear. Humans want other humans to conform to their morals so they find ways to enforce these morals.

In the end parsimony says that morals are human constructs and are in large part evolutionary based. There is btw a lot of progress being made in the are of mind sciences and why humans have morals. It is much easier to understand morality (ethics) from an evolutionary standpoint rather than a divine one.

 

[RandFan]

how are you going to reason morals

I would like to live in a world where I'm likely to be treated fairly and ethically. I would like not to be murdered or abused and I would like to be safe in my possessions. Adhering to social norms that views murder, assault, and theft or behavior similar to these actions as criminal increases the likelihood that I won't suffer as a result of them.

I would encourage you to take a course in ethics. There is thousands of years of human reason into morality. Morals have evolved. There was a time when it was expected of people to be kind to their slaves. God (according to scripture) admonished people to treat slaves humanely. Today owning slaves is considered immoral. A very serious breech of moral code in most societies.

 

[Complexity]

And if society disagrees with you?

Morality just doesn't make sense without a social context and whether the reasons are well-formed or not the majority is going to determine what right and wrong, good and bad is. Then probably fight about it.

Don't be ridiculous.

Morality has nothing to do with a social context except for sheep.

The majority is ignorant, easily led, and beneath notice. They can annoy, harass, steal, imprison, and kill with impunity, but they have nothing to do with morality. They have power, that is all.

The majority, or the powers that manipulate them, will decide what is legal and illegal, but legality has nothing to do with morality.

 

[lostnick3]

Ethics, morals: try to do what is best for humanity. How do you define "best" and "humanity"? That's something we can debate.

How do you get morals from Jesus? Just do what he told you? Why him? That doesn't strike me as moral. It's lazy.

best would be the opposite of worst used for comparison of whatever at the time of comparison.

humanity in my definition would be the collective of every man woman and child on the planet

my morals? Jesus! I said I try to follow the teachings of Jesus and my Indian role model T. Siva. Jesus hasn't spoke to me, just so you know.
I like it in that Jesus allegedly hung with the dregs of society, I'm happy to report that I have occupied that position (dregs) a time or two.
as i understand it his core message was love, forgiveness, feed the poor and heal the sick. and I find comfort in the statement attributed to him "as you treat the least of these you treat me" while trying to stabilize a shank stuck threw some psychopath's liver during a riot.

for me its as far from lazy as you can get, I've looked into different belief systems, reading, discussing, sometimes a little knuckle and scull reasoning, the slowly chose the God Jesus said he represented.

God and the universe play by the same rules.

 

[delphi_ote]

for me its as far from lazy as you can get, I've looked into different belief systems, reading, discussing, sometimes a little knuckle and scull reasoning, the slowly chose the God Jesus said he represented.

And what process did you use to decide that the God Jesus represented was right?

 

[UrsulaV]

how are you going to reason morals

It's fairly simple. I consider how I'd like to be treated, and therefore extrapolate that others probably wish to be treated similiarly (unless they state otherwise.) I then attempt to reason out the best way to accomplish this for the greatest number, while minimizing the sort of suffering that I would not wish to suffer myself.

It has the great advantage that if my methods turn out to be wrong or inefficient, and a better one comes along, I can adopt it. When one's morality is based on belief in a God, there's all kinds of mental gymnastics one must go through to accomodate, whereas having a morality based on reason, I can just go "Goodness! You're right, that IS reasonable! Sign me up!"

I must remind you again that merely because you cannot concieve of a morality based on reason doesn't mean it can't be done by others. I cannot concieve of most of the stuff in higher mathematics, but I am not arrogant enough to assume that therefore, nobody else can either.

 

[RandFan]

Don't be ridiculous.

Morality has nothing to do with a social context except for sheep.

The majority is ignorant, easily led, and beneath notice. They can annoy, harass, steal, imprison, and kill with impunity, but they have nothing to do with morality. They have power, that is all.

The majority, or the powers that manipulate them, will decide what is legal and illegal, but legality has nothing to do with morality.

I'm sorry you are so cynical and contemptuous of people. I note that this view is very popular with the conspiracy theory crowd. I've been dealing with them a lot lately.

I'm not making any claims or aspersions but I can't help but wonder if there is any connection. If not then accept my apology for asking in the first place.

There is little substance to your post other than unsubstantiated opinion so there is little to offer but contradiction on my part.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[lostnick3]

You've gone off on a tangent. I'm glad we are in agreement but I'm not sure to what degree we differ. Morals were likely constructed by humans and god was given credit for them to give them authority. It is a human trait that is demonstrated in different cultures that have different morals.

A good example is the urban myth that attempt to teach morals by using fear. Humans want other humans to conform to their morals so they find ways to enforce these morals.

In the end parsimony says that morals are human constructs and are in large part evolutionary based. There is btw a lot of progress being made in the are of mind sciences and why humans have morals. It is much easier to understand morality (ethics) from an evolutionary standpoint rather than a divine one.

note this is my third try the data base ate the other two

Tangent and rants are a specialty of mine as you've noticed.

what we agreed on was that the existence of god could be neither proved or disproved by philosophical argument. I think that this thread has made two maybe three complete circles around that idea.

I'm calling You on the urban myth is that like a urban legend ?
parsimony sounds like a UFOs trick. but I'm in complete agreement on the mind sciences, evolution and the scientific method.

I think the problem with understanding my posts are that i try to be honest, think through to an answer and answer each question posed to me or just posed in the post I'm addressing rather than just answering the questions that will make me look good on the thread. We could be actually talking about God

 

[lostnick3]

And what process did you use to decide that the God Jesus represented was right?

elimination

 

[lostnick3]

It's fairly simple. I consider how I'd like to be treated, and therefore extrapolate that others probably wish to be treated similiarly (unless they state otherwise.) I then attempt to reason out the best way to accomplish this for the greatest number, while minimizing the sort of suffering that I would not wish to suffer myself.

It has the great advantage that if my methods turn out to be wrong or inefficient, and a better one comes along, I can adopt it. When one's morality is based on belief in a God, there's all kinds of mental gymnastics one must go through to accomodate, whereas having a morality based on reason, I can just go "Goodness! You're right, that IS reasonable! Sign me up!"

I must remind you again that merely because you cannot concieve of a morality based on reason doesn't mean it can't be done by others. I cannot concieve of most of the stuff in higher mathematics, but I am not arrogant enough to assume that therefore, nobody else can either.

I'm not all that reasonable and rational thats why I live on the fringes of society. what I'm asking is by what yardstick or measuring device does reason start deciding what morality is? the way you or society thinks or votes isn't gonna fly especially on this thread.

when you say murder is wrong you leave a lot of wiggle space to kill people with.

 

[delphi_ote]

elimination

What was your criterion for eliminating the other possibilities?

 

[RandFan]

I'm calling You on the urban myth is that like a urban legend ?

Not "like", it is the same thing.

parsimony sounds like a UFOs trick.

See William of Ockham(Ockham's Razor).

but I'm in complete agreement on the mind sciences, evolution and the scientific method.

I think the problem with understanding my posts are that i try to be honest, think through to an answer and answer each question posed to me or just posed in the post I'm addressing rather than just answering the questions that will make me look good on the thread. We could be actually talking about God

I understood everything but the last sentence. We could actually be talking about the Matrix, UFO's or dreaming. I prefer to stick with what is likely rather than the fanciful.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[lostnick3]

What was your criterion for eliminating the other possibilities?

They tended to eliminate themselves, with Zen it takes forever to reach selfenlightment. they had just started measuring brain wave activity and bio feedback became possible. so the thought was by using bio feedback techniques you obtain the brain wave pattern of a Zen Master in a very short time. I'm still waiting for the kit.

EST, Moonies, hairy fishnuts, scientologists, Jesus Freaks nonstarters

Being nocturnal by nature I spend time looking up for meteors, and in the proses ponder the universe. the conclusion is that someone had to make all this stuff and that I have to be comfortable with the answer. the official Christians always got stuff like that wrong. and Taoism was a copout.

sooo it boiled down to a God who's very nature was beyond understanding who had designed and created this universe( project X7n ) and one or more prior to this as evidenced by human oral tradition.

and the fact I've cheated death so many times the word miracle comes to mind. (Death wears a black hooded cossack and carries scythe)

if that even comes close.

 

[lostnick3]

Not "like", it is the same thing.

See William of Ockham(Ockham's Razor).

I understood everything but the last sentence. We could actually be talking about the Matrix, UFO's or dreaming. I prefer to stick with what is likely rather than the fanciful.

Thanks,

RandFan

I think I've heard or read about every urban legond going and can usually spot on at 5 feet.I'm a big Jan Harold Brunvand fan. I don"t think the one you mentioned qualified.

I tried Ockham's razor either here or the nutball thread It wouldn't fly.

aloha

lostnick3
although I did call it fireproofing.

 

[slingblade]

I think I've heard or read about every urban legond going and can usually spot on at 5 feet.I'm a big Jan Harold Brunvand fan. I don"t think the one you mentioned qualified.

He didn't mention "one." He mentioned a type: the types of urban myths and legends that use fear to influence the behavior and/or thinking of others.

I tried Ockham's razor either here or the nutball thread It wouldn't fly.

Maybe you didn't throw it high enough.

Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

IOW, the simpler, the better. In what way do you find this unworkable?

 

[UrsulaV]

I'm not all that reasonable and rational thats why I live on the fringes of society. what I'm asking is by what yardstick or measuring device does reason start deciding what morality is?

For the second time now, the yardstick is "how would I wish to be treated myself." It's empathy, if you must have a single word for it. I am intimately aware of my own experience, I know very well how I would wish to be treated in most circumstances, and I try to extrapolate logically from there.

No mystical guru or god required. Just personal experience.

You're right that there's a lot of wiggle room in not murdering people. There NEEDS to be a lot of wiggle room in complex moral issues. By judging for myself based on reason and personal experience, I HAVE that wiggle room. If all I've got is a book saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill" or a God that isn't around to take questions, I lose valuable flexibility in dealing with a complicated world.

 

[delphi_ote]

They tended to eliminate themselves, with Zen it takes forever to reach selfenlightment. they had just started measuring brain wave activity and bio feedback became possible. so the thought was by using bio feedback techniques you obtain the brain wave pattern of a Zen Master in a very short time. I'm still waiting for the kit.

EST, Moonies, hairy fishnuts, scientologists, Jesus Freaks nonstarters

Being nocturnal by nature I spend time looking up for meteors, and in the proses ponder the universe. the conclusion is that someone had to make all this stuff and that I have to be comfortable with the answer. the official Christians always got stuff like that wrong. and Taoism was a copout.

sooo it boiled down to a God who's very nature was beyond understanding who had designed and created this universe( project X7n ) and one or more prior to this as evidenced by human oral tradition.

and the fact I've cheated death so many times the word miracle comes to mind. (Death wears a black hooded cossack and carries scythe)

if that even comes close.

So, like everyone else here, you used reason to get your morals.