I think people are choosing to overlook the obvious. There is no objective morality.
In some societies it was perfectly acceptable to eat people.
Slavery was a matter of economics and morality wasn't something even considered until there was an effective means replacing human labor.
It is honorable to murder in certain contexts.
The theist may say that God gives reality to morals, but in that case it's a code of ethics which God would insist we obey. They aren't "real".
Likewise an atheistic view would be the same, but substituting societal consensus for God.
Morals are still a construct.
Everyone knows this.
Which is still arbitrary. The only reason why morals have any validity is that those who do not adopt those of a given society are punished.
It's the will of the many. It's not good or bad, it just is.
Wrong. In some societies its acceptable to eat your enemies and your guests whom you perceive to be invaders. Show me a society where it is acceptable to randomly eat a neighbor for no good reason. If there was one, by definition it would degenerate into anarchy very quickly.
If there was no moral absolute, tell me what grounds you would have for being angry at a child rapist or murderer. Would you really think your anger is only legitimate based on the climate of the society you live in?
there was a tribe that did eat their dead relatives as a way to get closer to them. That was the Fore tribe and it did have a nasty side effect, Kuru.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_(people)
Those that exhort the loudest must have some deep inner reason to do so.
must
In this case, the YOU is DominionSeraph because apparently he'd rather spout evasive, condescending doubletalk from up on high than answer a simple yes-no question.
Thats fine. But you can still have some semblance of a coherent society even with this practice. He was obviously talking about a *live* neighbor.
EDIT: Actually now that I read it again its not so obvious. But my point is, even if eating people is the norm for some societies, even those societies and those at the other end of the spectrum (whatever that means) must still agree on some universal moral values... Those being what it would take to maintain a peaceful society with the hope of building each other up.
Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated. Most of the sources indicate that she was nine years old at the time, with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten.
Oh, look! More condescending bullshit.Well, it certainly is amateur hour in here.
You do NOT give a general answer to a 'tard's poorly qualified question. He will take that answer (whatever it is) and force-filter for gotchas. With the combination of an indefinite answer leaving the 'scape wide open and the 'tard's illogical connections broadening it further, he will find some path that fits the bill. Once he has what he thinks is a clever gotcha, it is tied to his ego, making correction a difficult task. The very same point that he would have accepted easily 5 minutes before will now be fought against tooth and nail so he will not lose their perception of, "gotcha," and will not have to admit that there were gaping holes in his chain of reasoning.
You must strive to either lead the 'tard or to define things so finely that he cannot make a 'tard's coarse leap. You do not release the reins and let him strike forward without guidance because he'll just chain together jumped-to conclusions and then believe it. This is quite the problem because 'tards have no reverse gear!
Is there anything else you'd like to know about the mechanics of debate while you've got me on the subject?
My apologies. Allow me to clarify.
In this case, the YOU is DominionSeraph because apparently he'd rather spout evasive, condescending doubletalk from up on high than answer a simple yes-no question.
You missed the entire "higher" angle.
Reality makes the determination. It doesn't matter what you think, reality determines what works and what does not.
You cannot force your opinion on Mother Nature. To be in full defiance is to die. Mother Nature doesn't care if you think you can breathe vacuum or swim in lava -- your opinion is irrelevant.
Same goes for the reactions of other animals. Whether you punch a lion or a human in the nose, Mother Nature won't shield you from the consequences just because you have an opinion. The consequences will be what the consequences will be.
Morality not being absolute does not mean absolute freedom. You are still stuck within a system not of your choosing, with death being the only escape.
Wow... how old are you? I hope to hell you didn't manage to finish grade school without hearing about natural selection which is the base of the ToE.
Science can indeed prove why it exists, it exists because it's the very basis of evolution, species that don't survive don't procreate and those with the best ability to survive are the ones who survive, this is known as natural selection, when enough of people who carry this ability to survive procreate, the species change and provides a larger base of people being able to survive, when the environment changes, some are weeded out, others survive and procreate and on and on it goes until they become me, you i'm not so sure about, you're probably just a fluke.
You would do well to finish grade school, they will teach you about your inherent empathy, an evolved sense that all men except psychopats have, it involves the golden rule and it's experienced before you can even know the meaning of the words your parents tell you.
You can look at another person and understand how he feels without having to have felt it yourself, that is innate in most human beings and the only thing that can take it away is religion.
In reality, you are born with your humanity and that is the highest thing we know of until someone starts telling you that you are nothing but a servant to a higher being and that your choice, and your will or emotions don't matter, you are to be dedicated to a higher power than all of humanity... once you believe that shit... you get the Taliban, or the LTTE or the ETA or RIRA or LRA or Al Aqsa or Orthodox Jewish groups or whatever the fuck you like.
At that point you have given up humanity and you are now ruled by people telling you what "God" who is higher than all of humanity wants from you.
That you believe the bolded text merely shows how lacking in imagination you are.
Participating in close, loving relationships feels a lot better and is ultimately far more rewarding than living a life with no close connections. Being a part of a large community feels a lot better than being a loner. So if my purpose is to live the most enjoyable life possible, there are powerful motivators to engage in behaviors that foster close personal relationships and strong community bonds. That almost always means treating others with love and respect and creating strong public institutions.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that what is "moral" is what leads to the furtherance of "the good life." One doesn't need an invisible superbeing to understand that when I treat that beautiful young woman well, she starts treating me well in return. Her smiles are all I need to show me what is "right" and what is "wrong." Similarly, I prosper financially when I treat customers well, and I don't need God to show me that when I don't short-change my customers or provide them with inferior products, they continue to patronize my business.
People like you are so brainwashed by fantasies of immortality that you are unable to see that what is moral is right in front of your face. God need not apply.
Since when does morality need an "origin"? What does that even mean?I don't think anyone said it's proof of anything. It's just a challenge to atheists to identify the origin of their morality.
I get the feeling you're saying this purely because you've been brought up in a society that views killing and raping and stealing as being wrong.We do not need to be taught about killing and raping and stealing to think it is wrong. We naturally recoil from alot of wrong things unless we are desensitized. This "inner recoil" is part of our sense of morality. The "higher" aspect is the difference between man-made law and God-implanted inner sense of right and wrong.
Yes. I also think sea urchin tastes terrible, and that fire hurts when it burns my skin. I don't need anyone else to inform me of my own internal states.Do you have a problem with someone raping and murdering whoever they want to?
You don't get it: You claim that morality comes from God. But how, exactly, does one determine what God's morality is?
It violates the core value instilled by evolution. And that value doesn't need to be justified as being the product of another value system. That it exists is good enough.This is a baseless assumption. Sure we observe it, but science can't prove why it exists-- why evolution evolved the need to survive.
There is no need to survive, strictly speaking. Therefor, what reason is there why any member of society shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want?