Are you claiming that morals/ethics cannot exist without a God? Further, I'll point out that the vast majority of atheists probably find beheading infidels to be morally reprehensible. And, that "moral" value actually stems from a religion. Thus, it's quite possible that a set of moral values developed atheistically might be more "universally moral" if there is such a thing. In fact, I'll point out that certain societal values - morals if you will - did NOT stem from religion. E.g., animal abuse. Humane treatment of animals does not originate Biblically or from any Abrahamic religion.No, because you have to define what a "morally good life" is. Even further, you'd have to define what are "good morals". Every person differs on this answer.
Why do I say this?
Without a universal set of morals, people would continue making their own morals which conflict with the morals of others (i,e. beheading infidels is morally correct for some people, or sleeping with any man/woman you want irregardless of their marital status, or robbing and stealing when you're broke and need food).
My point is that morals have to be absolute for us to function as a society while not stepping on each others' toes, so to speak. Religion and religious texts attempts to do this by establishing a set of morals all adherents have to live by to have a peacful co-existence.
In short, you cannot just expect religions who claim to represent God to simply say "live a morally good life".
You haven't begun to explain what that even means. If you do, you're bound to make absolutes, which you will, and make my point for me.
Rob's argument:Without a universal set of morals, people would continue making their own morals which conflict with the morals of others (i,e. beheading infidels is morally correct for some people, or sleeping with any man/woman you want irregardless of their marital status, or robbing and stealing when you're broke and need food).
My point is that morals have to be absolute for us to function as a society while not stepping on each others' toes, so to speak. Religion and religious texts attempts to do this by establishing a set of morals all adherents have to live by to have a peacful co-existence.
You give no good reason to believe that is the case.In short, you cannot just expect religions who claim to represent God to simply say "live a morally good life".
So... you're not sure what it means, but you're darn sure it can't be a good basis for a religion.You haven't begun to explain what that even means. If you do, you're bound to make absolutes, which you will, and make my point for me.
Are you claiming that morals/ethics cannot exist without a God? Further, I'll point out that the vast majority of atheists probably find beheading infidels to be morally reprehensible. And, that "moral" value actually stems from a religion. Thus, it's quite possible that a set of moral values developed atheistically might be more "universally moral" if there is such a thing. In fact, I'll point out that certain societal values - morals if you will - did NOT stem from religion. E.g., animal abuse. Humane treatment of animals does not originate Biblically or from any Abrahamic religion.
So you're not trying to live a morally good life, then?I'm claiming that living a morally good life doesn't mean anything.
Not true in the slightest. The terms "moral" and "good" have a common usage which is sufficient to falsify your silly statements.My point was that atheists love to say that, but they never explain what that means in an attempt to avoid being dogmatic.
Absolutely, stupidly false.No defined morals means that anything goes.
No, you really don't.So my point is you have to be clear on what you mean by a morally good life.
It's just my opinion. Sorry if I confused you, if I have facts I'll post sources. But I think it makes perfect sense. You will only find yourself in a universe in which you can live, not in one in which you cannot live.I said that I find it odd. Then you said, as if its a fact, that it is not odd. You could have said that you don't find it odd, but no. You speak with an odd sense of certainty. You are just another know it all atheist who marches into a thread, dictating facts and telling people they don't understand this, and don't understand that, blah blah blah. Save it.
quote:
Originally posted by retro rob
i'm claiming that living a morally good life doesn't mean anything.
So you're not trying to live a morally good life, then? <-- putting words into his mouth again...that is not what he is saying and you know it!!
quote:
My point was that atheists love to say that, but they never explain what that means in an attempt to avoid being dogmatic.
Not true in the slightest. The terms "moral" and "good" have a common usage which is sufficient to falsify your silly statements.<--- more atheistic mumble jumbo without answering the question......
quote:
No defined morals means that anything goes.
Absolutely, stupidly false. <--- you still have not answered the queston...rofl.....retro rob was right...quote:
So my point is you have to be clear on what you mean by a morally good life.
No, you really don't. <-- yes you do have to be clear....don`t muddy the water Cerpin...
Further, I'll point out that the vast majority of atheists probably find beheading infidels to be morally reprehensible.
I agree, I also find that reprehensible. But if we simply leave it at living a "morally good life", then they'll agree and live what they think is a "morally good" life (beheadings) and we'll live based on what we think is a "morally good" life (in part, ridding the world of people who think beheading infidels is morally good).
You can undoubtedly see how that simply cannot work, in that example anyway.
That's is the way "Atheists " operate.......supposedly you cannot prove scientifically feelings and as such people who claim there is a God because they "feel" their is a God or they claim there is a Holy Spirit because they feel the spirit are well just crazy...if it cannot be proven scientifically then it does not exists.......yet it is the Atheists who demand that somebody who says there is a God that they prove it....again you cannot prove feelings and others cannot feel exactly what you are feeling.......ahem...There is no such thing as morality because morality requires thought to compair, to divide into good and evil. The mind that is awake in the present has no division. There is only the spontaneous action of love. There is only God's will and the actions of those who manifest it are perfect. You folk are trying to understand via reasoning when all that is needed is feeling.
I feel that you're an overripe avocado with internet access. Therefore, you are.That's is the way "Atheists " operate.......supposedly you cannot prove scientifically feelings and as such people who claim there is a God because they "feel" their is a God or they claim there is a Holy Spirit because they feel the spirit are well just crazy...if it cannot be proven scientifically then it does not exists.......yet it is the Atheists who demand that somebody who says there is a God that they prove it....again you cannot prove feelings and others cannot feel exactly what you are feeling.......ahem...
That's is the way "Atheists " operate.......supposedly you cannot prove scientifically feelings and as such people who claim there is a God because they "feel" their is a God or they claim there is a Holy Spirit because they feel the spirit are well just crazy...if it cannot be proven scientifically then it does not exists.......yet it is the Atheists who demand that somebody who says there is a God that they prove it....again you cannot prove feelings and others cannot feel exactly what you are feeling.......ahem...
That's is the way "Atheists " operate.......supposedly you cannot prove scientifically feelings and as such people who claim there is a God because they "feel" their is a God or they claim there is a Holy Spirit because they feel the spirit are well just crazy...if it cannot be proven scientifically then it does not exists.......yet it is the Atheists who demand that somebody who says there is a God that they prove it....again you cannot prove feelings and others cannot feel exactly what you are feeling.......ahem...
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:What is there to prove. Imagine as a thought experiment that you are the universe. Who would you feel you needed to prove that to. You are the universe and you feel that state of being. There is only that state of being. You ARE the proof. The PROOF is your being.
I feel that you're an overripe avocado with internet access. Therefore, you are.
I thought if I were to ever drift into agnosticism from atheism, that it would be a process resulting from lots of evidence that made me second guess myself. My slide to agnosticism had nothing to do with evidence and little to do with scientific discovery, although discoveries have inspired me.
My own experience has me asking questions and becoming suspicious of something. No idea what that may be, but I feel as if though there is something going on that people wouldn't expect coming from a scientific, materialist world view.
Abrahamic religions, especially the literalists/creationists, believe humans are created in in their god's image; I'd say that would make it pretty hard to argue that being modeled after a god doesn't put us in highest favor...
the discovery of life more advanced than our own would be a pretty huge blow to such believers if it wasn't anthropomorphic (i.e. an incredibly huge likelihood when we consider species like dolphins, elephants, and crows), especially if that life isn't even carbon/water based
People that think animals have no soul are locked into the times where women had no say.
There is no such thing as morality because morality requires thought to compair, to divide into good and evil.