Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2014, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 01:44 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  [quote]How about you take 5 religions and tell us exactly where that is found in the teachings of those 5.

Well, the three Abrahamic religions contain the same origin stories involving the knowledge of Good and Evil, existing at the time of the creation of men, prior to any holy book, or religion being conceived. That man is created in the image of God.

But here a couple of quick references to illustrate this elsewhere among various religious traditions:

Islam:
“In Qur’ān verses 91:7–8, God the Almighty talks about how He has perfected the soul, the conscience and has taught it the wrong (fujūr) and right (taqwā). Hence, the awareness of vice and virtue is inherent in the soul, allowing it to be tested fairly in the life of this world and tried, held accountable on the day of judgment for responsibilities to God and all humans” -wikipedia

Catholicism:
“Catholic theology sees conscience as the last practical "judgment of reason which at the appropriate moment enjoins [a person] to do good and to avoid evil". Thus, conscience is not like the will, nor a habit like prudence, but "the interior space in which we can listen to and hear the truth, the good, the voice of God. It is the inner place of our relationship with Him, who speaks to our heart and helps us to discern, to understand the path we ought to take, and once the decision is made, to move forward, to remain faithful”

Buddhism:
“Conscience thus manifests in Buddhism as unselfish love for all living beings which gradually intensifies and awakens to a purer awareness[19] where the mind withdraws from sensory interests and becomes aware of itself as a single whole.”

In the words of the buddhist monk and scholar, “Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality." -Bhikkhu Bodhi,

Pagan thought:
Marcus Aurelius:
“The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations that conscience was the human capacity to live by rational principles that were congruent with the true, tranquil and harmonious nature of our mind and thereby that of the Universe: "To move from one unselfish action to another with God in mind. Only there, delight and stillness ... the only rewards of our existence here are an unstained character and unselfish acts.””

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience

Plato:
“in the knowable the last thing to be seen, and that with considerable effort, is the idea of the good; “

Hinduism:
"Morality proceeds from the inner spirit of man. ......
In times of confusion and crisis regarding what is right and what is wrong, one's own conscience is the sole guide. "In times of doubt, O, son of Kunti [Arjuna], one must decide using one's own good sense."

http://koausa.org/hindudharma/8.html

New testement:
Apostle Paul on observing the moral behavior of the Gentiles:

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness”- Roman 2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Coincidentally, I was watching this little compilation a few hours ago...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 01:58 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 02:17 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 01:15 PM)Sam Wrote:  Bullshit... Some of the architecture, art and music I will give them, but our modern morality and philosophy comes from the Enlightenment... Christianity held the western world back for hundreds of years.

This is an interesting proposition though. What did Christianity hold us back from? It seems to suggest some sort of suppression or hindering of some moral impulse? Was there some sense of moral direction, which Christianity took us off the path from, and became an obstacle preventing us from seeing it clearly?

Enlightenment era thinking didn't arise in a vacuum, but among a western culture ingrained with a religious views of the world for several hundred years.

Now either this western thinking arose out of a christian view of the world, a product of sublime religious indoctrinations, or arose from something else, such as the moral direction these thinkers conceived of, arose through reason and contemplation of what's true beyond any religion, or holy book, or tradition. Either life has a moral direction, and they perceived the reality of this while conceiving their moral philosophies, or they borrowed this sense of the moral arc of life, from the religious traditions that have longed believed this to be the case, and have indoctrinated their cultures into believing the same.

Either our inner lives reveal that empathy, love, unselfishness are supreme values, that Paul's claim that love is the highest of all virtues, doesn't stem from any religious indoctrination, but as expression of some inner truth, or this high view of love is the product of such cultural and religious indoctrinations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:00 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?
If you don't go around killing people and stealing then obviously you are employing Christian morals. It's the ten commandment you know.
It took god and Jesus to think of those things,

Except of course, it's OK to kill opposing tribes, steal their stuff and rape their virgin girls.

Gotta love Christianity. God is LOVE don't ya know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 02:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
Islam is not an "Abrahamic religion". It's an Arabic moon-god cult. It has NOTHING to do with "Abraham". In fact the Hebrews were told to stop worshiping the god that the origins of Islam had.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ns?page=25 (post 247)
A claim in an origin myth (written MUCH MUCH later) that a people or culture actually HAD idea is NO PROOF of any actual knowledge existed in either the religion or culture. Fail. F-. You must demonstrate the ORIGIN and dating of the idea AND the definition of the idea. "Created in the image of a god" proves nothing. The deity had the moral values ? That gets us nowhere. The deity could have been an evil deity.

If "good and evil is "presumed" knowledge, then you've just proven yourself wrong. We KNOW for a fact that the Hebrew concept of "evil" was "chaos" (see Martin Buber, Jewish scholar and philosopher "Good and Evil" (Part II)

We know the Muslim communities don't agree AT ALL with each other in the interpretation and about which is correct or authentic Islam.

Catholicism presumes (and explicitly states) that a conscience has been "correctly formed" and so actually this religion IN NO WAY supports your claim, and their "formation dogma" refutes it.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Pagan thought:
Marcus Aurelius:
“The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations that conscience was the human capacity to live by rational principles that were congruent with the true, tranquil and harmonious nature of our mind and thereby that of the Universe: "To move from one unselfish action to another with God in mind. Only there, delight and stillness ... the only rewards of our existence here are an unstained character and unselfish acts.””

Totally dependent on learned values FROM the culture the person learned from.
Not accepted.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Plato:
“in the knowable the last thing to be seen, and that with considerable effort, is the idea of the good; “

Sincere people disagree all the time about what is the "good". Fail.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Hinduism:
"Morality proceeds from the inner spirit of man. ......
In times of confusion and crisis regarding what is right and what is wrong, one's own conscience is the sole guide. "In times of doubt, O, son of Kunti [Arjuna], one must decide using one's own good sense."

Exactly. Relative to each mind's (learned) interpretation. Thanks for making my point. Do 7 year olds know how to make "moral decisions" ? No. They LEARN their values.

(25-12-2014 09:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Apostle Paul on observing the moral behavior of the Gentiles:

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness”- Roman 2

Yet HE HIMSELF said they were freed from the "old law". He was THE definition of equivocation concerning moral matters.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 01:51 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Coincidentally, I was watching this little compilation a few hours ago...




Ah, yes Sam Harris, my favorite new atheist, particularly after his most recent book, Waking Up, let's see what he has to say:

“The interesting thing about this final shift in perspective was that it was not driven by any change in the way I felt. I was not overwhelmed by a new feeling of love. The insight had more the character of a geometric proof: It was as if, having glimpsed the properties of one set of parallel lines, I suddenly understood what must be common to them all.
The moment I could find a voice with which to speak, I discovered that this epiphany about the universality of love could be readily communicated. My friend got the point at once: All I had to do was ask him how he would feel in the presence of a total stranger at that moment, and the same door opened in his mind. It was simply obvious that “love, compassion, and joy in the joy of others extended without limit. The experience was not of love growing but of its being no longer obscured. Love was—as advertised by mystics and crackpots through the ages—a state of being. How had we not seen this before? And how could we overlook it ever again?

It would take me many years to put this experience into context. Until that moment, I had viewed organized religion as merely a monument to the ignorance and superstition of our ancestors. But I now knew that Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and the other saints and sages of history had not all been epileptics, schizophrenics, or frauds. I still considered the world’s religions to be mere intellectual ruins, maintained at enormous economic and social cost, but I now understood that important psychological truths could be found in the rubble.”

Excerpt From: Sam Harris. “Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.” iBooks. ”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 12:07 PM)Free Wrote:  
(24-12-2014 05:05 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  I've seen this come up in assorted threads, the notion that atheists, not having a moral foundation, use religious morals.

Excuse me?

Is that meant to imply that if I act in a manner someone devout would call "moral", that I was only capable of acting that way because I learned it from religion?

What would be an example of something "moral" that ONLY someone religious would be capable of?

This appropriation of "morality" as if it's the exclusive property of religion is one of the most colossal conceits the religiously sotted parade around.

I'll concede religionists do have title to something; it's theirs outright, but it isn't morality. It's sanctimony. And they can keep it.

In my opinion, all human morals stem from the ancient and inherent Ethic of Reciprocity, also known in theology as The Golden Rule.

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.


There are only two things that all sentient life forms attempt to do;

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


No matter what we do, it is impossible for any action we take to not serve one of the two listed above. These two listed above come from the most primal aspect all sentient life inherently has:

The Preservation of Self.

The preservation of self is like the "prime directive" of our sentient existence. It is at the root of all emotions as it is greatly influenced by the emotion of Fear. Fear is what compels us to preserve ourselves, and that preservation of self is accomplished by either increasing our pleasure, or decreasing our pain.

The Ethic Of Reciprocity resonates with all of us because each and every one of us inherently understands that we should not bring any harm to anyone that we would not want done to ourselves (decease our pain,) and since we inherently understand pleasure, we will do unto others those good things that we ourselves enjoy.

All true moral structure begins with the primal Preservation of Self, then is processed into either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, then from there it gets manifested and externally displayed as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

Theism has no claim on morality, as the origin or all morality was within all sentient life long before the existence of theology. Therefore, "The Registered Deed of Title to Morality" is inherently human.

There is no ethic of reciprocity in nature. It's not found anywhere. It is a religious construct with human beings that goes against our nature. It certainly is not "inherent" in us, as you claim. Good Lord, even with the most oppressive laws constantly breathing down our necks, the courts are still full to the brim, both civil and criminal.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 02:24 PM)Gordon Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 12:07 PM)Free Wrote:  In my opinion, all human morals stem from the ancient and inherent Ethic of Reciprocity, also known in theology as The Golden Rule.

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.


There are only two things that all sentient life forms attempt to do;

1. Increase our pleasure.

2. Decrease our pain.


No matter what we do, it is impossible for any action we take to not serve one of the two listed above. These two listed above come from the most primal aspect all sentient life inherently has:

The Preservation of Self.

The preservation of self is like the "prime directive" of our sentient existence. It is at the root of all emotions as it is greatly influenced by the emotion of Fear. Fear is what compels us to preserve ourselves, and that preservation of self is accomplished by either increasing our pleasure, or decreasing our pain.

The Ethic Of Reciprocity resonates with all of us because each and every one of us inherently understands that we should not bring any harm to anyone that we would not want done to ourselves (decease our pain,) and since we inherently understand pleasure, we will do unto others those good things that we ourselves enjoy.

All true moral structure begins with the primal Preservation of Self, then is processed into either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain, then from there it gets manifested and externally displayed as the Ethic of Reciprocity.

Theism has no claim on morality, as the origin or all morality was within all sentient life long before the existence of theology. Therefore, "The Registered Deed of Title to Morality" is inherently human.

There is no ethic of reciprocity in nature. It's not found anywhere. It is a religious construct with human beings that goes against our nature. It certainly is not "inherent" in us, as you claim. Good Lord, even with the most oppressive laws constantly breathing down our necks, the courts are still full to the brim, both civil and criminal.

Wrong. Apes and even rats have been demonstrated to have it. References, or STFU.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 02:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-12-2014 02:24 PM)Gordon Wrote:  There is no ethic of reciprocity in nature. It's not found anywhere. It is a religious construct with human beings that goes against our nature. It certainly is not "inherent" in us, as you claim. Good Lord, even with the most oppressive laws constantly breathing down our necks, the courts are still full to the brim, both civil and criminal.

Wrong. Apes and even rats have been demonstrated to have it. References, or STFU.

References? [Image: wtf.gif] Look around you.

Rats? Apes? They only do for their offspring. And how in the hell would you verify that any action they were doing had a sense of guilt or fair play attached to it?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2014, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2014 02:44 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Registered Deed of Title to Morality
(25-12-2014 02:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sincere people disagree all the time about what is the "good". Fail.

Ah, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not claiming that all religious people view the same exact things as moral and immoral, as good and bad, that their understanding of what is good is consistent in such a away.

But the quotes that I was providing, was to reveal that these religious thinkers believed that life has some sort of moral direction, that it was inservice to something higher. They perceived that life has some sort of moral arc, not that they perceived the full dimensions of this, but at the very least perceived as a glimpse.

But one commonality that seems to exists among various religious tradition and thinkers, in regards to this direction, is that it points towards things such as empathy, and unselfishness, in the direction of compassion and love.

No matter wherever else they disagree, they all seem to agree that human life is directed toward a a sense of compassionate life, even if these individuals were incapable of embodying the sense of life they perceived. Even if they acted and vouched for ways contrary to this direction elsewhere.


Quote:Totally dependent on learned values FROM the culture the person learned from.

If that's the case, then where did the enlightenment era thinkers learn their moral values from? From the religious cultures of their time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: