Were does morality come from ?

[undercoverbrother]

As the story goes, there is a supposed higher power that started all the torturing in the history of humanity by slowly drowning men, women, children and babies, and as it took several days, one must come to the understanding that if this god did not want to slowly torture all these humans and if indeed he was as all powerful as he says he is, he could have simply wished the humans into non-existence.

But as his actions took some time and much misery and pain to inflict one must conclude that he enjoyed it. So at least we know that this god believes it is acceptable to toture babies for personal enjoyment.

Therefore the correct conclusion is to believe that if this creature is the giver of all morality then the believers as well would believe that torturing babies for fun is perfectly acceptable.

God has divine prerogative. To whom does one compare a god? Another God? Then God is not God.

Now, that bit about to torturing babies: God can do whatever he wants in his sandbox. If God says torture is bad, then it is bad. If you are the one being tortured by God, shut up an submit to the glorious will of God.

Wanna know what is even more glorious than this? Populations of people in hell being willfully and purposely tortured by the Christian God.

The Christian must admit that God, being all-powerful, chooses what he will and will not do. Therefore, God, knowing the end from the beginning, planned, from the beginning, to create people for the purpose of going to hell. Not only so, but he continues to choose this scenario according to the Christian scheme.

The Christian also must confess, as God is all-powerful and all-knowing, that God thought it was best to allow and will evil in his creation. In other words, since God does all things for his glory, he permitted evil for his gloryâ€"even the evil of Jesus dying on the cross and baby-torturing.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

'It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure'.

No. I'll qualify that by saying this: you can't argue absolutes from a moral perspective.

From an intellectual perspective, it is highly unnecessary and perhaps just a bit unwise. Even male lions, who frequently kill the cubs of other males, don't waste time getting to the business of killing. Why would they? Time wasted on torture is time another lion can use to intervene and kill them. Humans go a step further than lions, since we have a revenge instinct. Torturing a baby to death basically guarantees that you'll have an angry mob after your ass.

The point is moot, since the only way a human would be capable of killing, much less torturing babies is if they have sociopathy. We have built-in mechanisms in our brains that physically prevent us from harming not only the young of our own species, but the young of pretty much any mammal and even a few reptiles.

[aitm]

God has divine prerogative. To whom does one compare a god? Another God? Then God is not God.

Now, that bit about to torturing babies: God can do whatever he wants in his sandbox. If God says torture is bad, then it is bad. If you are the one being tortured by God, shut up an submit to the glorious will of God.

Wanna know what is even more glorious than this? Populations of people in hell being willfully and purposely tortured by the Christian God.

The Christian must admit that God, being all-powerful, chooses what he will and will not do. Therefore, God, knowing the end from the beginning, planned, from the beginning, to create people for the purpose of going to hell. Not only so, but he continues to choose this scenario according to the Christian scheme.

The Christian also must confess, as God is all-powerful and all-knowing, that God thought it was best to allow and will evil in his creation. In other words, since God does all things for his glory, he permitted evil for his gloryâ€"even the evil of Jesus dying on the cross and baby-torturing.

Thats what I thought. You're so embarrassed by your own religion that you'll pretty much make up any excuse to cover up your stupidity. Good luck twit, the cats already out of the bag.

[undercoverbrother]

Thats what I thought. You're so embarrassed by your own religion that you'll pretty much make up any excuse to cover up your stupidity. Good luck twit, the cats already out of the bag.

Kinda sounds like you just called me a Christian.

[JohnnyB1993]

No. I'll qualify that by saying this: you can't argue absolutes from a moral perspective.

The point is moot, since the only way a human would be capable of killing, much less torturing babies is if they have sociopathy. We have built-in mechanisms in our brains that physically prevent us from harming not only the young of our own species, but the young of pretty much any mammal and even a few reptiles.

What you are implying is that the human with sociopathy is not really a human at all.  After all, a real human has mechanisms that would prevent him or herself from harming a baby.  Therefore, it is not really the sociopath's fault for tortuing a baby to death just for the mere personal pleasure.  You can't blame the innocent person for just 'having' sociopathy can you?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

What you are implying is that the human with sociopathy is not really a human at all.  After all, a real human has mechanisms that would prevent him or herself from harming a baby.  Therefore, it is not really the sociopath's fault for tortuing a baby to death just for the mere personal pleasure.  You can't blame the innocent person for just 'having' sociopathy can you?

No more than I can blame a bear for mauling my farm animals. Doesn't mean I'm not going to shoot the bear.

[aitm]

Kinda sounds like you just called me a Christian.

ah,,when we get these monkeys shitting all over the house sometimes I kick in the wrong direction, sorry bout that.

[undercoverbrother]

ah,,when we get these monkeys shitting all over the house sometimes I kick in the wrong direction, sorry bout that.

With all my serious criticisms of Christianity, I'm surprised you could not tell I am not a Christian. Maybe I'm holding back to much.

[JohnnyB1993]

No more than I can blame a bear for mauling my farm animals. Doesn't mean I'm not going to shoot the bear.

Agreed

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Agreed

Glad we understand each other.

[Sal1981]

We are not talking about how the world works 'physically'.  i specifically asked a question on how the world works 'morally'.  You say that there there is nothing wrong on learning how the world works morally by yourself.  But I could easily argue that there is nothing RIGHT on learning how the world works morally by yourself.  Hitler learned by himself that Jews should be exterminated.  However I think we both agree that Hitler was morally wrong to come to this conclusion.

I don't know how or why Hitler decided that, but I doubt he "learned by himself" as you state. Besides, learning by yourself, doesn't mean you come to right conclusions, I was just stating what is possible. Moral behavior is moot if you don't interact with anyone but yourself.

Sure, you can argue there is nothing right on learning morality by yourself, be my guest. I just think that at the end of the day, if it is someone teaching you it or finding it out by yourself, you're gonna have to accept and internalize what is moral behavior, self-taught or not. Discovering what is moral seems to me to be commendable, if not redundant as well, since there are plenty of people around you to suggest what is good morality.

This simply is not true.  Please read what I write though.  I completely AGREE with you that the Golden run CAN be thought up with interaction with other people.  However, lets say that there is NO ONE to teach you this.  You have said that one must have a twisted mind if they believe that they can get away with murder, even if no one told them it was wrong.  That is your just your opinion though.  It is simply your subjective idea.  I do not believe you though.  I need something more objective than your subjective opinion.  To me it seems absolutely logically possible, that if no one taught you morals than you may end up believing that it is O.K to murder if you can get away from it.  Can you give me any objective foundation to your morals, without relying upon just your subjective thoughts or feelings?

I don't have any "objective foundation". I learned from my parents (not so much) and from my siblings (pretty much), culture and overall society; yet these are just from my own onlooking, nothing objective about it.

If no one told me murder was wrong, why do you think I, or anyone else for that matter, would automatically assume it was OK if I got away with it?

I'm not the one pushing for objective morals - I think that's impossible because of how morality is.

[undercoverbrother]

Oops wrong thread.

[Ace101]

Hi everyone

I have just being listening to the fuel project and really enjoying the series, great teaching. I would love to hear some feedback regarding the below video, were does morality come from ?, its really short about 10 min, let me know your thoughts.

click the link or youtube , the fuel project - where morality comes from

*removed personal link* -PickelledEggs

The problem with this is that many Christians will dodge the question by just saying "morality comes from the Bible..."

...but this doesn't explain how the Christian used his own judgment to decide that the Bible was moral (as opposed to the Koran or anything else).

When you start to ask Christians questions like this, is when they start to become all wishy-washy about their morality and how they used their own notion of morality to arrive at that conclusion.

[Solitary]

Who the fucks morality are we talking about? Every society throughout history have their own morality, even very primitive ones. Even animals have to learn from their parents or peers what is right and wrong. "Ouch, that hurt!" Why did you hit me, because you hit me and it hurt dumb ass!" "Why are you crying?" Hits him in the nose so it bleeds. "Crying, Oh now I understand."    Solitary

[trdsf]

...but this doesn't explain how the Christian used his own judgment to decide that the Bible was moral (as opposed to the Koran or anything else).

The thing is, they didn't.  If they were raised in a religion, they were told it as they were growing up, not only by their most regular authority figures (their parents), but also by the ones their parents deferred to (their local priest/rabbi/imam/etc).  I've quoted this old Jesuit saying before here, and I'll do it again now because it's generally true: "Give me the child for seven years and I will give you the man."

The point is, most of them never really have used their own judgment on the matter.  They were told it early enough and often enough that it wouldn't even occur to them to question it -- 'deciding' and 'judgment' have never entered into it for them.  They were given over as children... ecce homo.