I think we're all born inherently selfish with a huge need of self-preservation.
What is your assertion (remember it has to fit primitive man and modern man)
I think that the quest to propagate may be inherent resulting in social law, but I wouldn't call that an ingrained moral code.
Should we allow people to kill others to take what's theirs? Should we allow adults to torture children for fun? How about animals? Should we allow men to **** women whenever they want? No. EVEN IF THAT'S A PART OF SOMEONE'S CULTURE, THOSE THINGS ARE INHERENTLY WRONG, immoral, unethical- whatever you want to call it. I'm no Kantian, but some things are just self-evident and clear.
Clearly, we don't and shouldn't apply moral relativism to those situations. Which means- moral relativism is more or less self-evidently bogus. The instant you make an exception to moral relativism, you destroy moral relativism.
So: how can you come on this board, obviously having read a few books in your lifetime, and spew that nonsense to the unlearned, impressionable savages??
I believe morals are set by laws, generally aimed at protecting pne's self interest, and therefore by extension protecting everyone. We claim killing is morally wrong, because we don't want to be killed...same with ****, etc. when we see this act perpetrated on others, we naturally view this as an act that could have happened to ourselves, generating compassion.
I get the feeling that you think I am championing the right of others to set their own distinct moral code...I am not. Rather I am refusing to concede on he point that different moral codes exist while simultaneously offering that divine inspiration is not the root of any form of moral truth. Animal survival is the root, resulting in emotional reaction over generation, ending with a moral belief.
In summation, every person has his own moral code, shaped by generations of human coexistence. There is a universal truth in my opinion, but I do not discount the morals of aboriginal people that had to implement their code based upon a totally different set of personal and generational experiences. We are constantly in search of and diligently pursue this universal truth on a macro scale, that being true morals.
That's all well and good and I generally believe in you. But I think we agree that "moral relativism" as an actual philosophical ethos is bunk-tastic.
So, more pics of the GF?
I actually agree with your point; however I'm not a literalist. I'm just trying to figure out how you (or your pastor) can believe humans; including Eve I presume; are preprogrammed when that's not what a literal interpretation indicates.
Obviously we are preprogrammed to know right from wrong. Despite what you believe, even atheists have a moral compass.
Back on OUI, some idiot created a thread the night Reggie Bush won the Heisman. I guess Reggie thanked God and thanked his mom and dad. The thread was titled Reggie Bush displayed Christian values tonight. It was a ****ing riot, not to mention the original post itself was ridiculous. But I like to come back every year and say that the heisman winner displayed Christian values. It always leads to great reads.
See you guys next year.
the rest of us were born with a conscience
adam/eve may have been created with a conscience.......maybe God gave it to them after eating the fruit......i have no clue....
Where did manziels chicks lips go?
My moral code:
New International Version (NIV)
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Even an atheist like me gets it.
It's just a good moral idea everyone tends to believe. Don't need all of those religions to tell us that.
No, I am claiming that chimps have morality free from religion, as rationality is the basis for morals.
How is thread at 3 pages with no explanation of what exactly Johnny Dipshit did to display "Christian" values?
It's a hard dance to dance for those trying to weave objective morality without a God. At least Nietzsche was honest when he said that when God died, so did good and evil.
I have talked to a lot of people who consider themselves atheists, agnostics, luke warm Christians, secularists and humanists. After you peal off the layers of their "intellectual" disbelief in God, I've always found an emotional reason for not believing in God. It's either the problem of evil/pain, or the problem of pleasure.
If you take today's tragedy and try to give an answer, how do you begin? The atheist says, if there was a God tragedies like these would not happen. Let's say there is no God. You still have the problem of evil, and children dying in schools, but you have no objective framework to try and solve this issue, and neither do you have any hope. Why does evolution give us the ability to kill people, but also gives us the morality to feel bad about it? Why has evolution bestowed upon us so much pain and suffering? Why has evolution given rise to people like Hitler, Stalin and so on? Is survival the only morality? If it is, why then do we care when calamity strikes other other people? Where does justice come from? Where does heroism come from? Where does altruism come from? Where does evolution come from? Where does matter come from? Where does the order under the surface come from (Einstein)?
Without God, the answers to the above questions rely on the luck that the cosmic nothingness has bestowed upon us. I don't think those mothers who lost their children would feel very comforted to know that father nothingness found their children simply unlucky.