Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dysgenic asked for an example of your war god's immorality. I provided one. I prefer to await his response.
I've heard yours ad nauseam.
Until you can actually define the word, it's irrelevant. Why is your example correct? If you don't know what morality is.....why should we believe you?
You say you've heard mine ad nauseum? Great. You've never actually answered my question. You've dodged it every single time.
Without the Bible or moral law, people operate according to their best self interests and desires.
I submit that YOU operate according to your self interest and desires. You simply mis-ascribe your particular judgments about your self interest and desires, to an externally imposed universal morality that comes from god (or apparently, in your view, the Bible itself).
Everyone has the same morality, it is just that people have different claims about where it originates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Millions of movies and songs have been downloaded without paying for it because there is no fear of consequence. That's stealing according to the copyright owners.
It is a question of whether the copyright owners want to be right, or happy. Smart copyright owners have figured out that the best response to piracy, by far, is to offer a paid service at a price that's attractive to consumers, that provides better quality, more conveniently accessed content than can be had via piracy. Piracy is more push back against the lousy value proposition of the traditional media content than it is defrauding the copyright owner because they can get away with it. Many, if not most, garden variety "pirates" could not afford to pay for the content in the way it is packaged "legally" and so their activities don't even represent the economic harm of lost sales in the first place. Piracy is mostly a control / power issue, not really an economic issue. Content providers may THINK that they could convert most or all pirated content to sales in an ideal world where they could prevent all piracy, but they'd just be flatting themselves to think that the swill they have on offer is something people couldn't do without, particularly relative to things like food and shelter.
And that is also a perfect example of how morality works itself out in the real world. Many, many things cannot be reduced to a black and white, binary right/wrong, much as literalists wish it were possible. In the mind of a MacDonald's franchise owner, paying more than minimum wage is impractical and would force him out of business; in the eyes of a MacDonald's worker, who can't rise above the poverty level on minimum wage, it is simply not a living wage and keeps the worker and their family in the cycle of poverty, rendering it exploitive. So it is "wrong" depending on your point of view. And that Bible verse that says "a worker is worthy of his wage" is no help at all, because it is too vague and can be interpreted favorably to either side in that particular dispute.
Why? What makes this definition of morality "correct"? Until we establish this point, the rest of your argument is moot.
I'd appreciate if you did not attempt to put words in my mouth as I never claimed my definition was correct. Or was your use of quotations an accident? I did however state that I believe it is reasonable to sum it up in the way that I have. You can pick your choice of what Google seems to consider the most common definitions:
Quote:
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Virtuous conduct.
A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Of course now you have to ask what is moral conduct for some of those to work.
Quote:
concerned with or relating to human behaviour, esp. the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behaviour
adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct
based on a sense of right and wrong according to conscience
Which basically comes down to what is right or wrong and good or bad. This is why I said it's reasonable to state that it is actions that have the most positive impact while having the least negative impact.
If you're trying to make the point that none of us can define morality then the word becomes useless and should stop being used. If that is the case then I should not have had to make this thread to begin with as it is in response to claims by many religious, Christians specifically, that their system is required to live a moral life.
If that's not your point, and you do agree that a usable definition exists then present it and explain how it contradicts what I'm using. However you would then have to follow your own advice in justifying why we should accept your definition of morality.
What did the infants in their mother's wombs do to send Yaweh into a murderous rage? Or the 6-month olds? How about the bunny rabbits? Why did your god kill all the bunnies?
And what was it about tulips that so enraged him that he had to destroy them?
You apologists just come up with the same old BS - "God made us. He can do whatever he wants and because he's god it's moral."
Honor thy father and mother. What if they are sadistic pedophiles who enjoy eating human flesh from living victims? The bible god demands that these people be honored, my superior sense of morality says otherwise
I thought you didnt make straw man arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Thou shall not covet. Pretty much flies in the face of capitalism.
Coveting your neighbor's wife, coveting your neighbor's property can lead to destructive behaviour, with consequences to society. Especially in the small villages and relatively small cities in which the authors of the OT law clearly understood. Surely you can see that.
In modern society we have laws about rape and theft, both of which have serious consequences to people and to society as a whole, and both, it can be argued, are rooted in covetousness.
PS the fundamentalist Christians who are also advocates of free market capitalism with whom I have discussed the matter take offense when I say that a very good case can be made that Jesus was anti wealth, and so were the tenets of the early Christian churches. When He chased the moneychangers out of the temple, was He not disrupting the business of entrepreneurs who were providing their customers with necessary services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
Why is there no restriction against slavery, but several warning against graven images and honoring other gods.
Originally there was no prohibition against slavery in the Constitution. I guess we should have dismissed the Constitution back then. Actually, I'm pretty sure there are still no prohibitions against rape, murder, armed robbery and many other serious crimes in the Constitution.
With regards to the idolatry and graven images thing, what else would you expect from a monotheist religion and a society surrounded by polytheism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
The 10 C's are obviously an inadequate moral code with a lot of silly stuff thrown in.
Well, the thousands of pages in the criminal code are inadequate, seeing as we have to keep adding to it.
Why? What makes this definition of morality "correct"? Until we establish this point, the rest of your argument is moot.
What makes your definition "correct"?
Any viable definition of anything, including morality, has to reflect as closely as possible, how that thing works out in the real world. Not how it conforms to one particular religious dogma among zillions.
Please define morality. Until you can objectively tell us what "morality" is...you have no basis to make such a statement. You can pretend it's whatever society comes up with...but if that's the case, why do you claim to be able to state the Nazis were wrong? Or Pol Pot?
Please define morality. Until you can objectively tell us what "morality" is -- you have no basis to make any statements about it. You can pretend it's whatever your denomination's dogma claims the Bible says about it ... but if that's the case, why do you claim to be able to state the Nazis were wrong? Or Pol Pot?
Until you can actually define the word, it's irrelevant. Why is your example correct? If you don't know what morality is.....why should we believe you?
You say you've heard mine ad nauseum? Great. You've never actually answered my question. You've dodged it every single time.
We all claim to know what morality is. Why is your claim to know what it is in any greater standing than, say, mine? Because the only difference I can see is that you claim that an invisible guy in the sky invented it and put it in a book, whereas I don't make that claim. How does that claim enhance your position and credibility on the topic? Indeed -- how does it not weaken your position and credibility?
What did the infants in their mother's wombs do to send Yaweh into a murderous rage? Or the 6-month olds? How about the bunny rabbits? Why did your god kill all the bunnies?
And what was it about tulips that so enraged him that he had to destroy them?
You apologists just come up with the same old BS - "God made us. He can do whatever he wants and because he's god it's moral."
It's sickening.
cor·rup·tion
kəˈrəpSHən/Submit
noun
1.
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
"the journalist who wants to expose corruption in high places"
synonyms: dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing; More
antonyms: honesty
the action of making someone or something morally depraved or the state of being so.
"the word “addict” conjures up evil and corruption"
synonyms: immorality, depravity, vice, degeneracy, perversion, debauchery, dissoluteness, decadence, wickedness, evil, sin, sinfulness, ungodliness; formalturpitude
"his fall into corruption"
archaic
decay; putrefaction.
"the potato turned black and rotten with corruption" 2.
the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.
synonyms: alteration, bastardization, debasement, adulteration
"these figures have been subject to corruption"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
