- Joined
- May 24, 2021
Versus the people who have been mutilating children because Yhwh told them to, or the christians mutilating children in America because the corn flakes man told them to...
What do people ground their ethics in without God? How do they justify it?
- Thread starter Brightstar777
- Start date
Vect
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
Right, so now you've cancelled out the premise of your own question.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
some babbling won't make you right
RybenZ999
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
- Joined
- May 24, 2021
If you are defining morality in a way that requires religious tenets, than of course morality requires religious tenets and you are right since all morality is relative and you can do and think however feels right to you.
And what am I coping about exactly? The thread isn't framed to ask whether or not god exists.
I haven't missed the point, you're just making shit up and acting as though we're all meant to agree. @Oddjob OTP is correct, the discussion is pointless because it always circles back to your final sentence.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2023
I know you're not being entirely serious but doesn't that say a lot about the quality of religiously sanctioned moral standards?
We need to clarify even further which specific flavor we're talking about, rather than someone behaving like that being a member of some sort of exceptional fringe cult, this is normal in multiple moral systems.
Hopefully most westerns find these
repellent. But these are religiously sanctioned moral standards believers are expected to accept as good, or at very least "Permissable".
- Joined
- May 24, 2021
The people who believe that western civilization only exists because of Abrahamism (i.e. christianity) hold the Torah as being holy scripture and worship the god of the jews so it ultimately always ends up being tolerated and let back in. Like I said, American christians have been more than happy to mutilate infants for decades and decades. But of course, that wasn't REAL christianity, which I know is true because all morality is based on personal interpretation.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
You're not even babbling enough to prove your point. So I wouldn't be complaining about the text walls of others. Maybe post some actual content if you want a real discussion. All your threads are one sentence "Topics" that appear to be reddit copy/pastes. What happened? Did you get banned from Reddit?
Please lurk moar. You won't last long here.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
An Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
I think that, when people talk about needing an ultimate moral authority, what they're really getting at is that you need an unalterable or at least extremely difficult to amend moral framework. Intelligent people can perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify any sort of insane bullshit, and midwits can easily be won over by said intelligent people's rhetoric. Having a top-down authority that sets out a clearly defined set of dos and don'ts that you can't change, at least without great effort, creates societal and moral balance. This doesn't necessitate that God even exists, just that the majority of people believe He does. This is why eastern religions have been able to create relatively stable societies, and why atheistic communist states often deify their head of state as an indomitable, godlike despot.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2024
I think the Kohlberg stages of moral development are apt in seeing what kind of individual someone is.
>Preconventional
Only sense of right and wrong comes from avoiding punishment and satisfying personal wants
>Conventional
Sense of right and wrong largely established from whatever is socially deemed as such
>Postconventional
A personally established sense of ethics, where things are justified by one's own values and balanced with society accordingly
There are probably people with faith who operate only off of preconventional morality, and there probably are faithless people who have worked up to finding their own moral code in relation to society. The Bible can be a good collection of virtues and ideals to follow while living in this life, but in the absence of it, one would become even more so the product of their environment.
It takes a certain amount of observation of the world around you, and a capacity to not only judge those things but to also be introspective and critical of your own being to find that higher sense of morality. That's a responsibility for anyone to uphold, regardless of their faith.
>Preconventional
Only sense of right and wrong comes from avoiding punishment and satisfying personal wants
>Conventional
Sense of right and wrong largely established from whatever is socially deemed as such
>Postconventional
A personally established sense of ethics, where things are justified by one's own values and balanced with society accordingly
There are probably people with faith who operate only off of preconventional morality, and there probably are faithless people who have worked up to finding their own moral code in relation to society. The Bible can be a good collection of virtues and ideals to follow while living in this life, but in the absence of it, one would become even more so the product of their environment.
It takes a certain amount of observation of the world around you, and a capacity to not only judge those things but to also be introspective and critical of your own being to find that higher sense of morality. That's a responsibility for anyone to uphold, regardless of their faith.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
You can't do whatever feel right to you because it might be wrong, Only God knows that is right and what is wrong and he dictates morality.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2024
Whatever I finds, I keeps.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2022
You're describing either the Vedic concept of Ṛta or the Chinese Tao, both of which predate Christianity by at least 500 years.
If anyone is actually interested in this question and not just here to huff farts, Robert M. Pirsig's books ZAMM: An Inquiry Into Values and Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals are a pretty straightforward starting point. Far from perfect, but they do a good job of laying groundwork and getting you up to speed from nothing.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
Terminally online christcuck can't understand other people's perspectives, more news at 11. Christ is kang.
Also, stop using the bust of Herodotus as your PFP. He didn't write the Histories with the intention of having some faggot use his image on a gossip forum millennia later.
Also, stop using the bust of Herodotus as your PFP. He didn't write the Histories with the intention of having some faggot use his image on a gossip forum millennia later.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2021
Do you need God to tell you that raping children is wrong? If you didn't believe in God, would you be a rapist?
That is to say, everyone has things they perceive as right or wrong. The vast majority of people in the west think raping children is wrong, both secular and religious. Why? Idk, ask them, everyone has their own reasons. I personally don't need a god to tell me not to rape and murder, but maybe OP does.
That is to say, everyone has things they perceive as right or wrong. The vast majority of people in the west think raping children is wrong, both secular and religious. Why? Idk, ask them, everyone has their own reasons. I personally don't need a god to tell me not to rape and murder, but maybe OP does.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
you are hated by every nation
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
A lot of questions here circle back to this. People asking "Why is [group I don't like] like this?" expecting everyone to agree with them and circlejerk to how right they are about [group they don't like].
They ask these questions to satisfy their confirmation bias, not to provoke actual discussion, and as a result they're much more entertaining when the group OP doesn't like is the one to answer the question.
Last edited: