yoo hoo athiests.....?

Question

hey darlins' i know u missed me so i have another question, secular humanism teaches us that morality is relative; different people at different times view morality differently. It teaches us that we cannot condemn other cultures for their moral codes, just because we have a different perspective. Because cultures are simply collections of people, to avoid an ad populum fallacy (where right and wrong are determined by majority rule), the argument has to be extended to the individual; just because you and I may have a different perspective on right and wrong than does another person, does not mean that we can condemn them for their personal moral codes. The end result of such a philosophy is that there really isn’t any right or wrong at all.

GeneJohn: You are incorrect, in simple terms, such condemnation merely exposes the personal bias and emotionalism of the moral relativist. If one doesn’t like the idea of God, then one will be quick to condemn God for His actions, even if the result is hypocrisy. On the other hand, if a moral relativist is fair minded, he will take the time to see the moral perspective from the other side.

kharm....wow..such strong words from someone who means nothing to me....relatively speaking *wink*

aaaaaaaah...just as I expected....ad hominems galore in most responses.....i need to find another forum to stimulate my mind ...but then you'll miss me too much i know ..... :-)

JimD- that goes double for me.....never liked hairy apemen...:-)

Answer 1

Well I believe there is a God who has absolutes.

I suspect you do not believe there is a God who has absolutes. I believe you are wrong you believe I am wrong. If I am wrong it doesn't matter in the scheme of things but if you are wrong, I am so very sorry for you but that is your choice, it is your right to have that choice.

God Bless you and please consider the claims of Jesus.

Peace to you.

regards Matthew

Answer 2

I agree to a certain point. Morality and rules are all made up. It was said by someone that humans are greedy and self centered (egocentric). At some point we figure that two people working together have a better chance of surviving than one person by themselves. Then someone else said, if two work well, then why not a group, then a clan, then a town, a city a country. This part is true, when we all do our part everybody benefits. The problem is that we are still humans and there is always someone who tries to get more than their just deserves. To try to fix this problem rules where invented. The idea of rules is to keep a level field where we all can play. It can also be used to benefit a certain group of people. So yeah! rules and morality are all made up but with the idea that a community agrees on. Well, it inherits from really. Rules that where made 100 years ago may not apply today yet some people still follows them.

That being said there are some basic things that we all agree on. No stealing, no killing. By these I mean don't steal my stuff and don't kill me not the other way around but by default we hope it goes both ways.

Answer 3

There are certain human universals, that being mostly the internal biological drives and needs that every human requires in order to survive and thrive. Usually when someone does something to another that he himself doesn't like, it is wrong; but even this isn't universal. The obvious right and wrong issues can be said to be anything that directly interferes negatively with these things. But that is so broad and vast a statement. There are always the freaks of nature, the ones that start from infancy as animal-like creatures. But even some animals have the need for attachment such as some primates. They fail to grow and even may die if they do not form a bond with another mother-like creature/person. In reality there is no right from wrong. But we invent human concepts which do have meaning to us good/bad, therefore not subject to the same rules in nature which is neutral.

Answer 4

Forget all the mumbo jumbo stuff with trying to apply thought systems and philosophies to morality. It's exactly the same mistake religions make -- trying to codify a morality based on some system of thought/belief and then treating it in some legalistic fashion to determine the flaws, loopholes, and what's allowed. Bottom line: forget God, forget, religion, forget secular humanism, forget all that stuff. And just ask yourself one thing: would you want this thing done to you? And then work on yourself more and more so that you get an appreciation of suffering and the fact that others exist. REAL morality will be there at the end, instead of all this other garbage.

Answer 5

Morality is dependent on the particular society within which one lives. If I were caught stealing in a muslim society, I would probably get my hands cut off. If I were caught for the same crime in the US, I would get some small jail time, depending on prior offenses.

Right and wrong are determined by the society in which you live. If you are a hermit, and only keep your own society, you determine what is right and wrong in your society. However, most of us are not hermits. We choose to live in or are born to certain socieites. And if we want to continue living peacefully in that society, we should obey the laws and ordinances of that society.

No gods required. No beliefs in gods required.

Answer 6

I honestly can't imagine why they would have missed you.
Strange how cultures that have never had your petty god have a moral code that is similar to all other cultures, and they do quite nicely without him.
Where did you cut and paste your philosophy from? This is certainly not original thought.

Edit: lmao at Pirateshaveparrots' answer.. and it's a damned good question.. where ARE your children while you're on here playing around?? What kind of christian mother leaves her children to play online?

Answer 7

Yawn...and your point is?

You've also combined aspects of secular humanism with existentialism.

Secular Humanism doesn't have a holy book...you are merely summarizing...in your words...some commonly held views.

Secular Humanism bases partial morality on the concept of the greatest good for the greatest number.......whether you accept that as moral or not is irrelevant....it is a stated goal/moral. It's one I don't necessarily agree with.

Secular Humanism also contains the concept of a market place of ideas...where your ideas...like creationism...are placed on the market against evolution.

The market place of ideas, and secular humanism, is based upon having a well educated, enlightened majority.

Answer 8

OK, you seem to be implying that Christianity and other religions are not morally relativist. If that's true, What is the christian view of the morality of slavery? Please consider the bible, modern times, and christian practices throughout history.

Is it any different now then it was 3,000 years ago? Has the "morality" of slavery in the bible and in Christianity changed or stayed the same over the last 3-5 thousand years?

If it has changed, even slightly, Doesn't that blow a big giant god-sized hole in your argument?

Answer 9

You go honey, beat the tar out of that straw man.

Atheists need not be secular humanists. Secular humanists need not be atheists.

You need to learn about secular humanism from someone who isn't a right wing nut job h*ll-bent on villainizing it because they can't actually defend their own morally bankrupt beliefs on their own merits.

The first line from wikipedia's article on it: "Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making."

Answer 10

Yabbut that's wrong. There is right and wrong. You have to be in love to discover it - it's not necessary to attribute it to God or Some Other Higher Power, or anything else. We can't know where it comes from, but it is universal. Some things are NOT a matter of opinion, even tho some people say they are.