-141

Where do you get your morals, if not from our/a Creator? Do you make them up and go by your own conscious and feelings already in place? If that's acceptable, who is to say someone else's morals are wrong or flawed? Are there some set morals that everyone should keep, and then differ on the smaller matters? Where do those set morals come from, some intrinsic moral coding? Serial killers, thieves, and child molesters, must have missed that day of development in the womb, amirite?

21%Yeah You Are79%No Way
miffedmuffins avatar Life
Share
2 168
The voters have decided that miffedmuffin is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I get my morals straight from logic. I would like for another person not to kill me, rob me, cheat me, take advantage of me, etc. so I do not do those things to other people.

@Max I get my morals straight from logic. I would like for another person not to kill me, rob me, cheat me, take...

That's very admirable and I commend you for it, I must point out, the bible teaches this as well. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, so in theory we can speculate a Christian who actually followed Christ's teaching would indeed be a good person by default.

Although this is YOUR logic, it may not be someone else's. Would you condone someone else's moral even when they directly conflicted with your own? Say as I mentioned in the case of murder, maybe a parent abuses a child for years and the child snaps and plans their murder, or say a spouse cheats on their significant other, or does some other really horrible thing, ruins someone's life somehow, maybe they find it morally justifiable to kill that person, or to beat the fuck out of them, or punish them in some other means you find morally unsound. Is it really, just because you think so? Or just because a majority of people think so? This is where the illogicality of made up morals for every person lies.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -29Reply
@miffedmuffin That's very admirable and I commend you for it, I must point out, the bible teaches this as well. Do unto others as...

I must point out that the Bible also says the abuse of children and murder of unfaithful spouses is okay.

Anonymous +31Reply
@I must point out that the Bible also says the abuse of children and murder of unfaithful spouses is okay.

Then I'm also forced to point out most things like this taken from the bible, are taken out of context or quoted to misconstrue the meaning, because people are looking for bad things to find.

Physical discipline is not abuse, as for your spouse reference, that's in the OT, and in the OT people were stoned to death and killed for all sorts of reasons. It was a harsh lesson that the penalty for all sin is death, thus the point of Christ taking that upon himself. It was not a lesson that we should kill unfaithful spouses, it was bigger than that, and now that Christ has taken upon himself all sin so that we may receive mercy for our sins, it is not acceptable to murder and we does not call for our murder for those things previous things.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -24Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849889

Hmm, hello common misconception, how are you today.

What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. (Exodus 13:14)

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. Exodus 21:16

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -18Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849948

You're really stupid. Voluntary slavery is fine, and that's what it talked about. Forcing someone into slavery it said was punishable by death.

By your logic, any minimum wage job someone picks up because that have to, to make ends meet is slavery. It was just a word for something people did for money, and it was their choice. Way to damage control on that one.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -33Reply
@miffedmuffin Then I'm also forced to point out most things like this taken from the bible, are taken out of context or quoted to...

I don't mean to intervene, but I find it very annoying when someone says, "oh, but that part of the Bible is often misinterpreted." The majority of the time where contradiction is found, that's the excuse. I just wanted to put that out there.

Not to say the Bible doesn't have any good things in it, but I'd rather take advice from a more modern book on how to live my life.

@StickCaveman I don't mean to intervene, but I find it very annoying when someone says, "oh, but that part of the Bible is often...

It's a fact, for example see above where someone says the bible condoned slavery. Technically, yes, but slavery during that time was considered a different kind of thing than the slavery in the past couple centuries, for example against African Americans. It was a voluntary social status. The bible even goes so far as to condemn race based, forced, slavery.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -25Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849951

Slavery in the Bible was to pay of debts, basically it was them being a servant for a set amount of time, you took care of them physically and when their time was up they were free and no longer I'm your debt, it was a way to get out of debt, which i would prefer to being drowned in interest like we are today.

lookitups avatar lookitup Yeah You Are -10Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849971

Leviticus 25:39-46 explains some of the differences between an Israelite slave and a foreign slave. An Israelite slave was to be treated as a cross between family and a hired man, not as a chattel slave. But Israel also had foreigners who had been taken in battle or who, like the Gibeonites, had chosen to become Israel’s servants (Joshua 9). These slaves could be held permanently—could be, but it wasn't required. An Israelite who had to sell himself was to be treated respectfully and redeemed as quickly as possible (Leviticus 25:47-55).

So as for foreign slaves, either they chose it due to poverty and this helped them survive, or war prisoners. This was common during the time, and war prisoners are STILL taken all over the country. Actually, rather than being fed and taken care of, war prisoners in the middle east are tortured, raped, and killed. Since you're such a bleeding heart, maybe you should enlist and do some good like put people to rest who do this kind of thing instead of spending your time hating on the bible for requiring people to be more merciful to war prisoners than most people are even today.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -18Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850003

Yes just like someone else gets them from themselves, what makes any certain set of morals the right one, answer nothing. There are two options, either morals are subjective with no clear right or wrong, or there is a higher power who defines right and wrong, because no human is in a position to say their word is better than anyone else's. THAT'S the point. Not that there absolutely is a creator, it just makes way more sense to me than everything is a gray area with no real bad.

I'm not deflecting, God was merciful in the way he demanded decent treatment of these prisoners, I didn't bring up this issue when addressed about slaves, because it's yet another different definition, the word doesn't change the fact that they were indeed war prisoners, and it also doesn't change the fact that another definition was a willingness to take the title, trying to play on the bad connotation of the word slave is misleading. War prisoners aren't called slaves anymore, doesn't change the definition. I'm also not picking and choosing, I find it highly moral He taught them to treat war prisoners humanely and I wish other countries would pick up a bible a read it too bc they are doing horrible t...

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -11Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850007

Actually, I don't. For ONE of the various reasons I shall explain.

The Law given to the Israelites had a number of important purposes. The Law stood as a unique sign of the privilege granted to Israel, setting them apart from their pagan neighbors. The whole world in Moses’ time was idolatrous, with each nation believing in many deities. The forbidding of certain foods such as pork clearly distinguished between what would later be termed "Jew" and "Gentile." The dietary restrictions further indicated that Israel was a separate nation, a chosen people, and this helped the Israelites to break free from idolatry - a sin they struggled with.

Also, then there are the hygienic concerns related to the Law’s dietary restrictions. It is well known today that pork carries any number of diseases, and the meat requires stricter cooking techniques than other meats such as beef or poultry. In Moses’ day, there was no knowledge of microscopic pathogens, and the cultural norm was to eat raw or under-cooked meat (Leviticus 19:26). This is what I mean by contextual. If we now know about microscopic pathogens, clearly it isn't a concern anymore if the right steps are taken.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +1Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850019

A woman's "uncleanness" during her period was symbolic of the value placed on blood. As a result, contact with a woman who was having her period was forbidden.

Christians today are not under the Old Testament ceremonial law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26; Ephesians 2:15). There no longer is a sacrificial system. Jesus' blood sacrifice paid the penalty for sins once and for all. The Levitical ceremonial laws do not apply today.

Coooontext.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +2Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850023

Liiike I said contextual. It's so amazing how it holds lessons and advice for people that long ago AND now. It covers abortion, atheism, there are prophecies about the end times, things that have already happened, like Israel becoming a nation in one day, Damascus is supposed to become a "ruiunous heap" and where is all the WMD that's even making weak Obama threaten Syria? You guessed it, Damascus. Who will Israel have to bomb to keep themselves from being annihilated? Damascussssss. So much other stuff but I'm limited on characters aha.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -4Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850078

No...wow, how did you get that? I'm saying people take little things out of context to make them appear to mean something they don't.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@miffedmuffin A woman's "uncleanness" during her period was symbolic of the value placed on blood. As a result, contact with a...

So what's the point in abiding to any set of rules in the first place? If Jesus paid for all sins, I could just go about killing some people I don't like, steal a lot of stuff and maybe rape a couple of women when I'm in the mood. Everything is already paid for, meaning I have a free pass to heaven, no matter what I do. Great concept!

Anonymous +3Reply
@So what's the point in abiding to any set of rules in the first place? If Jesus paid for all sins, I could just go...

The bible's answer for that is very clear. It may be a good idea to be educated on a topic before knocking it, just a suggestion.

2 Corinthians 5:17 – "anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!" - Meaning we are made new, he changes our hearts and there should be a notable difference in our character, our goals.

Matthew 7:16 – "You will know them by their fruits."

  • Meaning of course you will know a true Christian by the good the do and strive for.

1 John 1:6 – "If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth." -Meaning, when one claims to be a follower of Christ and still walks the path of a sinner who hasn't repented, well...if the shoe fits.

If we have truly repented, truly given our hearts to Him, we would WANT to follow his will and his rules because we recognize them as the better way.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@1849951

No, I'm not. Is picking up a crappy part time job slavery? NO. That's is the equivalent to what this word was used for in this time. They chose to do something to make money, take orders from someone else. It's a job. This is not so hard to grasp. You're really displaying your ability to grasp concepts, just stop lol.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -20Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849975

I mean, it's sad that we have to have a history lesson on the topic at all. How could anyone say that slavery thousands of years ago is comparable to slavery hundreds of years ago......It's like apples to oranges. The context is completely different. It's pathetic to me that this needed clarification to begin with. Do people sleep through their 4 repetitive world history courses through 12 years of school? We took a field trip to medieval times.....they were serfs then. And many chose to be so because it allowed them land on which to live and food with which to feed their families. Each century of slavery is different from the century before it. It's just common sense....

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -10Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850077

What's annoying is you think you have any right to judge someone else's decision to do something with their life.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -9Reply
@miffedmuffin It's a fact, for example see above where someone says the bible condoned slavery. Technically, yes, but slavery...

So you agree that the time period then was different than our time period? The book is obsolete.

@StickCaveman So you agree that the time period then was different than our time period? The book is obsolete.

Not at all. There are maaaany valuable lessons to learn from the bible, you should actually research things instead of ignorantly citing a quote with your biased assumptions to fuel your own personal agenda, with no real facts or information. Knowledge is power my friend, so is questioning everything, even your own point of view. This is how we learn and grow. Also, you're awful hateful. I think you need a hug.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -29Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850015

Slavery was a different thing during that time period, take a history class.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -12Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851538

That's funny, I think you should take a history class. The bible does not clearly say that at all. You just have really horrible reading skills apparently. Speaking of English classes...

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -12Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851545

Sigh. Lets try a different angle, because you clearly aren't getting it. Maybe I'm being too wordy. Where in this scripture does it say to forcibly make someone a salve? No where. People sold themselves into slavery, or better yet, as a bondservant.

To fuel this point, God listed slave traders among the worst of sinners in 1 Timothy 1:10 (kidnappers/men stealers/slave traders)

So the bible is terrible because it reports how people sold themselves, by their own freewill, for debts and to have a provider, even though it condemns slave traders, people who forced people to be slaves?

That was how things were done, and that was those people's decision to become a bondservant and they were paid for it. You're accusations are completely baseless, and it makes you look ignorant. As I said, take a history class. The type of "slaves" you're referring to are entirely different than these willing "bondservants" which is a more accurate word, considering it was willing.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -10Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851581

THEY DID IT OF THEIR OWN FREEWILL. They WANTED TO. It BENEFITED them greatly. YOU think there is something wrong with a bondservant who gets PAID, so the bible is horrible for reporting this? You're delusional.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -10Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851610

You're the one ignoring the point. What those people chose to do for money, is none of your business. It was their choice and they made it. Anything a person does of their own freewill is their business, and their choice so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. You have no point.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -5Reply
@miffedmuffin Not at all. There are maaaany valuable lessons to learn from the bible, you should actually research things instead...

I disagree that I've been hateful. My point is that if you agree that much of the Bible is subject to misinterpretation, why do you still choose it as a guide of morals and values? If everyone has a different interpretation of its content, why should we follow its rules and guidelines?

The problem is that due to the sketchy and vague aspect of the Bible, there is a possibility of two different people reading the same text but getting two different meanings from it. This therefore subjects them to having different morals from one another which is the whole point of your post.

@StickCaveman I disagree that I've been hateful. My point is that if you agree that much of the Bible is subject to...

If someone writes a brilliant letter, and the reader doesn't understand it, who is at fault? Certainly not the writer, and certainly not the letter.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -11Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851559

Just because some silly people don't understand something doesn't mean the thing itself is stupid, or there is no understanding to be had. Since you apparently needed me to spell out the meaning for you.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -9Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1851613

All in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -4Reply
@miffedmuffin Not at all. There are maaaany valuable lessons to learn from the bible, you should actually research things instead...

Look at some perspective. Men wrote the Bible, there's no doubt. where the doubt comes in is whether or not those words came from God. If they did, then they would be total truth.

If I do not believe God exists, and therefore do not believe the Bible is the word of a supreme power, then clearly, I do not place any credibility on the bible. If I don't even believe in god, I sure as he'll won't be obeying a book that I believe was constructed by archaic men about outdated beliefs.

@spareseconds Look at some perspective. Men wrote the Bible, there's no doubt. where the doubt comes in is whether or not those...

*hell.

And, I'd like to also point out that in the days of American slavery, People used the Bible to justify slavery, what with Cain's decedents being from Africa and whatnot. People also justified being against interracial marriage from their interpretations of the Bible. And today, you see people interpreting the gay marriage part differently.

Today, slavery and racism are definitely not moral. However, tell that to the ardent Christians of the early 1900's and they'll tell you a different story, all of which were their interpretations of the Bible. If you read the same passage they read, would you both come to the same conclusions?

The Bible's morals are subjective, because people are subjective. The only one who isn't subjective is God, and since we are not God, we cannot be perfectly objective.

@spareseconds *hell. And, I'd like to also point out that in the days of American slavery, People used the Bible to justify...

People will use ANYTHING as an excuse to support their own actions and prejudices. We should blame the book, instead of the people? Do you really think these type of things wouldn't happen if a single book wasn't around? Of course it would. Humanity is flawed, this is the problem, not their excuse.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@spareseconds Look at some perspective. Men wrote the Bible, there's no doubt. where the doubt comes in is whether or not those...

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I'm pointing out, which is not you should follow the bible because God says so. It is about the illogicality of morals being made for every person individually. If it doesn't come from a higher power, no one is in a spot to say their morals are higher than another's, leading one to the conclusion either morals come from a high power, or morals in general are a gray area. In conceding morals are a gray area, you have to realize murder or something equally as terrible to most people falls under that. The question comes down to, do you think murder can be a gray area? If not, but you still cannot agree a higher power decides morals, what makes your moral to not kill, or anyone else's, the right one?

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I'm pointing out, which is not you should follow the bible because God...

Okay, then I agree with you. Murder is most certainly, in my belief, a gray area. For example, if you were in war and your fellow soldier got his legs blown off without medical treatment for miles, it is not morally wrong to put him out of his misery if he asks you to, in my opinion.

It also doesn't make sense for morals to come from a higher power because we cannot just assume a higher power exists. You can tell me your morals are from God, but that means nothing to me anyway, and still, yet again, I will not believe your morals are higher than mine. Peoples' morals do not come from a higher power ever; they come from personal interpretation of a higher power that they believe exist. Even if you claimed they came from a higher power, it won't hold any ground with me or people outside your religion. It's meaningless, because the way I see it, your morals actually came from yourself. If morals truly did come from a higher power, then that's a different story, but just because you have faith in it doesn't mean it's true.

@spareseconds Okay, then I agree with you. Murder is most certainly, in my belief, a gray area. For example, if you were in war...

I'm not so much saying we should assume an existence of God, but that concerning morals it makes much more sense, to me at least, than making them up. So, of the two options, if you pick that morals in general are a gray area, well touche. That was one of the options I posed. I have a hard time, just as many people do I'm sure, admitting that rape, child molestation, and murder aren't necessarily wrong, I just don't like them personally.

I think it makes sense that morals come from something higher than humanity, because to me, rape or child molestation (or murder) are absolute wrongs, I can find no way to justify them being in a gray area, yet I can also not say I am above any person, so a higher authority fits logically.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin Then I'm also forced to point out most things like this taken from the bible, are taken out of context or quoted to...

No. In direct contex, it says it is okay to physically disfigure children who are out of line. And the OT is still part of the Bible. Part of what Christianity teaches is directly from God. Along with teaching that He is always right. So because Jesus came, God suddenly is wrong about what he had previously said?

Anonymous +14Reply
@No. In direct contex, it says it is okay to physically disfigure children who are out of line. And the OT is still...

No actually he said I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. We still obey, but the penalty for sin is no longer death. I love how you aren't giving me scripture. If you're so knowledgeable about the bible, cite some stuff. If not, stop talking about things you know nothing about.

I'm positive what you are saying is taken out of context, or completely untrue.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -6Reply

Having a religion does not automatically mean you are a moral person.

Being an atheist does not automatically mean you are not a moral person.

It's okay to be guided morally by a religion. Don't try to pretend that you are a superior human being because I don't follow your religion.

@MusicIsAGift Having a religion does not automatically mean you are a moral person. Being an atheist does not automatically mean...

I never did, I am posing a question as to who has the right to judge someone's morals if they are made up by that person. What makes yours better than someone elses, say someone who justifies killing a spouse who cheated on them, or killing someone for killing a loved one, or gay marriage so many love to ostracize people and insult them for not supporting. I don't think Christians are automatically moral, and I don't think atheists are automatically not, I'm pointing out the flawed logic when it comes to morals coming from nowhere but ones own head.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -3Reply
@miffedmuffin I never did, I am posing a question as to who has the right to judge someone's morals if they are made up by that...

Not to intervene, but you seem to be referring to biblical slavery as something more like indentured servitude. Would that be a more accurate thing to call it?

Anonymous +2Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849828

We are all adults and it doesn't matter how we were brought up, that is absolutely no excuse to steal, or do anything else. We make our own decisions, and being raised by a thief in no way excuses stealing.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -29Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1849836

Exactly. That's my point. Is it really morally unsound, just because you think so? Or just because a lot of people think so? This is where the illogicality of made up morals for every person lies. Who is to stay any on person, or any few, is more right than some other people doing the same thing - deciding for themselves what morals they hold.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +2Reply

Consider the following: We are living creatures and social animals. Our brains need built in fail-safes and "moral codes" to keep us functioning as social animals. This is why we are protective of each other and aren't murdering each other left and right. This can be observed in nature. Animals, who aren't supposed to have morals, follow basic "moral codes". Some of the more intelligent animals even mourn their dead.

Smaller morals, I believe, were set up by people trying to control others. I know that it would seem that these were just guidelines set up to try and make us better people, but I don't believe that. If you want to control people, you need them to be organized. For people to be organized, they can't be stealing from each other or fighting each other over everything.

Personally, I believe organized religion as a whole was designed to control the masses. Obviously, the beliefs in all-powerful beings that created everything were originated in man's need for things to be explained. I think someone saw an opportunity to cash in on that, though, and decided they could influence society by saying "Hey, that all-powerful being said this stuff about how we should be."

@Mike_Hawk Consider the following: We are living creatures and social animals. Our brains need built in fail-safes and "moral...

I completely disagree haha, but this discussion is more a debate on t
the existence of God, which I can and do debate fervently, but probably isn't the place, and not really part of my particular point in this post.

Morals among humanity are subjective. Conceding to this, leaves one of two options - either you are conceding that all actions are gray and relative, and there is no true wrong doing, or that in order to have true right and wrong morals, it would have to come from a higher power than humanity because we are equal in that respect.

I personally have qualms with admitting murdering your spouse, or committing a sexual act on a child is a "gray" subjective area.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
@miffedmuffin I completely disagree haha, but this discussion is more a debate on t the existence of God, which I can and do...

I don't believe in true right or wrong. I absolutely do not believe people are equal, either. There have been humans that are demigods in comparison to the average human.

There goes all my fucking brain cells....

Morals can also be influenced by society. For example, if you are raised in a society where incest is okay, then you are less likely to view it as morally wrong. In a society where incest is considered a taboo, you are more likely to agree with the popular opinion in order to fit in.

tl;dr version: People don't always get their morals from their religion.

Anonymous +9Reply
@Morals can also be influenced by society. For example, if you are raised in a society where incest is okay, then...

You're missing the point. Actually, you're kind of arguing my point for me haha. By saying morals are influenced by society, you are really saying they are subjective to humanity. Well now, if they are subjective and relative to every specific person and culture, who is to say a culture that sacrifices children is wrong in doing that? YOU probably think it's wrong, I'm sure a lot of people do, but is it really wrong just because you think so, and some people think so? If you're answer is yes, it's wrong to sacrifice children, then you are saying for some reason your morals are better than someone else's, who did the same thing you did...decided for themselves what their morals were, those decisions heavily influenced by their culture. You can't just say oh that's wrong because my society says it is.

So, is sacrificing children a gray area? Not necessarily wrong, you just don't like it, or is there a set of morals defined by a Creator, who says murder is wrong? A higher being can by all means say "Yes, this is wrong" because he is above a mere human.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin You're missing the point. Actually, you're kind of arguing my point for me haha. By saying morals are influenced by...

mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
Noun
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Murder in that period of time was much different than sacrifice, they were sacrificing BECAUSE of their theistic beliefs, . There have been thousands of religions in the history of man kind, and believers of each one have whole heartedly believed theirs was the right religion and that all the others were wrong, who's to say your belief system is 'righter' than someone else's? Just like your argument versus societal morals

@TheTall123 mur·der /ˈmərdər/ Noun The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Murder in that...

This deviates from the intent of this post, which is that people have two options. Either morals are a gray area, or there must be a higher power for set morals to exist. I do not claim to say one is right over the other, but that an acknowledgement of a creator in general is a must to believe in a true right and wrong.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin This deviates from the intent of this post, which is that people have two options. Either morals are a gray area...

By no means is it necessary to believe in a creator to believe in a true right and wrong...

@TheTall123 By no means is it necessary to believe in a creator to believe in a true right and wrong...

Riiight. Well reason that out in a way that makes sense maybe instead of mimicking most religious people who saying NUT UH! no logical reasoning provided

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@miffedmuffin Riiight. Well reason that out in a way that makes sense maybe instead of mimicking most religious people who saying...

I believe in no creator unless you consider the Big Bang as a creator, I accept that theory as truth because it has scientific backing.
I believe in a definitive right that if someone unprovokenly kills someone, and is undoubtedly guilty, they should be killed as well, they a) broke a law and b) Robbed someone else of their life and have lost their privilege to their own life.

@TheTall123 I believe in no creator unless you consider the Big Bang as a creator, I accept that theory as truth because it has...

All you're doing is explaining to me why your morals about murder are more right with no explanation as to how you are any better than another human being. You aren't above anyone else, therefore cannot say murder is wrong in this, this, and this instance. That's the point. YOU thinking something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. Morals among humanity are subjective.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply

@OP

If God were to come to you and say, "MiffedMuffin, you are allowed to do whatever you want without any consequences. No matter what you do, I won't get angry, and you can still go to heaven," would you start killing, stealing, or commit any other crimes?

If your answer is no, then this shows that you don't need religion in order to distinguish between good and bad behavior. This shows that you are getting your morals from something else.

Where people get their morals from is very debatable, but here's my take on where morals come from. From an evolutionary standpoint, having morals would be more beneficial. For example, lets say there is a population of animals that don't have any morals. They kill each other, commit rape, and other heinous acts. This population of animals would quickly go extinct by causing their own destruction. Now lets say we have the same population of animals, except they have morals that killing and rape are wrong. (continued)

Anonymous +8Reply
@@OP If God were to come to you and say, "MiffedMuffin, you are allowed to do whatever you want without any...

Cultures have practiced absolutely horrid things...sacrificing children, rape, even today, say in the Middle East it's socially acceptable for a man to rape a woman, or to pour acid on her face because she turned him down. So your theory that morals exist because it's beneficial to us doesn't make sense, because these things have happened in the past, and still today in large numbers.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
@miffedmuffin What does that have to do with anything.

They believe in a God, a creator, and still commit the atrocities you mention.

@TheTall123 They believe in a God, a creator, and still commit the atrocities you mention.

I'm not saying someone who believes in a creator will not commit horrendous acts. I don't know why you think I am, but I'll try to be more clear. I am saying in general, that there is no way that I have heard at least, to explain how true right and wrong can exist among humanity alone. Unless you think there is a human on this planet who has authority over everyone and is high enough to say this is right and wrong because I say so, and anyone who says differently is wrong, there is no higher power to set morals in stone. It will always be relative to every person and culture, meaning a gray area.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
@miffedmuffin I'm not saying someone who believes in a creator will not commit horrendous acts. I don't know why you think I am...

No one person is allowed to say that, What you just described however is fairly accurate to a position that of the Pope, with his word over christians. For the most part (aside from dictators and such) humans rally up and decide what is the moral thing through democracy and decide how that would affect us with how the world is going.

@TheTall123 No one person is allowed to say that, What you just described however is fairly accurate to a position that of the...

Right...they decide for themselves. Subjectivity. It's fine if they like that, but still moot to my point. There is no true right or wrong unless it comes from somewhere other than a human being.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply

By that logic, god cannot be moral or immoral.

@eldorito By that logic, god cannot be moral or immoral.

I don't know how you're coming to that conclusion. My point is that logically it makes more sense for a higher power to define morals, because he is higher, and greater than us, and is in that position being all-knowing, having created us, the world, and morals in general. He IS morals.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply

Because they don't focus their time on killing and making life miserable for their species, they are less likely to die out. This shows that the population of animals with morals is more favorable over the population of animals without morals.
Most people are also able to experience empathy towards one another. Empathy is when you can experience the feelings of another person, and this would make someone less likely to purposely cause harm to someone. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex in our brain causes us to feel emotions such as empathy and guilt, and these two emotions play a large part in our morals. In your post, you mentioned how serial killers, thieves, and child molesters don't have the same obvious morals that most people have, that killing, stealing, and molesting is wrong. A lot of times people who commit crimes like these have mental disorders. For example, serial killers and child molesters may have Psychopathic Personality Disorder which is when you completely lack empathy and guilt. Also, people may steel because they are in a tough financial situation, and steeling is a way for them to get by.

Anonymous +6Reply
@Because they don't focus their time on killing and making life miserable for their species, they are less likely to...

As I stated above, the argument that morals exist intrinsically for our own good does not make sense, because all throughout history and even today, cultures and people practice horrible things. If this is how things really work, we don't rape, steal, and kill each other for survival, apparently the Middle East missed the memo.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin As I stated above, the argument that morals exist intrinsically for our own good does not make sense, because all...

Yeah there have been some "horrible" practices. I put horrible in quotations because that is how morals work NOW, back then it was OKAY to do that. And somehow humanity has seemed to live through all of the horrible practices such as human sacrifice (as mentioned earlier in the thread).

@TheTall123 Yeah there have been some "horrible" practices. I put horrible in quotations because that is how morals work NOW...

I don't think you understand. Women are raped, people are stoned to death and murdered LEGALLY, and it is even common practice to mutilate a women's genitals so that sex is painful and she will not want to have sex as a means of avoiding infidelity. These things are happening TODAY, in areas of the Middle East. It isn't some pre-dated morality law that is void and null like you are insinuating. We haven't evolved morally as a species, if that's what you're trying to get at.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin I don't think you understand. Women are raped, people are stoned to death and murdered LEGALLY, and it is even...

But in you saying that you are saying that your morals are right, and that yours matter more than theirs. Just because thats the way the majority of your country feels does not mean it is necessarily wrong, I'm by no means saying i support such doings, but you have to understand that morally, much of germany thought the Holocaust was okay, guess what inspired Hitler to rise to power. He stood up on the battle field in WWI and said that if he left unscathed that he was chosen by God.

@TheTall123 But in you saying that you are saying that your morals are right, and that yours matter more than theirs. Just...

See my last response to you. I don't really want to type it again, but I am saying exactly what you are. I'm not claiming to be right, I'm only pointing out there are two options here, and in THAT pointing out a major inconsistency among atheists. You cannot assume a true right and wrong without assuming a creator of those that is higher than humanity. Whether it's a God or Aliens, or whatever.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -1Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
This user has deactivated their account.
This user has deactivated their account.
@1850643

....really? A higher power. A creator. Did you even read the original post?

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -3Reply
@1850074

Whoa, way too quick to jump to bashing...look up the definition, this does not fit that description in any way, shape, or form. I'm posing a question, either morals in general are a gray area, or a higher power defines them, because only a higher power is above humans. I think you're upset this makes sense because your atheist. Rather than using profanity to insult, why do't you come up with an intelligent counter argument to support your beliefs.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -4Reply

So much stupid in these comments.

@guitarplayer213 So much stupid in these comments.

Would you care to elaborate? I personally thought most of the opposing opinions even, were pretty well thought out.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +1Reply

If we get our morals from the bible, why do catholic priests molest little boys? They must have missed that day in Sunday school.

I like to split morality into two sections.There are the intrinsic values that were selected by nature because they were beneficial at the time.Things like reciprocal altruism and kin selection.Some of them,like the evolution of empathy and a conscience still work just as well today as they did then.Others have become evolutionary misfirings now because we don't live in small tribes anymore but they still lie within us regardless.Then there's the morality that we,as sentient beings,construct ourselves through thought experiments, hypothetical scenarios, analysis of empirical data etc.The two types are not mutually exclusive.In fact,they often compliment each other and even inform each other.But in cases where they do,the second is still necessary to justify the first because declaring the way things are in nature is just a descriptive statement of what is and it makes no prescriptive statement about what ought be.

Now the second part is where the structure to what you perceive to be completely arbitrary individual opinions lies.We can make preferences based on which things would cause the least amount of suffering,harm or even inconvenience to people and conduct ourselves in su...

(part 2)

...such a manner.Contrary to popular belief,there are objective statements that can be made within a relativist framework. It's not all chaotic opinions that must be equally valid.

By the way,invoking a creator doesn't fix any of the problems you seem to have with morality without one.I can see 3 problems straight away.

1.Ignoring the blindingly obvious fact that serial killers are often sociopathic so the reason they can kill is because they're ill-equipped to feel any empathy and realise that they shouldn't do it,there's no particular monopoly over someone's religious convictions and the likelihood of them killing anyone so having some sort of objective moral standard by a celestial lawgiver doesn't do anything.
2.Having a moral lawgiver tell you what is right and wrong does nothing to tell you WHY it is right and wrong.If we really do need a moral lawgiver,we should be given the ability and the means to comprehend WHY something is wrong and not just THAT it is wrong,no? Otherwise it's doing nothing that the law isn't already doing anyway and is unnecessary.
3.Objective moral standards cannot exist with a creator without them also existing without one,making it red...

(part 3)

...redundant to invoke one.Does god command us to do moral things because they are moral or are they moral because god commands us to do them? Depending on how you answer that question,either objective moral standards exist without god so it was pointless invoking him,or morality is arbitrary with a god which is exactly the thing you were trying to get rid of by invoking god in the first place.

Recommended reading:
The Moral Animal by Robert Wright
The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris
Euthyphro by Plato

Cherry picking the bible for its good morals are what idiots do. Use your logic, not a stupid book about a god that orders genocide on those who go against him yet asks his people to turn the other cheek. I'm a better person as an atheist than I ever was as a christian. Hail science, logic and reason!

I don't have a set code of morals. I go situation by situation. In one situation, I may think it's okay to kill someone because they did this or that. In another, maybe stealing is okay as well. As a general rule, I do not support thievery or murder. But there are exceptions to every rule.

Morals among humanity are subjective. Conceding to this, leaves one of two options - either you are conceding that all actions are gray and relative, and there is no true wrong doing, or that in order to have true right and wrong morals, it would have to come from a higher power than humanity because we are equal in that respect.

I personally have qualms with admitting murdering your spouse, or committing a sexual act on a child is a "gray" subjective area.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin Morals among humanity are subjective. Conceding to this, leaves one of two options - either you are conceding that...

Why couldn't you have just said "Morals among humanity are subjective, amirite?" instead of starting a whole religious debate?

@shelbme Why couldn't you have just said "Morals among humanity are subjective, amirite?" instead of starting a whole...

Because it is. Morals being subjective is not the only option, either morals in general are subjective, or a higher power defines them because a higher power is the only thing over a human.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1849859

Give me another one. If you can't, that's why. Even if you were to say oh I don't know, aliens, that is still a higher power. Either it's all gray, or someone more than us sets the guidelines, and that would be a higher power no matter the specifics.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1850319

Yes, it is. If you are not taking morals from a higher being then you decide for yourself what your morals are.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin Yes, it is. If you are not taking morals from a higher being then you decide for yourself what your morals are.

You learn morals from your experiences and your upbringings. Religion is not necessary for morals. In fact I'm sure the opposite is quite true. A book that's so contradictory though shalt not kill and then kill all other religions "If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die." - Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5
who is to say this is the book everyone should live by much less get their morals from? I mean OBVIOUSLY there's no way your mom telling you put that back stealing is wrong and gathering common sense from your elders doesn't happen EVER. People just make up what's right and wrong. They just sit down and plan we should tell people to do this and do that what's wrong. Wait, no, that's the bible.

@Juliaface You learn morals from your experiences and your upbringings. Religion is not necessary for morals. In fact I'm sure...

You're clearly not getting my point, and I've explained about 50 times through all these comments, so look there. It has literally nothing to do with the bible, or my God, but that morals are subjective unless they come from a higher power. I have no idea why you are quoting scripture and trying to debate the bible with me....maybe because you are missing the bigger point here, but I'll get back to you on that particular scripture and the meaning in a few hours, I have a baby and she's cranky as crap right now.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin You're clearly not getting my point, and I've explained about 50 times through all these comments, so look there...

I get your point I just disagree with it... It's just moot because morals from a higher power are biased. The least biased morals would be agnostic.

@Juliaface I get your point I just disagree with it... It's just moot because morals from a higher power are biased. The least...

No, if there is no higher power all morals are relative to the person deciding what they are. Is something really morally unsound, just because you think so? Or just because a lot of people think so? This is where the relativity of made up morals for every person comes in. Who is to stay any on person, or any few, is more right than some other people doing the same thing - deciding for themselves what morals they hold? Nothing. Nothing makes any person more right than another. Thus, morals among humanity are subjective.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Juliaface My morals are gained from tangible people not an imaginary friend

See, this is where you give yourself away as not really wanting to engage in any kind of intelligent speculation, but just interested in insulting any other type thought process other than your own. I posed two options, one was higher power, and one was morals are subjective in general. What you just said literally has nothing to do with anything.

You get your morals like most other people, your own encounters and experiences so my point still stands. If you want to be a hateful atheist, go somewhere with a group of them and circle jerk about how right you are. That's for you, not a place for civil discussion.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin See, this is where you give yourself away as not really wanting to engage in any kind of intelligent speculation...

How is you make up your morals just because, intelligent speculation? You need a god to have morals that aren't something you just decided to have isn't either. That's not true at all and it's not an opinion it's a fact. Morals that are solid aren't dependent on a higher power. You started off insulting.

@Juliaface How is you make up your morals just because, intelligent speculation? You need a god to have morals that aren't...

O.O Nothing you just said makes any sense. Go take an English class and then get back to me.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin O.O Nothing you just said makes any sense. Go take an English class and then get back to me.

How is if you don't believe in god, you pull morals out of your asshole well thought out?

@Juliaface How is if you don't believe in god, you pull morals out of your asshole well thought out?

Look, it's a simple concept. Objectivity cannot be created by the same people who are appealing to it. That makes it subjectivity. If true objectivity is possible, then it MUST be from something greater than ourselves. That's what MAKES it objective. Otherwise it is just opinion with fancy words

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply

Well said.

danieljc2008s avatar danieljc2008 Yeah You Are -2Reply
@danieljc2008 Well said.

If you like retarded rethoric that grabs at straws, I agree it is well said.

@HopeImrite If you like retarded rethoric that grabs at straws, I agree it is well said.

I'm sorry, could you explain your thought a bit more please?

danieljc2008s avatar danieljc2008 Yeah You Are 0Reply

OP's point is that morals without God are not objective since they can not be anchored to a standard. In Richard Dawkins's words "we are just dancing to our dna". Well, Richard. Tell the jews that Hitler was just dancing to his DNA.

Anonymous -3Reply
@OP's point is that morals without God are not objective since they can not be anchored to a standard. In Richard...

Why was this voted down? For those that practice religion, morality is not seen as subjective to them because they don't decide their own values. For those without religion or some sort of central faith, morality and values and absolutely subjective. I'm not debating religion here,ust t agreeing that otherwise there is no objectivity. Subjectivity is not necessarily a bad thing in all instances, as people should never accept any "objective truth" without thinking it through themselves first.

@amiwhite Why was this voted down? For those that practice religion, morality is not seen as subjective to them because they...

I agree with you, that everything is subjective. However, the comment was mocking subjectivity, and that Hitler was not just doing what he thought was best (subjectivity) and instead doing evil for the hell of it.

"Tell the Jews that Hitler was just dancing to his DNA". The poster obviously did not like the notion that Hitler was just being subjectively moral.

@spareseconds I agree with you, that everything is subjective. However, the comment was mocking subjectivity, and that Hitler was...

I hear what you're saying. I also hear what anon is saying. Without objectivity, one can claim that your subjective interpretation is no more valid than theirs. However, people have done some horrible things in the name of objective interpretations as well. It does just depend on context. In our current society, (Western world, and for example) we have generally collectively agreed to certain morals and values. These might change depending on the culture and global location. In medieval times, their contextual society collectively abided by certain horrible terms which makes me glad that that's not my time period.

@amiwhite I hear what you're saying. I also hear what anon is saying. Without objectivity, one can claim that your subjective...

This is true, people have done horrible things in the name of objective interpretations, although, in relation to my faith, say for example people using the bible as an excuse to promote slavery, this was done in error because the bible does not support slavery, at least in the way they tried to make it, because slavery was a very different thing during that time. I think the term bondservant fits much better. So, to me, people have used it as an excuse to do what they wanted to, and without a particular excuse, people will just find another to fit.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are +1Reply
@spareseconds I agree with you, that everything is subjective. However, the comment was mocking subjectivity, and that Hitler was...

Yes, because one of those options was true wrong, or, true evil. If you pick the side of a higher power, Hitler was absolutely wrong, he was an evil person. Not so hard to imagine.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@amiwhite Why was this voted down? For those that practice religion, morality is not seen as subjective to them because they...

This I can agree with. I think it was down voted because what I pose leaves one with two options, either morals are relative, meaning things such as child molestation or rape are a gray area not necessarily an absolute wrong, or a higher power is a more logical answer.

For people who do not subscribe to any high power, this leaves the first option, and I would imagine people don't like saying such things are not an absolute wrong.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are 0Reply
@miffedmuffin This I can agree with. I think it was down voted because what I pose leaves one with two options, either morals are...

But just because you have a grey area over child molestation does not mean many people are able to get off scott free, even in prison child molesters get hell from the other convicts.
I dont need a God to tell me that raping a child is wrong, enough people agree with it that it is morally right, just like you find it morally right to preach your beliefs as fact upon people (on this thread, i dont know you in person so i cant make those assumptions) which i dont think is morally sound.

@TheTall123 But just because you have a grey area over child molestation does not mean many people are able to get off scott...

You're too stupid to realize I'm not preaching anything. I'm not saying one religion is right over another one, I never did. Reading skills.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@miffedmuffin You're too stupid to realize I'm not preaching anything. I'm not saying one religion is right over another one, I...

I'm stupid and you're the one making lifestyle choices based off of an outdated fiction novel...

@TheTall123 I'm stupid and you're the one making lifestyle choices based off of an outdated fiction novel...

Do the atheist cause a favor and stop embarrassing them with your discrimination.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@TheTall123 Wahh? Boohoo? Cry me a river.

Your insults don't even make sense lol.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@miffedmuffin Your insults don't even make sense lol.

Religion was created to control the ignorant, and now that we have furthered our knowledge as a species, religion's ignorance has metamorphosed into stupidity.

@miffedmuffin Go learn grammar before you call people stupid lol.

Notice I distinguished the difference between ignorance and stupidity, maybe I just have yet to be exposed to proper grammar lessons. You however, have likely taken many years of science classes and still fervently advocate for your favorite fiction novel.

@TheTall123 Notice I distinguished the difference between ignorance and stupidity, maybe I just have yet to be exposed to...

Yes, because science has nothing to do with religion, neither disproves or even says anything of consequence about the other. I'm sorry you've been brainwashed to promote hate for people based on their personal convictions. It's truly sad.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
@miffedmuffin Yes, because science has nothing to do with religion, neither disproves or even says anything of consequence about...

Science has not disproved religion, i admit that, but both have a reason to explain the beginning of existence; and while one only has people's written accounts, Science has facts that are backed up and observable in the world.

@TheTall123 Science has not disproved religion, i admit that, but both have a reason to explain the beginning of existence; and...

Science for me is a means of explaining how God did something. It doesn't have to be some magical thing where God just popped everything into existence like a magician. A lot of Christians seem to feel that way, but that isn't true. The bible, or any religious text, does not have to be viewed as some silly fairy tale. There are good lessons, and just because you personally have not had a spiritual experience does not mean they do not exist. If you don't believe because you've never felt the touch of God on your heart, that's perfectly understandable. But please do not be so small-minded as to believe that just because you haven't felt it, it doesn't exist. You are drawing logical conclusions from what you feel, and everyone else is doing the same thing.

miffedmuffins avatar miffedmuffin Yeah You Are -2Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.