Where be a wise man?

I don't believe in anything, so I don't get my morals from any religion. There was morality before christianity, judism or islam and it was morality and ethics that ended slavery.

Morals come from norms and values, sencerity, empathy etc and has boggled the minds of philosophers, theologeans and so on for centuries.

I have a very different world view probably than you guys, being in a different country, on a different continent with way less religious people and maybe more open minded, critical thinking. I sencerely don't try to offend anyone here btw.

 

Yes, the delayed quantum choice theory is insanely interesting. You should all look into it.

There's a couple of ways too look at morality. One could say that morality is ever changing, as is evident throughout history. One could also say that there has always been an objective moral standard set in place long before we came, and that the only aspects that change are how people perceive or choose to perceive those objective morals, ultimately making the concept of morality subjective in one way or another.

I personally believe the ladder. I think that there is a right and wrong for every possible situation, but we are not equipped to decipher each and every instance, which is where I think that quote from a Jesuit priest comes in. Do what is natural, and if you are genuinely in Christ, then you will do the right thing.

At least that's my perception so far.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 19, 2017 ---

I think most religious people, especially Christians, would agree that morality existed before their religion did.

 

Oh certainly. I myself am a Christian and knowing that humans existed for tens (some say hundreds? something like 120000) of thousands of years before Jesus was even born, it would pretty ignorant to convince myself that there were no morals beforehand. Morality is an instinct that develops over time, and is influenced by the environment/circumstances you're brought up in- everyone has a unique compass, in other words.

In a way, that's an underlying factor across all religions and creeds- they pick some way to influence and/or secure your moral being. For Christians, all parts of the Bible tie to two parenting aspects of how to live: love and forgive others. I can't speak for any other religion, but that is a fundamental aspect of my faith and my life - and I'm sure atheists/agnostics could say the same, hence the "morality is an instinct." Anyway, those two ideas that split into so much more really drive the morality of Christians, whether they're die-hard or not.

That's why I see Religion as partly a catalyst for morality. Obviously, it serves many more purposes, but that's certainly a biggy.

 

Religion itself only spells out what IS moral, not if it exists in an objective system. If you believe in a moral God you believe in objective reality regardless of religion. If you're an atheist subjective morality is the sensible belief. I get what youre saying though

 

I think we're getting at the same thing, just different wording.

 

Ok, why is he wrong? I've asked questions, but you still refuse to reply with your point of view of why you think he's wrong. Again, you talked about how people don't respect the socratic method... yet you continue to reply with one word or one sentence posts that get us no closer to coming to a conclusion. I've asked questions, I've implored debate. Give me something.

 

I just said morality is completely contingent on God, we're saying the same thing here dude

 

No. In fact I don't really have an argument exactly. I'm just trying to point out the obvious.

What I'm pointing out in the comment you quoted is that people's ideas about what morality is are subjective.

Whether or not there is objective morality is irrelevant, considering the fact that our perception of morality is inherently subjective.

If a color blind person looks at a painting, they will see it as black and white (with shades of gray). What they see is subjective. It's the same with morality. We all have our own form of color blindness when it comes to morality. Does that mean there isn't an objective morality? No, it doesn't. It just makes objective morality irrelevant to us as subjectively observing, thinking, and feeling individuals.

 

No. Our perception of everything is relative.
What I've been trying to say all along in various ways is that perception≠reality.

 

Soldat **sigh** Soldat, come back to us. Anyone got a finger snap emoji.

I feel like this topic has run it's course.

 

That's like asking "If a person can't recognize the color red, how can the color red be real?"
Our inability to accurately recognize what is true and what is not true could be compared to a color blind persons inability to differentiate between various colors.

 

So you're implying there is an objective truth we just have no way of knowing it

 

"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them..."

Matthew 7: 12



"If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you must take her to her father's doorstep and stone her to death."

Deuteronomy 22: 13-21



"I need a weapon"

John 1: 17






Muller out...

 

I'm not implying that.
a. I have no idea
b. there's no way for us to know so there's no sense in being concerned about it, or rigidly attached to an idea about it.

Just think of how much sense it would make for a color blind person to obsess and argue over what the color red is...because that's basically what we do with morality. We take something that's not possible for us to know and we argue over who's knowing is right. A color blind person can believe with every fiber of their being that they know what the color red is. But what difference does it make? It's obvious to us that it wouldn't matter. But when it comes to the subject of morals/morality, we suddenly think it makes sense to approach it in that manner.

 

I get that.

I believe that a moral God would dictate objective morality. So we very well could know what is objectively correct depending on what theistic belief ends up true