the morality of believers

Ahnimus · June 2007

ForestBrain wrote:

Waiting until your married

Oops

Ahnimus · June 2007

decides2dream wrote:

exactly. for some, that may stem from religion...but more than anything, it is simply from being brought up in a 'moral' household, being brought up with good and bad, etc. morality does NOT have to be tied to religion, although oftentimes it is...but more than anything imho.....social conditioning, which can be influenced by a whole gamut of things. i do not think we are b'orn' with a sense of morality, more like preprogrammed for self-sustainability. so things like not killing others of your species, more than likely linked to survival, not just what is 'right'...i think 'right' has evolved from what is needed/necessary to survive individually and collectively. and hell yes, one CAN be quite 'moral' with or without religion. people who say/think otherwise, simply have their own agenda they're pushing.

There is some degree of morality that is neuronal and biological. I think the field of neuroethics does a good job of pointing this out. With things like mirror neurons that allow us to "walk" in another person's "shoes". With neurology in mind, I don't think killing was ever right, I think it's pretty much always been wrong. But a lot of things are cultural and learned. It's hard to tell what is what anymore.

Ahnimus · June 2007

catefrances wrote:

i think you will find ryan that even primitive tribes have some sort of devotion that could be classed as religion.

Well, according to mead, primitive children (from primitive tribes) don't concern themselves with spirituality, the older folks wonder about life, but don't have a doctrine.

one would have to look at where those societal standards come from in the first place. are they the result of hundreds or thousands of years of christianity or islam or are they the result of thousands of years of worshipping the Earth as the Mother of us all? or are societies devoid of any form of devotion at all.

I think it's mostly utilitarianism.

bgivens33 · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

There is some degree of morality that is neuronal and biological. I think the field of neuroethics does a good job of pointing this out. With things like mirror neurons that allow us to "walk" in another person's "shoes". With neurology in mind, I don't think killing was ever right, I think it's pretty much always been wrong. But a lot of things are cultural and learned. It's hard to tell what is what anymore.

Earlier you said societal conditional... now it partly has to do with neurological conditioning?? Those are quite different.

Since the question was brought up, I think most basic morals lead to believe that there is some sort of higher being. We are inherently programmed with the knowledge that killing is wrong. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is more or less an accepted truth. The idea of a conscious can be analyzed two different ways. One would be that it is not very evolutionary, to put someone else's needs in front of yours. That is not survival of the fittest, you don't see lions sharing food very often. But on the flip side, maybe learning to co-exist is part of evolution. Doing the right thing, helping people out... using some sort of moral guide. To me, people know the difference between right and wrong. And I don't feel that comes from society, a young boy stranded on an island for 30 years could come back and still know that. We are programmed that way. My personal belief is that it comes from some higher being. But who the hell really knows??

lucylespian · June 2007

bgivens33 wrote:

Earlier you said societal conditional... now it partly has to do with neurological conditioning?? Those are quite different.

Since the question was brought up, I think most basic morals lead to believe that there is some sort of higher being. We are inherently programmed with the knowledge that killing is wrong. Yes, there are exceptions, but that is more or less an accepted truth. The idea of a conscious can be analyzed two different ways. One would be that it is not very evolutionary, to put someone else's needs in front of yours. That is not survival of the fittest, you don't see lions sharing food very often. But on the flip side, maybe learning to co-exist is part of evolution. Doing the right thing, helping people out... using some sort of moral guide. To me, people know the difference between right and wrong. And I don't feel that comes from society, a young boy stranded on an island for 30 years could come back and still know that. We are programmed that way. My personal belief is that it comes from some higher being. But who the hell really knows??

Ahnimus is just looking for the chance hijack the thread by banging on about brain research AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeanie · June 2007

I'm sorry, but why is it that everyone here seems to forget that there were "Gods" in all the countries on earth, long before this current "god"?
Many different cultures have had many different gods and deities long before the advent of the bible, the koran, the current "brat pack" if you will.

Had to mention that. Drives me nuts.

The other thing is, um hello? so we are saying that EVERYONE accepts that morally all killing is wrong?

Because I don't agree with that at all.

Scubascott · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm pretty sure killing is wrong in primitive tribes without religions. I'm not sure why it would be right in any society.

Read about the cannibal tribes that lived in the highlands of New Guinea. It'll blow your mind. It was learning about the pactices of those people that convinced me once and for all that morality is an entirely social construct that evolves to serve the needs of the culture.

Ahnimus · June 2007

Scubascott wrote:

Read about the cannibal tribes that lived in the highlands of New Guinea. It'll blow your mind. It was learning about the pactices of those people that convinced me once and for all that morality is an entirely social construct that evolves to serve the needs of the culture.

Well, it's no doubt limited to the tribe. I don't imagine they'd eat each other, would they?

redrock · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, according to mead, primitive children (from primitive tribes) don't concern themselves with spirituality, the older folks wonder about life, but don't have a doctrine.

They will have rituals, etc. I would consider that, as catefrances said, a 'devotion' of some kind.

I also agree with scubascott when he says 'that morality is an entirely social construct that evolves to serve the needs of the culture'. I believe this to be not only for morality but for religious doctrine as well.

Ahnimus.. you say "I don't imagine they'd eat each other, would they..." I believe I read that some actually do eat their dead (or part of). Just like the ritual of eating the enemy's heart is said to give strength and courage, the eating of bits of the dead had to do with 'keeping them with you'...

callen · June 2007

decides2dream wrote:

exactly. for some, that may stem from religion...but more than anything, it is simply from being brought up in a 'moral' household, being brought up with good and bad, etc. morality does NOT have to be tied to religion, although oftentimes it is...but more than anything imho.....social conditioning, which can be influenced by a whole gamut of things. i do not think we are b'orn' with a sense of morality, more like preprogrammed for self-sustainability. so things like not killing others of your species, more than likely linked to survival, not just what is 'right'...i think 'right' has evolved from what is needed/necessary to survive individually and collectively. and hell yes, one CAN be quite 'moral' with or without religion. people who say/think otherwise, simply have their own agenda they're pushing.

....there are morals that are passed down in societies. but there are others, the non-sensible ones, that are passed on by religion. So yea..thou shall not kill is one of those no brainer morals...but the Gays are bad and unnatural...well that's a good example of a religious moral.
Oh and your right...I do have an agenda....think all humans should be treated equally.

chopitdown · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, it's no doubt limited to the tribe. I don't imagine they'd eat each other, would they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Historical_accounts

chopitdown · June 2007

catefrances wrote:

oh brisk. suicide is an unforgivable sin because you can not ask forgiveness once you're dead. therefore God can not forgive you cause you have no way to ask for redemption for the sin you committed.

is that from a catholic perspective?

chopitdown · June 2007

catefrances wrote:

i started this thread cause i didn't want to hijack the atheist morality thread.

it saddens me greatly that people who believe in a God think that because one does not, that it is somehow a flaw on the part of the disbeliever. and that because they dont answer to a higher power that the atheist has no morality.
so i ask you all, do believers have morals? what shapes these morals, if applicable and what makes those believers think that they, as believers, have a monopoly of such behaviour. must one believe in a higher power in order to have morals? why?

yes believers have morals, but they, just like everyone else, don't always live up to their moreals.

Well for believers, I'm assuming that tradition and the religion shapes the morals for the individual.

My guess on thinking of having the monopoly on the behavior is ego or having to justify themselves. And the question arises where do morals come from for atheists? Are they ingrained? Are they passed down? Where do they ultimately come from? For a believer, it's their chosen religion. So it's tough to understand how someone without a religion can come to some decisions on morality, just as atheists prob find it weird and don't understand some convictions of believers and both sides love to point out faults in the others. Some christians like to say people are bad b/c they act a certain way. And non-believers like to point out when believers screw up b/c it helps somewhat justify their stance. There's always going to be tension.

Cosmo · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

...And the question arises where do morals come from for atheists? Are they ingrained? Are they passed down? Where do they ultimately come from?

...
I can't speak for anyone else.. but, I would say it comes from their humanity. Maybe from the belief that they are human first... non-believer second.

chopitdown · June 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
I can't speak for anyone else.. but, I would say it comes from their humanity. Maybe from the belief that they are human first... non-believer second.

and i agree with that. I don't think people nec have to believe in god to have morals. But you have to see that believers believe that man was created in the likeness of God. So anything that man has from their humanity is from God.

angelica · June 2007

Cosmo wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else.. but, I would say it comes from their humanity.

I agree.

We all share a capacity and potential for morality and spirituality. That capacity is innate. It exists within all humans. It is molded into many forms through our varying environments.

Cosmo · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

and i agree with that. I don't think people nec have to believe in god to have morals. But you have to see that believers believe that man was created in the likeness of God. So anything that man has from their humanity is from God.

...
Well... I for one... believe in a higher source. I'll call Him 'God', for lack of a better name. I believe He is the life that's in me... and in every other living thing... from single celled critters to cats and dogs and hamsters to grass and trees and marijuana to you and me.
I don't believe He gave me my humanity. I will take credit for that myself. He just put me here on this road of life... it is up to me to decide where to go. I proclaim all of my deeds... good and bad... in my name only. I'm not passing on blame for my actions and decisions to Satan or giving credit to God... it's all of my own doing. God understands me... loves me and does not judge me. He accepts me for who I am and what i do... even if I make poor choices now and again. This is why I do not fear Him... He is not out there to punish me... just love me.

Ahnimus · June 2007

chopitdown wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Historical_accounts

In times of famine. Well that makes sense. As trophies, again that makes sense. Eating the dead, again entirely different than hacking up your neighbour and eating him. Even that crazy guy from Germany posted an ad on the internet and got a willing participant to be eaten. We must also consider that cases like Dahmer were the result of defects in the brain. I could be wrong, but I think by enlarge people don't eat their neighbours.

angelica · June 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

We must also consider that cases like Dahmer were the result of defects in the brain.

Considering an individual interacts with their brain and plays out the actions of it, and further acknowledging Jeffrey Dahmer's brain did not operate in a vacuum outside his body, it looks as though we must conclude that cases like Dahmer's are about defects in a human. More preferably to me: cases like Dahmer's are about what is 'lacking' in a human. ie: empathy or a conscience.

Ahnimus · June 2007

angelica wrote:

Considering an individual interacts with their brain and plays out the actions of it, and further acknowledging Jeffrey Dahmer's brain did not operate in a vacuum outside his body, it looks as though we must conclude that cases like Dahmer's are about defects in a human. More preferably to me: cases like Dahmer's are about what is 'lacking' in a human. ie: empathy or a conscience.

"an individual interacts with their brain"?

How so? How is a person not their brain? See, I detest that anyone would influence policy based on this assumption.

the morality of believers

Comments

Categories