# Morality and Purpose.



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

We have had a lot of debates on here regarding the relativity of morals.  I would like to raise another question regarding morals.  It's one I think points to the heart of the matter. 

It is "Can you define and justify a moral framework without first defining the purpose, if there is one, of life itself?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> We have had a lot of debates on here regarding the relativity of morals.  I would like to raise another question regarding morals.  It's one I think points to the heart of the matter.
> 
> It is "Can you define and justify a moral framework without first defining the purpose, if there is one, of life itself?



Are you asking if there is a way to define and justify one to another person? 

Can anyone identify a purpose to life itself?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

Can morality be justified at all without first defining ones purpose in life?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2013)

One's purpose, or THE purpose of life? 

Honor your father and be modest, which was purposed as absolute morals by a believer here, don't seem to need any purpose to life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Can morality be justified at all without first defining ones purpose in life?



To me, yes; to you, I don't know.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To me, yes; to you, I don't know.



How so?  It would seem to me that one would have to define their purpose first.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How so?  It would seem to me that one would have to define their purpose first.



Absent of a cling to religion, can anyone define their purpose in life to another in a way that they will 100% agree with? 

I exist because I exist, and because I have free will, of indeterminate origin, my purpose is that which I make it. 

My purpose, according to me, in life is to survive until the day I die and not be considered a total jack hole. 

As a result, I have a code of morals of which some are granite, and can't be broken, and some which are open to interpretation based on the situation.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2013)

Personally, purpose is whatever the individual chooses to do with their life...or not. Help propagate the species or not. 

Globally, we really don't have a purpose. We just use resources until we can't. Much like most other animals...except we are more needy.  

My morals are based on my empathy. I don't like to see animals suffer. I will do everything I can to ensure animals don't suffer...when I have a hand in the legal termination of their life. I will help to make life better for animals when I can.  
These are hopefully what everyone has and doesn't have to be told. 

If your personal choice of purpose is to illegally kill as many animals(humans included) as possible before you die and make as many suffer, then you obviously have a different subset of morals or none. Lack of empathy or conscious is a very bad thing. 

Now, if you lack empathy and the only thing keeping you from wiping out the neighborhood is the bible then please step forward. 
If you are going to wipe out the neighborhood because the bible told you too, please step forward too.
Matter of fact, step forward if you want to kill for any reason other than, self-defense or other legal reasons.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Personally, purpose is whatever the individual chooses to do with their life...or not. Help propagate the species or not.
> 
> Globally, we really don't have a purpose. We just use resources until we can't. Much like most other animals...except we are more needy.
> 
> ...



Good post. 

I tend to think of humans as a virus, clichéd I know. It is true though. When an animal obliterates the resources of their environment they tend to die out, and the population develops an equilibrium with the environment. That's why they only have X number of young per season, and it takes so long for them to reach maturity. 

Humans take a long time, compared to most other animals to reach sexual maturity, but there is no natural mechanism to keep us in check. Once a girl hits maturity she can reproduce without end. There's nothing natural saying that she can't just give birth after birth after birth. There's no season on it, and our humanity keeps us from kicking her out of the herd to fend for herself and her young, rather than taking them on as a burden to everyone. 

Also, when resources do run out, humans can travel very rapidly in comparison to animals. 

Think about this for a second. We're now talking about mining asteroids because they hold resources we don't have in great enough quantities on earth. Only one other creature spreads beyond its boundaries to get access to other resources to continue its out of control population growth and that is a virus. 

That's just my take on it. 

Lastly, as to the killing aspect, I tend to believe that the only truly justifiable killing is self-defense. Anything else is sliding scale and can be endlessly hemmed and hawed about as perspectives shift.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Anything else is sliding scale and can be endlessly hemmed and hawed about as perspectives shift.



Thanks.
Good stuff. I think our resource (ab)use could be a whole thread. 

I was counting hunting in the legal killing as well.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Thanks.
> Good stuff. I think our resource (ab)use could be a whole thread.
> 
> I was counting hunting in the legal killing as well.



Oh, well that's a whole other barrel of monkeys, then. 

I was referring to human on human killing, obviously. 

As to killing creatures on the planet I believe we have stewardship over the resources, living and not, of this planet and that the wise steward is the responsible steward. 

To ensure that a renewable resource remains as one then we need to manage it so as not to lose it. 

For non-renewables then we should use it as sparingly as possible, or necessary, until another option presents itself.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 13, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Absent of a cling to religion, can anyone define their purpose in life to another in a way that they will 100% agree with?
> 
> I exist because I exist, and because I have free will, of indeterminate origin, my purpose is that which I make it.
> 
> ...





660griz said:


> Personally, purpose is whatever the individual chooses to do with their life...or not. Help propagate the species or not.
> 
> Globally, we really don't have a purpose. We just use resources until we can't. Much like most other animals...except we are more needy.
> 
> ...





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Good post.
> 
> I tend to think of humans as a virus, clichéd I know. It is true though. When an animal obliterates the resources of their environment they tend to die out, and the population develops an equilibrium with the environment. That's why they only have X number of young per season, and it takes so long for them to reach maturity.
> 
> ...




Good posts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Absent of a cling to religion, can anyone define their purpose in life to another in a way that they will 100% agree with?
> 
> I exist because I exist, and because I have free will, of indeterminate origin, my purpose is that which I make it.
> 
> ...



I think you raise a very interesting point and are correct in your conclusion.  Religion defines us vertically, if you will, in that we (all monotheistic believers) point to a higher transcendent point of reference for purpose.  This purpose both dictates our morality and serves to unify that believing portion of society on what is and is not acceptable........on what is just.  At the same time it must be said that by ascribing to Theism, one gives up the liberty of defining ones purpose and hence ones own morality.  In other words freedom is lost, but a unified code of morality is gained.

  Unbelievers, secularist, Atheist, etc do not recognize a transcendent point of reference.  They define their purpose in life horizontally, if you will, in that they either look to themselves or others to define morality based on their perceived sense of purpose.  As you pointed out the limitation of this is that not 100% of society is going to buy in to your definition of purpose.  In fact it it may be much less depending on the individual doing the defining and just how far his beliefs deviate from the mean of what society, at the time, accepts.  As a whole, defining purpose horizontally results in greater individual freedom, but also has as a direct consequence the loss a unifying concept of morality.  In other words freedom is gained at the cost of the loss of a unified concept of morality.

To summarize, Theist sacrifice freedom for the sake of a defining morality.  Atheist sacrifice a defining framework of morality for freedom.  

We know, based on history, that societies can survive and in even flourish as long as the individuals subscribe to or 'buy in' to unifying concepts that provide a framework and direction.  What we don't know is if a society can even survive when it forsakes not just the framework it was built upon, but the notion of framework altogether.

C.S. Lewis puts is like this:
“There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individ-uals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual—when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. You cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions......But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to....And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.....

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on.  When a man says about something he wants to do, ‘It can’t be wrong because it doesn’t do anyone else any harm,’ he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship.....Unless we go on to the second thing—the tidying up inside each human being—we are only deceiving ourselves.
What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all.  

Let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself.

Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse—so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is “more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.
It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2013)

I think you just argued a reason to devise religion.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Personally, purpose is whatever the individual chooses to do with their life...or not. Help propagate the species or not.
> 
> Globally, we really don't have a purpose. We just use resources until we can't. Much like most other animals...except we are more needy.
> 
> ...



Good post, but if purpose is as you say, to do whatever you wish...or not, how do you justify calling someone immoral if they deem their purpose is to cause pain and suffering to animals or humans.  On what grounds do you have to condemn the acts of a Hitler, Bundy, or Demarquise Elkins if they deemed that their actions were justifiably moral based on their belief of their purpose in life.  If there's not a transcendent standard of justice then we, me and you cannot condemn their actions.  You choose empathy and that's commendable to me, but foreign to them,....maybe even suggesting weakness.  A Lion would not interpret a gesture of empathy from a Gazelle as anything but weakness, so I don't think it's possible to look to Darwin for an explanation for the presence of your empathy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think you just argued a reason to devise religion.



Thanks but I can't take credit for it.  Just observing.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2013)

Our morals are our morals because we believe them to be best ones... the right ones. Those people you mentioned may have been conducting themselves by their own morals but that doesn't mean that I think they are appropriate morals. I've chosen a set of morals that I feel are right. They did the same. I can say that they have the wrong idea whether they followed a process to get to their morals that I recognize.

I tend to try not to dwell on individuals with small groups to think about morals. Bundy doesn't belong there. Hitler himself doesn't belong there. Nazi Germany, maybe, because Hitler and others led the morals of a big part of the nation. That is a case in point though. You would have to argue that people can be completely disconnected from their absolute, god given, morals by other people, if you think that they exist, based on history.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you raise a very interesting point and are correct in your conclusion.  Religion defines us vertically, if you will, in that we (all monotheistic believers) point to a higher transcendent point of reference for purpose.  This purpose both dictates our morality and serves to unify that believing portion of society on what is and is not acceptable........on what is just.  At the same time it must be said that by ascribing to Theism, one gives up the liberty of defining ones purpose and hence ones own morality.  In other words freedom is lost, but a unified code of morality is gained.
> 
> Unbelievers, secularist, Atheist, etc do not recognize a transcendent point of reference.  They define their purpose in life horizontally, if you will, in that they either look to themselves or others to define morality based on their perceived sense of purpose.  As you pointed out the limitation of this is that not 100% of society is going to buy in to your definition of purpose.  In fact it it may be much less depending on the individual doing the defining and just how far his beliefs deviate from the mean of what society, at the time, accepts.  As a whole, defining purpose horizontally results in greater individual freedom, but also has as a direct consequence the loss a unifying concept of morality.  In other words freedom is gained at the cost of the loss of a unified concept of morality.
> 
> ...



Very well expressed. 

Is life more valuable when considered on the "eternal" scale of religion? 

Just because something is transient does not mean that it is frivolous. 

If you remove the notion of faith, religion, and everlasting life in a "kingdom" then you still have the ripple effect. Case in point, a little stronger than that of the average person but merely used for demonstrative purposes, is the teacher. They're touching 30 lives every year, and those 30 lives will touch everyone else that they meet, if the lesson is stout enough. So, even removing the Kingdom aspect, while acknowledging that the human life itself is transient, the effects of such are not and can be felt long after the owner has passed. 

I don't disagree with your three viewpoint position, I just think that it can be separated, and should be separated, from religion if to do nothing more than to make it truly universal. 

100% of people aren't going to like you 100% of the time, and to pursue such is a fool's errand. However, to engage in nihilism and say that it's not worthy to pursue at all is equally foolish. Ignoring the possibility of expanding the audience to its farthest reaches ensures its own failures, as well. That, I think, requires a separation of morality from religion, which can still be lent weight merely by the ripple effect that each human existence provides to the remaining tapestry. 

So, without religion, you can still convey, not necessarily an obligation to heed to, but to at least consider the effects of the individual upon the whole; which is, in my estimation, the whole point that religion was trying to make, anyway, by placing that concern with a deity. My argument is that the deity, because we can never truly know them in this plane of existence, is unnecessary, and often times unwanted in this day and age, and only leads to problems when speaking to audiences that don't subscribe to it. Rather, if you can appeal to reason rather than religion you have the potential, in my estimation, to not only garner the religious crowd, since they will already have a moral code mostly in harmony with that which is being discussed, but to also speak to the agnostic, atheist, deist, polytheist, crowds in terms they can appreciate, as well.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 13, 2013)

Morals are simply fictional constructs of society. 
They do not exist. You people need to stop discussing all this made- up mumbo jumbo. 
There is only behavior- and that is simply an organism doing what it's DNA tells it to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Our morals are our morals because we believe them to be best ones... the right ones. Those people you mentioned may have been conducting themselves by their own morals but that doesn't mean that I think they are appropriate morals. I've chosen a set of morals that I feel are right. They did the same. I can say that they have the wrong idea whether they followed a process to get to their morals that I recognize.
> 
> I tend to try not to dwell on individuals with small groups to think about morals. Bundy doesn't belong there. Hitler himself doesn't belong there. Nazi Germany, maybe, because Hitler and others led the morals of a big part of the nation. That is a case in point though. You would have to argue that people can be completely disconnected from their absolute, god given, morals by other people, if you think that they exist, based on history.



But don't you find it interesting that Hitler defined the morals of an entire nation by first redefining their purpose?  They bought into his idea for their purpose and then redefined their morals around that purpose.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> But don't you find it interesting that Hitler defined the morals of an entire nation by first redefining their purpose?  They bought into his idea for their purpose and then redefined their morals around that purpose.




Yes, it is interesting that it is easier to control with purpose.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Good post, but if purpose is as you say, to do whatever you wish...or not, how do you justify calling someone immoral if they deem their purpose is to cause pain and suffering to animals or humans.


 Like I meant to say, if someone is without empathy, watch out. If you cannot feel for the pain and the suffering of others based on how it would make you feel to lose a loved one, lose a chance to enjoy life, you are a drain on society.  





SemperFiDawg said:


> On what grounds do you have to condemn the acts of a Hitler, Bundy, or Demarquise Elkins if they deemed that their actions were justifiably moral based on their belief of their purpose in life.


 Then I deem them crazy, and not to mention they happen to break many laws. Which were created to help protect rights. I am sure morals worked in there somewhere. I condemn them thinking what if they had killed one of my children, my wife, my friend, my neighbor? How does the family of the slain feel?





> If there's not a transcendent standard of justice then we, me and you cannot condemn their actions.


 Sure we can. I don't care what the law states, breaking into my house and stealing my stuff or harming my family is wrong and could be a fatal mistake. In my moral world, there are certain actions folks can take that would cause me to try to take their life. This action could put me in jail but, I believe it is the right thing to do.  I don't believe in forgive and forget.





> You choose empathy and that's commendable to me, but foreign to them,....maybe even suggesting weakness.


 I think it is foreign to them because they are off in their wiring. Hey, folks are born screwed up. Like a lion with no teeth, they will be taken out of the population. Since we have few natural enemies, they should be put down. 


> A Lion would not interpret a gesture of empathy from a Gazelle as anything but weakness, so I don't think it's possible to look to Darwin for an explanation for the presence of your empathy.



Empathy from a Gazelle would be a weakness. That would seriously harm the reputation of the lion. Empathy usually goes from those with power, down. 
I disagree on looking to Darwin for presence of empathy. Lions and other wild animals have evolved their own special laws.  Some more highly evolved animals do show empathy. However, because of man's special circumstance, we had to develop empathy or our species would be doomed or forced to de-evolve.
We just cannot keep breeding, keep living longer, live 50 feet from 5 other alpha males and kill anybody that you catch peeing on your bush. We had to evolve from the territorial ways of our ancerstors. Some more evolved than others.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Like I meant to say, if someone is without empathy, watch out. If you cannot feel for the pain and the suffering of others based on how it would make you feel to lose a loved one, lose a chance to enjoy life, you are a drain on society.   Then I deem them crazy, and not to mention they happen to break many laws. Which were created to help protect rights. I am sure morals worked in there somewhere. I condemn them thinking what if they had killed one of my children, my wife, my friend, my neighbor? How does the family of the slain feel? Sure we can. I don't care what the law states, breaking into my house and stealing my stuff or harming my family is wrong and could be a fatal mistake. In my moral world, there are certain actions folks can take that would cause me to try to take their life. This action could put me in jail but, I believe it is the right thing to do.  I don't believe in forgive and forget. I think it is foreign to them because they are off in their wiring. Hey, folks are born screwed up. Like a lion with no teeth, they will be taken out of the population. Since we have few natural enemies, they should be put down.
> 
> 
> Empathy from a Gazelle would be a weakness. That would seriously harm the reputation of the lion. Empathy usually goes from those with power, down.
> ...





Well said. Common sense all over it!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Personally, purpose is whatever the individual chooses to do with their life...or not. Help propagate the species or not.



I would like to go back to this.  If you are correct in that purpose is whatever the individual chooses it to be then it must follow that morality is however the individual chooses to define it to justify his self perceived purpose.  

In other words your perceived purpose in life dictates your morals.  Would you agree?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Morals are simply fictional constructs of society.
> They do not exist. You people need to stop discussing all this made- up mumbo jumbo.
> There is only behavior- and that is simply an organism doing what it's DNA tells it to.



I'm not exactly sure what a fictional construct is.  If you construct something, then by definition it IS, it exist,  and is not fictional.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes, it is interesting that it is easier to control with purpose.



Do you think it accurate to say that purpose dictates morality?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2013)

It can.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do you think it accurate to say that purpose dictates morality?


My opinion is yes and no. Bottom line is the purpose of humans is to survive and propagate to continue our species. We live in groups. Behaviors are either a positive or a negative to the groups survival. So no our purpose doesn't dictate what morality is, yes it creates a need for certain behavior limitations for the group to be successful. Other than that, all the rest of this "morality" is made up by humans to fit their views. That's why there is such a huge difference between what people believe is "moral".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

I don't want to side track this onto an evolutionary thread.  That being said, I need to address it because so many of you have brought it up with regards to purpose and I think at least one (maybe Griz) attributed the feeling of empathy to evolution.

With regards to purpose, if we are only here to propagate the species then I can't comprehend any justification for morality at all.  Nature is savage; red in tooth and claw. Griz says empathy is a moral he adheres to and attributes it to evolution, but I have never seen any evidence of that.  I am aware of some theories, but that's as far as it goes.  It would seem to me, as I stated to Griz earlier that empathy as an evolutionary adaptation seems counter intuitive to me, because empathy in the animal kingdom would tend to make you edible.  Even here today among us so called civilized people, those who show empathy during any type of conflict are the often first to perish.  Survival in nature is survival among constant conflict, so if evolution can account for empathy at all then it must have evolved after the point in which civilization developed and man could afford the luxury of empathy: meaning that not only did he not have to worry about being killed by a bear, but he didn't have to worry about being killed by another fellow competitor.  I'm not sure that we have reached that era even now.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Very well expressed.
> 
> Is life more valuable when considered on the "eternal" scale of religion?



Honestly I always attributed the value of life to the fact that we are made in God's image and while immortality is certainly one of his attributes, the argument Lewis put forth is not one I had ever considered.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just because something is transient does not mean that it is frivolous.



I agree.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If you remove the notion of faith, religion, and everlasting life in a "kingdom" then you still have the ripple effect. Case in point, a little stronger than that of the average person but merely used for demonstrative purposes, is the teacher. They're touching 30 lives every year, and those 30 lives will touch everyone else that they meet, if the lesson is stout enough. So, even removing the Kingdom aspect, while acknowledging that the human life itself is transient, the effects of such are not and can be felt long after the owner has passed.



I agree.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't disagree with your three viewpoint position, I just think that it can be separated, and should be separated, from religion if to do nothing more than to make it truly universal.



I don't think thats possible.  As I stated earlier Theist, by ascribing to a higher power forsake some individual freedom (Exactly how much depends on the specific beliefs they adhere to) but gain a defined unifying morality.  Atheist gain independence by rejecting Theism, but lose the objective ability to define a universal morality.
I think this is in essence what Lewis was postulating.  Once you deny the Fleet has no central command (no God)
then everyone becomes Captain of his own ship with their own destinations in mind.  I don't think it very practical to expect everyone to arrive at the same destination, which if I understand your point regarding "making it truly universal".





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 100% of people aren't going to like you 100% of the time, and to pursue such is a fool's errand. However, to engage in nihilism and say that it's not worthy to pursue at all is equally foolish. Ignoring the possibility of expanding the audience to its farthest reaches ensures its own failures, as well. That, I think, requires a separation of morality from religion, which can still be lent weight merely by the ripple effect that each human existence provides to the remaining tapestry.



You lost me completely here.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So, without religion, you can still convey, not necessarily an obligation to heed to, but to at least consider the effects of the individual upon the whole; which is, in my estimation, the whole point that religion was trying to make, anyway, by placing that concern with a deity.



I understand what you are saying.  In essence I/you don't need God to be present in order to follow the Golden Rule and that is true. But again without God there is no objective reason that you could point to to validate why exactly we are following the Golden Rule if we were confronted by a group who chose to follow the motto "Do unto others before they do unto you."  If ultimate authority rest on the individual, then there is no higher authority to point to as justification.  There is no appealing to a higher cause for purpose, morality, justice, etc.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My argument is that the deity, because we can never truly know them in this plane of existence, is unnecessary, and often times unwanted in this day and age, and only leads to problems when speaking to audiences that don't subscribe to it. Rather, if you can appeal to reason rather than religion you have the potential, in my estimation, to not only garner the religious crowd, since they will already have a moral code mostly in harmony with that which is being discussed, but to also speak to the agnostic, atheist, deist, polytheist, crowds in terms they can appreciate, as well.




I think both groups are open to reason.  That being said, there are loud ignorant voices at the extremes on both sides that tend to give the opposition the impression they speak for the majority of their party.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With regards to purpose, if we are only here to propagate the species then I can't comprehend any justification for morality at all.  Nature is savage; red in tooth and claw. Griz says empathy is a moral he adheres to and attributes it to evolution, but I have never seen any evidence of that.  I am aware of some theories, but that's as far as it goes.  It would seem to me, as I stated to Griz earlier that empathy as an evolutionary adaptation seems counter intuitive to me, because empathy in the animal kingdom would tend to make you edible.  Even here today among us so called civilized people, those who show empathy during any type of conflict are the often first to perish.  Survival in nature is survival among constant conflict, so if evolution can account for empathy at all then it must have evolved after the point in which civilization developed and man could afford the luxury of empathy: meaning that not only did he not have to worry about being killed by a bear, but he didn't have to worry about being killed by another fellow competitor.  I'm not sure that we have reached that era even now.


You are not considering the flip side to your argument.
I agree showing a bear or your competitor empathy can wind up getting you killed. However by showing your group empathy and them showing it to you, you now have a stronger group better able to kill the bear or the competitors. The group then is better able to survive and propagate and become larger and stronger. To NOT show empathy would be counter intuitive under this scenario because nature is savage; red in tooth and claw.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I would like to go back to this.  If you are correct in that purpose is whatever the individual chooses it to be then it must follow that morality is however the individual chooses to define it to justify his self perceived purpose.
> 
> In other words your perceived purpose in life dictates your morals.  Would you agree?



I fail miserably in printed communication. I don't believe we have a purpose. You just do whatever you want to do whithin the short period you are alive. Since I believe morals come way before you are able to choose a path to happiness, it may be more that morals dictate your "purpose" or path. If you have no morals or your morals are outside what is deemed necessary for humans to coexist, then your "purpose" or path may be short lived.

To sum up, if you are born "wired" right, you decide what you want to do to make you happy(within your means) and do it and then die. This may mean you have to go your entire life without violating another human beings rights. The end.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't want to side track this onto an evolutionary thread.  That being said, I need to address it because so many of you have brought it up with regards to purpose and I think at least one (maybe Griz) attributed the feeling of empathy to evolution.


 It was me. 



> With regards to purpose, if we are only here to propagate the species then I can't comprehend any justification for morality at all.  Nature is savage; red in tooth and claw.


 I feel your pain. There is lots of things I don't comprehend. 





> Griz says empathy is a moral he adheres to and attributes it to evolution, but I have never seen any evidence of that. I am aware of some theories, but that's as far as it goes.  It would seem to me, as I stated to Griz earlier that empathy as an evolutionary adaptation seems counter intuitive to me, because empathy in the animal kingdom would tend to make you edible.   Survival in nature is survival among constant conflict, so if evolution can account for empathy at all then it must have evolved after the point in which civilization developed and man could afford the luxury of empathy: meaning that not only did he not have to worry about being killed by a bear, but he didn't have to worry about being killed by another fellow competitor.  I'm not sure that we have reached that era even now.



Not trying to be a smartace but...seriously, do you want to see evidence? Can we use the same evidence rules as faith? Once again, I really am curious. There is evidence of the evolution of morality. Even in social animals today...other than us. "All social animals have hierarchical societies in which each member knows its own place. Social order is maintained by certain rules of expected behavior and dominant group members enforce order through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of reciprocity. Chimpanzees remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them. Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding.(empathy?)

Animals such as Capuchin monkeys and dogs also display an understanding of fairness, refusing to co-operate when presented unequal rewards for the same behaviors."

 "Psychologist Matt J. Rossano muses that religion emerged after morality and built upon morality by expanding the social scrutiny of individual behavior to include supernatural agents. By including ever watchful ancestors, spirits and gods in the social realm, humans discovered an effective strategy for restraining selfishness and building more cooperative groups. The adaptive value of religion would have enhanced group survival."   i.e. Control folks that just aren't wired right. They need a reward/punishment type foundation. So, morality evolved and then religion was invented to help with folks that weren't wired right. 



> Even here today among us so called civilized people, those who show empathy during any type of conflict are the often first to perish.


Empathy during a conflict? I am not sure that would happen. Empathy, from my stand point, is shown for the weak, etc., not for someone coming at me with a knife. I have hunted and killed animals all my life. I feel bad EVERY time I take their life.  I feel good when I am eating them but...still. However, if a bear charged me, a human, a mountain lion, whatever, I will not hesitate as I reflect on this animal about to lose it's life, I will stop the threat. Empathy may or may not come after that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't want to side track this onto an evolutionary thread.  That being said, I need to address it because so many of you have brought it up with regards to purpose and I think at least one (maybe Griz) attributed the feeling of empathy to evolution.
> 
> With regards to purpose, if we are only here to propagate the species then I can't comprehend any justification for morality at all.  Nature is savage; red in tooth and claw. Griz says empathy is a moral he adheres to and attributes it to evolution, but I have never seen any evidence of that.  I am aware of some theories, but that's as far as it goes.  It would seem to me, as I stated to Griz earlier that empathy as an evolutionary adaptation seems counter intuitive to me, because empathy in the animal kingdom would tend to make you edible.  Even here today among us so called civilized people, those who show empathy during any type of conflict are the often first to perish.  Survival in nature is survival among constant conflict, so if evolution can account for empathy at all then it must have evolved after the point in which civilization developed and man could afford the luxury of empathy: meaning that not only did he not have to worry about being killed by a bear, but he didn't have to worry about being killed by another fellow competitor.  I'm not sure that we have reached that era even now.



Once you get past that Adam and Eve were not the first two people and that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before the story of A&E took place, you will see that we were very animalistic with few regards to Morals. "WE" then, were not like "US" now. People needed to live together in order to survive. In order to live together a social set of rules developed and those in turn developed into what we now call morals. These things took place over a very long time.There is a lot of reading out there on the subject.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You are not considering the flip side to your argument.
> I agree showing a bear or your competitor empathy can wind up getting you killed. However by showing your group empathy and them showing it to you, you now have a stronger group better able to kill the bear or the competitors. The group then is better able to survive and propagate and become larger and stronger. To NOT show empathy would be counter intuitive under this scenario because nature is savage; red in tooth and claw.



I have considered it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> I fail miserably in printed communication. I don't believe we have a purpose. You just do whatever you want to do whithin the short period you are alive. Since I believe morals come way before you are able to choose a path to happiness, it may be more that morals dictate your "purpose" or path. If you have no morals or your morals are outside what is deemed necessary for humans to coexist, then your "purpose" or path may be short lived.
> 
> To sum up, if you are born "wired" right, you decide what you want to do to make you happy(within your means) and do it and then die. This may mean you have to go your entire life without violating another human beings rights. The end.



So you believe morals precede purpose and are wired in it birth.  If that is the case why are they not more uniform among individuals?  And if you feel they are uniform then would that not tend to unify us as far as purpose?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So you believe morals precede purpose and are wired in it birth.  If that is the case why are they not more uniform among individuals?



Good questions. Yes. I believe we are wired at birth. I think the basic low level morality is uniform among individuals. Depending on their environment and sucseptibility to be turned into sheep, they may do things that violate their own morals in order to be accepted into the herd...or just to survive in that social order without being killed. 

Do you think that if Abraham would have sacrificed his son, Isaac, that would have been against Abraham's morals? I am pretty sure killing your own son is right up there on the moral chart. However, Abraham would have done it cause God told him too. He was sad and confused...but, he would have killed his own son.



> And if you feel they are uniform then would that not tend to unify us as far as purpose?



Because of different environments and different influences in ones life on what is considered fun, or successful, you can have different directions(I like that better than purpose). Perhaps someone wished to actually have a purpose. They wish to do something that benefits all mankind and wish to go down in history and get the Nobel prize and all that stuff...great. I guess you can say they have a purpose.  Even that maybe stretching it. I think all folks are replaceable and anybody that thinks they serve a purpose 1 million other folks couldn't serve is fooling themselves. Famous, not famous, important people die all the time. Life goes on with not much of a blink.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I have considered it.


Then you must have rejected it even though its a fact of every day life?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Good questions. Yes. I believe we are wired at birth.



If this is true, and I don't think it is, but if it is true and our actions are nothing more than a product of our prewired morality that is at base "survival of the fittest" and our environment then all individual accountability has been removed from humanity.  Every act, no matter how heinous has an excuse.  I don't buy that and I don't think you do either.  There must be another answer.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> However, because of man's special circumstance, we had to develop empathy



Maybe.  Or it could be that empathy allows us to function better in a social organization, and that man's social organization is what allowed us to achieve our special circumstances.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> To sum up, if you are born "wired" right



Are you wired with morals, or just with certain traits like empathy and the ability to internalize the morals you are taught?  I would think of it more akin to language ability.  No one knows a language from birth.  The ability to use language (or feel empathy) helps fit within a social organization, thus those who have it are more likely to succeed and pass that innate ability on.  But as to what language (or morals) you learn, maybe that depends on what you are taught?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is true, and I don't think it is, but if it is true and our actions are nothing more than a product of our prewired morality that is at base "survival of the fittest" and our environment then all individual accountability has been removed from humanity.  Every act, no matter how heinous has an excuse.  I don't buy that and I don't think you do either.  There must be another answer.



Not sure how you got survival of the fittest out of that. I would say survival of mankind. Looking around, definitely not the survival of the fittest. 
I am sure every act has an excuse, that doesn't make it right or a good reason. "God made me do it.", is an excuse but, you still will get locked up. 

I know your answer and now, you know mine. Yours is based on faith mine is based on what evidence I can find. If more evidence presents itself, I am open to changing my mind. I will take the evidence into consideration and make adjustments if necessary.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> Are you wired with morals, or just with certain traits like empathy and the ability to internalize the morals you are taught?  I would think of it more akin to language ability.  No one knows a language from birth.  The ability to use language (or feel empathy) helps fit within a social organization, thus those who have it are more likely to succeed and pass that innate ability on.  But as to what language (or morals) you learn, maybe that depends on what you are taught?



Maybe. I don't think anyone has to be taught morals. Correction, I hope nobody has to be taught morals. Obviously, some folks need a way to be kept "in line". I consider empathy and morals to be one and the same. The entire basis for our continued socialized existence. Only when folks violate that does a riff in the time/space continuem(sp) occur.  
Thinking of it as a language rather than an evolved brain function is a stretch for me. I just can't get there. So, if you do think of it as a language, I just can't argue based on that assumption. Babies are born with brain functions that aren't available. Heck, studies show that teens don't think rationally. Part of their brain just hadn't developed yet. They are not waiting to be taught. Parents harp on them probably daily. It is not until the reason part gets developed.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Maybe. I don't think anyone has to be taught morals.



OK, lets' take examples.  One of the main areas "morals" cover is sexual reproduction.  I have yet to meet a teenage boy who was born with the "I shouldn't have premarital sex because its immoral" gene.  I would say this is something we teach our kids and it would not be universally abided in a state of nature (i.e. without societal education).  The ok/not ok rules of sex differ by society and are part of leaning the rules of that culture.

Another might be stealing.  Children frequently like to take things that aren't theirs.  Some societies have a communal property system, so there is no stealing.  Others have a system of property rights so that kids are taught the parameters of when it's ok to take something or when it is not.

Killing.  Killing is frequently prohibited, but rarely does any society have a total prohibition of killing.  Bad killing is "murder",  but there are plenty of times you can have a good kill of another human.  War, self defense, capital punishment, etc.   The parameters of good/bad killing differ by society.  There is no universal so the "moral" behavior has to be learned by education in that society.

Etc.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> OK, lets' take examples.  One of the main areas "morals" cover is sexual reproduction.  I have yet to meet a teenage boy who was born with the "I shouldn't have premarital sex because its immoral" gene.  I would say this is something we teach our kids and it would not be universally abided in a state of nature (i.e. without societal education).  The ok/not ok rules of sex differ by society and are part of leaning the rules of that culture.
> 
> Another might be stealing.  Children frequently like to take things that aren't theirs.  Some societies have a communal property system, so there is no stealing.  Others have a system of property rights so that kids are taught the parameters of when it's ok to take something or when it is not.
> 
> ...



Oh, you mean impose your 'morals' on others. Can't help you there. Never told my kids to not have premarital sex. Told them to be safe. 
I don't think good/bad killing differ in human society. Pretty sure everyone can differentiate between a good and bad killing. It may be that their society does bad killings based on an outside influence.(i.e. religion) That doesn't make it morally right. It just makes it legal...for them.
Going back to the Abraham/Isaac analogy. Everyone, including Abraham, knew it was wrong to kill his own son but, he would do it for God. Empathy and morals didn't change. Just an outside force.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Oh, you mean impose your 'morals' on others. Can't help you there. Never told my kids to not have premarital sex. Told them to be safe.
> I don't think good/bad killing differ in human society. Pretty sure everyone can differentiate between a good and bad killing. It may be that their society does bad killings based on an outside influence.(i.e. religion) That doesn't make it morally right. It just makes it legal...for them.
> Going back to the Abraham/Isaac analogy. Everyone, including Abraham, knew it was wrong to kill his own son but, he would do it for God. Empathy and morals didn't change. Just an outside force.



You're saying there are absolute morals? What are they?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You're saying there are absolute morals? What are they?



I said that?
I don't think there is such a thing as absolute morals. Do not steal. What if your children are starving? Well, I could go on. 

I tried to say...briefly...We don't have a purpose and morals are based on millions of years of evolution. Empathy being one that I think is the most important.

I hope to never be so closed minded as to think that morals...any morals are absolute.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Oh, you mean impose your 'morals' on others.




If your definition of morals is simply following your own inclinations then I don't think the conversation makes sense.  Morals are not necessarily imposed, that would be laws.  Moral are often taught so as to engender self-restraint.





> I don't think good/bad killing differ in human society.



I'm pretty sure Aztec human sacrifice would be viewed negatively in Sweeden today.  Is it OK to kill your slaves these days?  How about honor killing because your daughter dated someone of a different nationality?  Killing someone because they dissed you in the 'hood?  Or just plain capital punishment?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If this is true, and I don't think it is, but if it is true and our actions are nothing more than a product of our prewired morality that is at base "survival of the fittest" and our environment then all individual accountability has been removed from humanity.  Every act, no matter how heinous has an excuse.  I don't buy that and I don't think you do either.  There must be another answer.



We hold ourselves and others accountable as a society.

What morals are in play in jungles/islands where killing and eating a rival is deemed as perfectly acceptable and killing babies is a way of keeping population control in check? Most of society on the rest of the planet cringe and think that those things are morally wrong but we have no authority to do anything about it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> If your definition of morals is simply following your own inclinations then I don't think the conversation makes sense.


  Tell me about it. 


> Morals are not necessarily imposed, that would be laws.  Moral are often taught so as to engender self-restraint.


Where did they come from to teach? That is where this conversation came from. Not doing the circular thing. 



> I'm pretty sure Aztec human sacrifice would be viewed negatively in Sweeden today.  Is it OK to kill your slaves these days?  How about honor killing because your daughter dated someone of a different nationality?  Killing someone because they dissed you in the 'hood?  Or just plain capital punishment?



Did they feel bad for the victims? Was empathy involved but doing it for a god? (See outside force) Some folks can be scared into doing things they know is wrong. 
Capital punishment...example of 'no absolute morals'.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We hold ourselves and others accountable as a society.



This pretty much says it all.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Then you must have rejected it even though its a fact of every day life?



Walt the scenario you present in post 31 is logical and reasonable.  And yes you can present evidence for it.  That being said, there are other, and in my opinion better explanations for the same evidence.  Your example, and again this is somewhat deviating from the main idea of the OP, posits that the purpose of empathy is to strengthen the group and make it stronger against external threats therefore increasing the chances of each individuals survival.  First of all I don't think your example is an accurate example of empathy at all, but more of an example of herd mentality or strength in numbers.  You can point to a herd or school of fish and say why do they gather like that, but I don't think Darwin's first response would be "Out of empathy."   So to be frank I don't think evolutionary theory even supports your supposition.

The problem, as I see it, is that in attempting to posit evolutionary theory as an agent to explain empathy is several fold.
First, the evidence is primarily observational.   An animal exhibits X behavior and we interpret that behavior to be a facsimile of behavior humans exhibit that are associated with empathy.  I could go further, but suffice it to say correlational evidence cannot be used to validate cause and effect. The behavior may be better explained by other concepts either within the evolutionary theory or external and separate from it entirely.

Second.  Empathy is a state of mind, a feeling.  I find it very difficult to believe evolution can be used to support something so abstract and intangible as a feeling an animal may or may not be capable of forming, much less prove it?  If all of nature is the result of a blind unguided process, it seems even less plausible for now you must not only account for the capacity for abstract thought in humans, but bats and dog also just to name a few.  Additionally, this directly contradicts the notion that humans developed empathy at some point after their cognative faculties evolved to the point of being able to comprehend the concept that empathy could be a useful concept.  Are we suggesting bats and dogs are capable of this high level of thought process?

Lastly, even if evolution could account for such a abstract thought just among humans it offers nothing past the base goal of potentiating the species.  That's as far as evolution can push empathy, but empathy goes much deeper than that.  On and abstract level empathy extends on into forgiveness, beauty, justice and sorrow just to name a few.  

That is why I reject it Walt.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We hold ourselves and others accountable as a society.



First of all there is no collective we if everyone determines their own purpose,  but its a noble thought.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> First of all there is no collective we if everyone determines their own purpose,  but its a noble thought.



Well, yea there is. Unless your 'purpose' takes you in isolation from the rest of humanity for your entire life.
The good news...you won't need morals anymore.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Pretty sure everyone can differentiate between a good and bad killing.



Is this not an absolute moral of some kind?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> First of all there is no collective we if everyone determines their own purpose,  but its a noble thought.



The noble thought is that there is something more than we.

Everyone ultimately determines their own purpose but most conform to what society deems as acceptable.
There are just too many examples in this world that go against any sort of ultimate or absolute set of morals or moral giver.
These morals are a product of modern humans.(last 5,000-8,000 years) No coincidence that so is organized religion.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 14, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Is this not an absolute moral of some kind?



Not really. Killing is not really a morality issue. Sometimes, people need to kill. It is an empathy issue. If it was an absolute moral issue, you would see far less of it. Not sure where I heard this quote but it goes, "Some folks are only alive because it is against the law to kill them."

I found an absolute...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Not really. Killing is not really a morality issue. Sometimes, people need to kill. It is an empathy issue. If it was an absolute moral issue, you would see far less of it. Not sure where I heard this quote but it goes, "Some folks are only alive because it is against the law to kill them."
> 
> I found an absolute...



Nice pic...

Everyone knowing the difference in good and bad... Where does that come from? I think good and bad are morally driven.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt the scenario you present in post 31 is logical and reasonable.  And yes you can present evidence for it.  That being said, there are other, and in my opinion better explanations for the same evidence.  Your example, and again this is somewhat deviating from the main idea of the OP, posits that the purpose of empathy is to strengthen the group and make it stronger against external threats therefore increasing the chances of each individuals survival.  First of all I don't think your example is an accurate example of empathy at all, but more of an example of herd mentality or strength in numbers.  You can point to a herd or school of fish and say why do they gather like that, but I don't think Darwin's first response would be "Out of empathy."   So to be frank I don't think evolutionary theory even supports your supposition.
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that in attempting to posit evolutionary theory as an agent to explain empathy is several fold.
> First, the evidence is primarily observational.   An animal exhibits X behavior and we interpret that behavior to be a facsimile of behavior humans exhibit that are associated with empathy.  I could go further, but suffice it to say correlational evidence cannot be used to validate cause and effect. The behavior may be better explained by other concepts either within the evolutionary theory or external and separate from it entirely.
> ...


Here is why we have such a failure to communicate. Ive pointed it out several times hoping that you would refrain from continuing to do it so we could have intelligent discussion/debate. It always drags down the conversation when I have to stop and point it out.
1.you said this -purpose of empathy is to strengthen the group 
However I never said that was the purpose of empathy. I said that was a result of empathy being applied to each other in the group.
2. The entire rest of your post is in response to only what is in your head. In none of my posts on this thread will you find the word evolution. I didn't use it, I didn't imply it and I didn't make a case for it. If I did find it and show me.
3. I answered your specific questions using your scenarios.
4. I couldn't give a hoot less what Darwin's response would be. I thought I was having a conversation/debate with you. In fact that's the first time I have typed the word Darwin in all the years I have been a member of this site nor have I ever read a word that he wrote.. and if I had I wouldn't believe it just because he wrote it.  I think for myself using information/facts from lots of different places.
5. Now SFD I'm not an educated person but I think I've made myself clear and understandable. Please stop taking what I say and changing it or adding pages of your own thoughts to it and claiming I said it. Its dishonest and I don't do it to you (that whole morals thing).
By the way I have no clue why you are talking about bats and dogs and what they think or don't think. I'm sure you must have a good reason though it escapes me.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I find it very difficult to believe evolution can be used to support something so abstract and intangible as a feeling



Walt is taking a pass on evolution but I'll play.  Fear? Lust?  They are emotions.  Why is hard to see how evolution can play a role in developing emotions?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> Walt is taking a pass on evolution but I'll play.  Fear? Lust?  They are emotions.  Why is hard to see how evolution can play a role in developing emotions?


I only took a pass because that wasn't the topic I responded to nor did I use it in my responses.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Here is why we have such a failure to communicate. Ive pointed it out several times hoping that you would refrain from continuing to do it so we could have intelligent discussion/debate. It always drags down the conversation when I have to stop and point it out.
> 1.you said this -purpose of empathy is to strengthen the group
> However I never said that was the purpose of empathy. I said that was a result of empathy being applied to each other in the group.
> 2. The entire rest of your post is in response to only what is in your head. In none of my posts on this thread will you find the word evolution. I didn't use it, I didn't imply it and I didn't make a case for it. If I did find it and show me.
> ...



Walt do you find it strange that many threads you join turns into a "you said, I said" squabble between you and the OP author, after which you accuse them of misunderstanding or misinterpreting you and then dismiss yourself from the thread.  Well I'm not going there.  It's a public forum.  People can form their own opinions on what has been posted. You want to accuse me of ignorance, deception, etc.  Go ahead.  I'll be in the good company of all the others you have done the same to.  Stay or Go I won't be a party to the pettiness.  You've already addressed the OP in post 28, the rest irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt do you find it strange that many threads you join turns into a "you said, I said" squabble between you and the OP author, after which you accuse them of misunderstanding or misinterpreting you and then dismiss yourself from the thread.  Well I'm not going there.  It's a public forum.  People can form their own opinions on what has been posted. You want to accuse me of ignorance, deception, etc.  Go ahead.  I'll be in the good company of all the others you have done the same to.  Stay or Go I won't be a party to the pettiness.  You've already addressed the OP in post 28, the rest irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.



The point he was making, and spot on IMO, was that what he said was changed into what you wanted in order to make your thoughts back up your argument. When in fact if what Walt said was taken as it was intended, not changed, it was valid.

And a PRIME example(above) is you stating that Walt was going to dismiss himself from this thread.....WHERE did he say that????????


----------



## bullethead (Aug 14, 2013)

A good article about Morals.
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt do you find it strange that many threads you join turns into a "you said, I said" squabble between you and the OP author, after which you accuse them of misunderstanding or misinterpreting you and then dismiss yourself from the thread.  Well I'm not going there.  It's a public forum.  People can form their own opinions on what has been posted. You want to accuse me of ignorance, deception, etc.  Go ahead.  I'll be in the good company of all the others you have done the same to.  Stay or Go I won't be a party to the pettiness.  You've already addressed the OP in post 28, the rest irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.


Wow. I wont bother to point out the numerous lies, yes lies, in your post. Ignorance and deception pretty much covers it. What you don't realize is nobody but you falls for it. I would suggest you just put me on ignore because I will only continue to point out when you change what I said. Or you could just stop doing it. Whatever is easier for you.
By the way, I noticed you couldn't show me where I said those things so you chose to tell all these lies instead.
Also I apologize to the rest of you for having this thread go in this direction. Please ignore the nonsense and continue with your discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The point he was making, and spot on IMO, was that what he said was changed into what you wanted in order to make your thoughts back up your argument. When in fact if what Walt said was taken as it was intended, not changed, it was valid.
> 
> And a PRIME example(above) is you stating that Walt was going to dismiss himself from this thread.....WHERE did he say that????????


You are wasting your breath my friend. Sad but true.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 14, 2013)

Seems like morals could be an entirely selfish response our environment.  What keeps me out of trouble, what fullfills my desires,  what makes me happy.  Is there anything else?  Seriously.  Is there?


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Seems like morals could be an entirely selfish response our environment.  What keeps me out of trouble, what fullfills my desires,  what makes me happy.  Is there anything else?  Seriously.  Is there?



I think in most constructs morals keep you from pursuing your narrow self satisfaction.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> I think in most constructs morals keep you from pursuing your narrow self satisfaction.


That makes sense. That whole good of the many is more important than the good of the one or whatever that saying is.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 14, 2013)

Everything, no matter what we do, is for the satisfaction of our own consciousness. Whether it is to feed the homeless or hoard dead cats we do it to appease our own souls.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Everything, no matter what we do, is for the satisfaction of our own consciousness.



Presumably any decision you make is to make yourself happy, at least within the field of choices available, but I struggle with how that applies in the context of "morals".   Someone who rapes and kills a 6 year old girl can do that to satisfy their own consciousness, but if that is your definition of morals we are pretty adrift.   And I would struggle with the definition of altruism under your framework.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Seems like morals could be an entirely selfish response our environment.  What keeps me out of trouble, what fullfills my desires,  what makes me happy.  Is there anything else?  Seriously.  Is there?



Not sure I follow you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> I think in most constructs morals keep you from pursuing your narrow self satisfaction.



By this do you mean they point to a higher ideal or that they limit your freedom?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 14, 2013)

For the sake of discussion, altruism or the act of selflessness does not really exist. You can perform kind acts, put others before yourself, etc., but aren't you satisfying your own desires by doing so?

As to acts of violence towards others, as long as there are two people on this planet, one of them is going to get the short end of the stick.  Morals or not, GOD or not, there will always be people suffering on some level.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

JFS said:


> Presumably any decision you make is to make yourself happy, at least within the field of choices available, but I struggle with how that applies in the context of "morals".   Someone who rapes and kills a 6 year old girl can do that to satisfy their own consciousness, but if that is your definition of morals we are pretty adrift.   And I would struggle with the definition of altruism under your framework.



I think you see the same dilemma I do particularly with regards to this statement 





> Someone who rapes and kills a 6 year old girl can do that to satisfy their own consciousness, but if that is your definition of morals we are pretty adrift.


.  The dilemma I see is that if our actions are just the product of heredity and environment to paraphrase Griz, then this is a logical 
action.  Furthermore it's completely justified, because the perpetrator is only dancing to his DNA to quote Dawkins.


----------



## JFS (Aug 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> By this do you mean they point to a higher ideal or that they limit your freedom?



I guess we'd have to explore what "higher" means before I could answer for sure, but to the extent one viewed societal function as more important than individual gratification then I guess so.  Since IMHO society sets morals, it is generally in society's interest to elevate aggregate social interest and cohesion over individual interest. That may break down at the margins (e.g. stealing bread to feed the starving), is subject to numerous variations and some counterveiling considerations, such as economics, that can influence the balance you choose, but for the sake of discussion I'll go with it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 14, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> For the sake of discussion, altruism or the act of selflessness does not really exist. You can perform kind acts, put others before yourself, etc., but aren't you satisfying your own desires by doing so?



To a point I agree.  I have done mission work and can honestly say it was some of the most fulfilling experiences I have ever had.  I received a lot of personal satisfaction.  So yes I can see your point.  On the other hand a civilian who risks his own life trying to save another isn't doing it for personal fulfillment at all, but because he holds all life sacred to the point a strangers is worth more than his.



drippin' rock said:


> As to acts of violence towards others, as long as there are two people on this planet, one of them is going to get the short end of the stick.  Morals or not, GOD or not, there will always be people suffering on some level.



I agree.  What do you think your two points say with regards to purpose and morals?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 14, 2013)

My purpose is to get along and not make my wife angry too much. I've already done too much thinking for one night. I'll leave this origin of morals stuff to the heavy hitters.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The dilemma I see is that if our actions are just the product of heredity and environment to paraphrase Griz, then this is a logical
> action.  Furthermore it's completely justified, because the perpetrator is only dancing to his DNA to quote Dawkins.



Wow! I just don't know where to begin. It seems the more I try to explain, the further off in the weeds we go. 
I'll try one more time. Whether you rape a 6 year old girl or kill your son because God said to do it, it is wrong. You are not WIRED right. Doesn't matter if you are born that way. Folks are born with no legs, two heads, that doesn't mean it is normal and justified. 
It doesn't matter if it is an inside voice, the dog, the blow dryer, whatever convinces one to do such heinous things, it is wrong. That behaviour cannot be allowed in a socialized society. Maybe they were born wired wrong, maybe they got hit on the head, doesn't matter. Wrong. 
How do I know it is wrong? Because millions of years of evolution has told us that is wrong in order for our species to survive. There are exceptions to every rule. You are going to have weirdos but, you certainly don't manage to the exceptions. "Well, this guy was born to rape and pillage so, let's make that legal." 

What we are basically arguing here, in a backdoor kind of way, is evolution vs. creation. Right? Pretty sure neither side is going to have an ah ha moment.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Furthermore it's completely justified, because the perpetrator is only dancing to his DNA to quote Dawkins.



Hypothetical:
If a Black Lab is coming at you foaming at the mouth and ready to pounce, is he just dancing to his DNA? (By the way, it is your dog.)


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Nice pic...
> 
> Everyone knowing the difference in good and bad... Where does that come from? I think good and bad are morally driven.



I think morality is based on evolutionary driven knowledge of good and bad.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> On the other hand a civilian who risks his own life trying to save another isn't doing it for personal fulfillment at all,



I don't know how you could make that statement. How would you know?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Wow! I just don't know where to begin. It seems the more I try to explain, the further off in the weeds we go.
> I'll try one more time. Whether you rape a 6 year old girl or kill your son because God said to do it, it is wrong. You are not WIRED right. Doesn't matter if you are born that way. Folks are born with no legs, two heads, that doesn't mean it is normal and justified.
> It doesn't matter if it is an inside voice, the dog, the blow dryer, whatever convinces one to do such heinous things, it is wrong. That behaviour cannot be allowed in a socialized society. Maybe they were born wired wrong, maybe they got hit on the head, doesn't matter. Wrong.
> How do I know it is wrong? Because millions of years of evolution has told us that is wrong in order for our species to survive. There are exceptions to every rule. You are going to have weirdos but, you certainly don't manage to the exceptions. "Well, this guy was born to rape and pillage so, let's make that legal."
> ...



Rape, or other intimate relationships with children doesn't keep the species from surviving... and it has been acceptable in other societies in the not so distant past.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> On the other hand a civilian who risks his own life trying to save another isn't doing it for personal fulfillment at all, but because he holds all life sacred to the point a strangers is worth more than his.



There's a statement on individual motives that I think should be considered here. 

No one, not Mother Theresa, nor Ghandi, did anything for another individual that was completely favoring the other person. 

Meaning, if I save you (either you're speaking out spiritually saving, which I'm not capable of as an agnostic, or actually saving someone's physical life from harm) then I do that because, on some level, it makes me happy to do so.

The simplest way to say it is that even the most "altruistic" person on the planet does their acts because it makes them feel good and is therefore based on their own greed to feel good about themselves. 

That's not saying that altruism isn't a good thing, quite the contrary, but merely that it serves a purpose to the person assisting the other and that's why they do it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> I think morality is based on evolutionary driven knowledge of good and bad.



It's a fact that humans don't have genetic memory. The lessons of our ancestors doesn't pass to us at birth. It'd be great if it did though. 

My point is that morality is learned, not birthed. 

You learn morality from your parents and your environment.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you see the same dilemma I do particularly with regards to this statement .  The dilemma I see is that if our actions are just the product of heredity and environment to paraphrase Griz, then this is a logical
> action.  Furthermore it's completely justified, because the perpetrator is only dancing to his DNA to quote Dawkins.



Are you saying that you don't believe there is anything in our DNA that encourages moral behaviour?  I think that comes from your presupposition that we are born wicked to the core.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Rape, or other intimate relationships with children doesn't keep the species from surviving...


 How do you know that? Is it still acceptable in any civilized society? 





> and it has been acceptable in other societies in the not so distant past.


 Yes, it has. So has slavery. What is the point? According to the bible, killing everyone on earth except what was on a boat was acceptable. Killing every man, woman, and child in a city was acceptable. Killing folks that didn't believe the way you do was acceptable. Rape was acceptable in the bible. Is this a way to justify the rape in the bible? Does anyone now look back on that stuff and go..."Good times"? 
Gangs think killing a rival gang member that disses them acceptable. Are we really going to keep going on these tangents? 

Rape is an intimate relationship? Alllll righty then. I think you are confusing how young folks use to get married and may still do, with rape. Do you know the life expectancy back then? Do you know when girls can get pregnant? Combine those and you will understand why early marriage was mainstream...then. What is the point?

Try using the, they used to do it all the time, in court.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

Sorry, I should have used the word AND, but rape is a pretty intimate relationship. It's not welcomed, but it is intimate. We are still here now, aren't we?

I'm not saying I condone those things. I think they are completely wrong. I'm just saying that the morality of those things has changed recently, not over millions of years. By "civilized" society are you referring to a society with morals like us? There were plenty of "civilized" that thought it was ok to have intimate relationships with children.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You learn morality from your parents and your environment.



Yea. I think we covered that. Where does it originate?
God?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Sorry, I should have used the word AND, but rape is a pretty intimate relationship. It's not welcomed, but it is. We are still here now, aren't we?
> 
> I'm not saying I condone those things. I think they are completely wrong. I'm just saying that the morality of those things has changed recently, not over millions of years. By "civilized" society are you referring to a society with morals like us? There were plenty of "civilized" that thought it was ok to have intimate relationships with children.



To me civilized = thriving (relative..I know)
We are still here and rape and slavery are not accepted anymore. 
Not sure if the morality has changed. I would have to be able to time travel back to the young girl raping days and ask the girls parents, the other folks in the village, etc., how they feel about that. 
I think sometimes we confuse "accepted" with "moral".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yea. I think we covered that. Where does it originate?
> God?



In my opinion, no, not with God, but that's based on my agnostic viewpoint, too. 

Morality, IMO, is a human construct to keep the peace and perpetuate the species.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> To me civilized = thriving (relative..I know)
> We are still here and rape and slavery are not accepted anymore.
> Not sure if the morality has changed. I would have to be able to time travel back to the young girl raping days and ask the girls parents, the other folks in the village, etc., how they feel about that.
> I think sometimes we confuse "accepted" with "moral".



You believe there's a possibility that the whole civilization accepted it but understood it was morally wrong? That's definitely not what happened with slavery, it was closer to home so I think we can agree on that. How does slavery keep the species from surviving?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In my opinion, no, not with God, but that's based on my agnostic viewpoint, too.
> 
> Morality, IMO, is a human construct to keep the peace and perpetuate the species.



You are correct, IMO. However, I think what we(me) (agnostic/atheist) are trying to say is that certain brain functions that help drive morality have evolved throughout time. Surely the first humanoids didn't have morality or possibly even a language. So evolutionary brain functions adaptation eventually became 'morals' that would expand on these and keep the peace. 
Laws were also created to help enforce moral behavior.
It all goes back to the monkey that shares food with a monkey with no food that shared with him once.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You believe there's a possibility that the whole civilization accepted it but understood it was morally wrong?


 Possible. Religion exists. Who knew that would catch on. Folks can be made to believe anything. 


> That's definitely not what happened with slavery, it was closer to home so I think we can agree on that.


 What do you mean? 





> How does slavery keep the species from surviving?


 I don't know. It may not. Perhaps it is just the evolutionary empathy rising up. "How would I like to be a slave?" That would suck. I vote no.

Unlike God, I may not have all the answers.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

I just don't feel like morals evolved through the need to survive.

Can't we agree that the US didn't all believe that slavery was wrong but just accept it. It was not morally wrong at all for a long time. And that moral didn't come along because it was beneficial for survival.

I feel like it would  be helpful to agree on a set of morals to base the conversation on. It doesn't have to be a complete list, just some of them. That way we can make sure we're not talking about totally different things.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> You are correct, IMO. However, I think what we(me) (agnostic/atheist) are trying to say is that certain brain functions that help drive morality have evolved throughout time. Surely the first humanoids didn't have morality or possibly even a language. So evolutionary brain functions adaptation eventually became 'morals' that would expand on these and keep the peace.
> Laws were also created to help enforce moral behavior.
> It all goes back to the monkey that shares food with a monkey with no food that shared with him once.



I agree with you that morality is a result of higher brain functions. 

It's similar to a fear of clowns. 

They aren't a predator and they aren't natural, but many people fear them more than dying. 

That's the product of a higher level brain that no longer has to contend with basic survival needs on a daily basis.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I just don't feel like morals evolved through the need to survive.
> 
> Can't we agree that the US didn't all believe that slavery was wrong but just accept it. It was not morally wrong at all for a long time. And that moral didn't come along because it was beneficial for survival.
> 
> I feel like it would  be helpful to agree on a set of morals to base the conversation on. It doesn't have to be a complete list, just some of them. That way we can make sure we're not talking about totally different things.



Moral #1: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That should cover just about 99% of morality and the phrasing is just as a matter of convenience. It's not based on religion, just upon the benefits observed when people abide by it. 

Your turn.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I just don't feel like morals evolved through the need to survive.


 Perhaps survival should be changed to "live in harmony". 
Maybe it is being taken way to literally. 



> Can't we agree that the US didn't all believe that slavery was wrong but just accept it. It was not morally wrong at all for a long time. And that moral didn't come along because it was beneficial for survival.


 I will have to go with I don't know for the above. If you think of slavery as a means for cheap labor in order to feed a large number of people for a low cost...then maybe it was for survival. 



> I feel like it would  be helpful to agree on a set of morals to base the conversation on. It doesn't have to be a complete list, just some of them. That way we can make sure we're not talking about totally different things.



I agree. Just don't know which ones to pick since there are no absolutes. Just to get back to my very poorly made point. I think morals are man made and taught and depend on regions, etc. My point was a start or base for these morals. I assumed this topic was; "Did God teach them to us or are we born that way?" 
Perhaps I didn't understand the entire topic of this thread.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

I saw some suggestions in another thread that I thought was going somewhere, boiling morals down... and for me it all boiled down to "be good."

Be good still leaves good to be defined. 

Do unto others... That's a good one. I can see how that came about AFTER the mind didn't have to worry about basic survival needs.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> I will have to go with I don't know for the above. If you think of slavery as a means for cheap labor in order to feed a large number of people for a low cost...then maybe it was for survival.



I mean the development of the moral that slavery is bad... How did that help survival.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Perhaps survival should be changed to "live in harmony".
> Maybe it is being taken way to literally.



Now that's a different story. Which I think that SH pointed out that we were able to do to thrive once we didn't have to worry about more basic survival.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Moral #1: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.



Empathy. Perfect. The cornerstone. IMO, the building block of all morals.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I mean the development of the moral that slavery is bad... How did that help survival.



Oh, Gotcha. 
After machinery, and better production methods came along, empathy overrided/overrode the need for cheap labor. 
Perhaps that moral didn't develop. Maybe it is only bad when it is not needed for survival. 
Like some of our so called rights. We have a right to...insert right here...until someone decides to take that right from us. i.e. Japanese American citizens WWII.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

Then, is do unto others specific enough to leave little to preference yet general enough to be considered an absolute?

I think this should be barring the extremes, like people - small groups - that are "wired" wrong.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

1)Thou shalt not kill...unless they need killing.
2) Thou shalt not have slaves...unless we REALLY need them again. 
3)Thou shalt honor thy mother and father...unless they beat you every day in the drug induced rage. Then, see first moral.
4) Thou shalt not steal...unless someone will starve.
5) Thou shalt help a fellow human in need...unless it is on the bad side of town and could be a trap. 
6) Thou shalt not torture animals...unless you gut shoot a deer cause you just assumed your rifle was still sighted in from last year.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> 1)Thou shalt not kill...unless they need killing.
> 2) Thou shalt not have slaves...unless we REALLY need them again.
> 3)Thou shalt honor thy mother and father...unless they beat you every day in the drug induced rage. Then, see first moral.
> 4) Thou shalt not steal...unless someone will starve.
> ...


Good points. To me trying to say there are "absolute" morals is just impossible to prove. Everyone would have to know where they came from and approve, everyone would have to know what they are, everyone would have to agree what they are and everyone across all cultures would have to agree they are "absolutely moral".
That's just not happening.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 15, 2013)

Why does " be good" have to be defined?  I think that is why I fail at these discussions.  
Help an old lady across the street=good.
Hit her in the back of the head with a baseball bat= bad. 

"But what if your morals say its ok to hit her??" 

Stop it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Empathy. Perfect. The cornerstone. IMO, the building block of all morals.



Or fear of mutually assured destruction, however you'd like to take it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Or fear of mutually assured destruction, however you'd like to take it.



What?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What?



He said that empathy was a good basis for morality. I simply said that there was an implication of mutually assured destruction in "do unto others..." for those who would do harm to others.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 15, 2013)

Ok.. I get what you mean by mutually assured destruction now.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ok.. I get what you mean by mutually assured destruction now.



 If we can't appeal to their better nature then we need to appeal to their fears.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If we can't appeal to their better nature then we need to appeal to their fears.



 Would you rather be feared or loved? Feared. It last longer. 
Forgot who said that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 15, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Ok.. I get what you mean by mutually assured destruction now.



Me too. I was visioning a hug from a suicide bomber.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Would you rather be feared or loved? Feared. It last longer.
> Forgot who said that.



Would you rather be feared, or respected? Is it too much to ask for both? -Stark, Anthony aka Iron Man.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Why does " be good" have to be defined?  I think that is why I fail at these discussions.
> Help an old lady across the street=good.
> Hit her in the back of the head with a baseball bat= bad.
> 
> ...



Exactly!  If it's not defined then 





> "But what if your morals say its ok to hit her??"


 is a completely justifiable position.  But take this thought step or two further.  Actions are based on values.  Values are based on your belief so again your beliefs regarding your purpose in life ultimately determine your actions.  If you believe life has no value and its just survival of the fittest then you feel perfectly justified to take a bat to an old lady, and if morals aren't defined then who is to say you're wrong.


----------



## JFS (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> if morals aren't defined then who is to say you're wrong.



Morals are generally defined by society.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Well, yea there is. Unless your 'purpose' takes you in isolation from the rest of humanity for your entire life.
> The good news...you won't need morals anymore.



No there's not.  If each individual determines their own purpose common sense dictates the larger sample size you have the less likely of a consensus.  The odds of two people agreeing on something is a lot higher than it is of 10 much less 10 million.

Furthermore if purpose is what each individual says it is you have absolutely no authority to hold them accountable.  The individual is only accountable to himself.
So Bullets statement 





> We hold ourselves and others accountable as a society.


 is self refuting.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Exactly!  If it's not defined then  is a completely justifiable position.  But take this thought step or two further.  Actions are based on values.  Values are based on your belief so again your beliefs regarding your purpose in life ultimately determine your actions.  If you believe life has no value and its just survival of the fittest then you feel perfectly justified to take a bat to an old lady, and if morals aren't defined then who is to say you're wrong.



Morals are defined but it is by humans/society. You have got to understand that humans were around for a LONG time before anyone came up with the concept of morals. Modern man, like within the last 5,000 years, is when these things like morals started to appear and they evolved as we became more civilized. I do not think it is coincidence that major religions started around the same time. While I do not believe any God is responsible for morals, I think the belief in a God(s) has a lot to do with morals as people that believe in a higher power would have the feeling that doing the "right" thing would help them be in the good graces of a God. The "right" thing seems to be what is tolerated by society. The more primitive societies seem to have less morals than what civilized societies have, yet the more primitive societies should be closer to absolute morals(if there is such a thing) because they have much fewer outside influences. But that is not the case.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

JFS said:


> Morals are generally defined by society.



Really? Well in that case slavery was justified, the Holocaust was justified.  Both of the societies that practiced then justified the acts.  No I think if you re-examine it they must be defined by the individual or God.  Society can't tell me what's right or wrong no more than government can.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really? Well in that case slavery was justified, the Holocaust was justified.  Both of the societies that practiced then justified the acts.  No I think if you re-examine it they must be defined by the individual or God.  Society can't tell me what's right or wrong no more than government can.



Go back through world history beyond slavery in America and the Holocaust in Germany. Slavery and genocide were tolerated more if not accepted, if not expected. Morals advanced as civilization advanced. The 200 year span you are covering is a time when civilization was advancing.  Now we are to a point where we (as a country) are pushing our morals on everyone else, whether it is by buying or bombing the morals into them.


----------



## JFS (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Society can't tell me what's right or wrong no more than government can.



Good luck with that: http://www.prisonfellowship.org/documents/prisonfellowship/2012/prison_survival_guide.pdf


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The noble thought is that there is something more than we.
> 
> Everyone ultimately determines their own purpose but most conform to what society deems as acceptable.


 Again I would point to slavery and the Holocaust as just two examples of what happens when society determines morals.  

I'll go even further.  I would say this is what happens when individuals determine morality.  Bad things like the Holocaust happen, but just as in Germany nobody takes accountability instead passing the buck to "Society" did this.  We do the same thing here everyday too.  A heinous crime is committed.  The perp is brought to trial and the defense presents the case that the perp isn't accountable.  He just had bad wiring and a bad environment.  Not his fault.  Same exact argument.  If there's no transcendent objective morals one can be held to then its a valid defense and crime doesn't exist.  Everyone is just daning to their DNA and environment.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again I would point to slavery and the Holocaust as just two examples of what happens when society determines morals.
> 
> I'll go even further.  I would say this is what happens when individuals determine morality.  Bad things like the Holocaust happen, but just as in Germany nobody takes accountability instead passing the buck to "Society" did this.  We do the same thing here everyday too.  A heinous crime is committed.  The perp is brought to trial and the defense presents the case that the perp isn't accountable.  He just had bad wiring and a bad environment.  Not his fault.  Same exact argument.  If there's no transcendent objective morals one can be held to then its a valid defense and crime doesn't exist.  Everyone is just daning to their DNA and environment.



If morals are God given then why are there so few examples of any thing that resembles absolute morals?

You keep using slavery and the Holocaust. Who decided that neither were going to last? Did God flood them out or did a larger society decide that neither was acceptable and then stop them by force?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

The farther you go back in world history, the more examples you will find of slavery and genocide being accepted. The closer you get to modern day, the less accepted it is. Morals change as societies become more civilized. 
Defense attorneys argue that a perp is innocent because he did not make the Little League team when he was 11 and it has lasting effects(which we all know is bunk).... BUT!!!! we are now giving EVERY kid a trophy just for participating and NO kid gets cut because they are not good enough because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. So where are we headed??


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

660griz said:


> Wow! I just don't know where to begin. It seems the more I try to explain, the further off in the weeds we go.
> I'll try one more time. Whether you rape a 6 year old girl or kill your son because God said to do it, it is wrong. You are not WIRED right. Doesn't matter if you are born that way. Folks are born with no legs, two heads, that doesn't mean it is normal and justified.
> It doesn't matter if it is an inside voice, the dog, the blow dryer, whatever convinces one to do such heinous things, it is wrong. That behaviour cannot be allowed in a socialized society. Maybe they were born wired wrong, maybe they got hit on the head, doesn't matter. Wrong.
> How do I know it is wrong? Because millions of years of evolution has told us that is wrong in order for our species to survive. There are exceptions to every rule. You are going to have weirdos but, you certainly don't manage to the exceptions. "Well, this guy was born to rape and pillage so, let's make that legal."
> ...



Griz.  If each individual determines his own propose and morals there is no right and wrong behavior.  I don't know how else to put it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz.  If each individual determines his own propose and morals there is no right and wrong behavior.  I don't know how else to put it.



Ultimately each individual does determine what is right for them. Society judges them holds them accountable.

I know of no one that seeks the advice of a higher power or a group of peers for each and every action they take. It just does not happen. There are many times people get away with heinous acts because no one caught them, but the individual decided it was alright for them to do OR it was not acceptable but worth taking the risk OR they just do not care what anyone else thinks.

If an infant survived a shipwreck being stranded alone on an island and somehow made it to adulthood, WHERE would his morals come from?
He would do exactly as he felt necessary for each urge or situation.
ONLY when/if discovered by an outside society would he be held accountable to anyone other than himself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2013)

bullethead said:


> If morals are God given then why are there so few examples of any thing that resembles absolute morals?/QUOTE]
> 
> I think there are both a few examples and a million of them.  A few; Love God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind.  Love your neighbor as yourself. and a million (see the criminal laws, civil laws , tax code, etc.) that exist because we can't keep the first two.
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think there are both a few examples and a million of them.  A few; Love God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind.  Love your neighbor as yourself. and a million (see the criminal laws, civil laws , tax code, etc.) that exist because we can't keep the first two.
> 
> 
> 
> I think an argument could be made that both were brought to an end by the ideals of the Christian West.  So yes, a large Christian society.



I won't say Christian ideals did not have something to do with it, but only because that is the major religion of the West and modern times. The odds are with you there. If you want to break that down as to how many of those Christians actually followed the ideals and absolute morals to the "T" in daily life themselves......well you'd have some good explaining to do. If you want to argue that Hitler wasn't a Christian you can, but your are going to have a hard time proving many that followed him were also not Christians.

Now, who championed the cause before the last 500 years? And who championed the cause in the 1000 years before that and who championed the cause for the 1.8million years humans existed before that?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

The Holocaust keeps getting thrown out here as though it was approved by German society. Hitler came into power before the war. Germany was in a crushing recession with massive unemployment and people were actually starving. Hitler came along and promised to fix all that and he immediately made huge improvements. The people worshipped him for that, THEN the war started. The average German civilian knew NOTHING about the concentration camps so certainly weren't going along with the whole thing. They were horrified and ashamed and still are to this day when they found out. And yes some stuck their head in the sand because they could now feed their kids again and didn't want to know anything negative. A common occurrence this not wanting to know the bad side.
As far as the Christian West ending ANYTHING one might do a little reading about how the Church aided in Hitler coming into power and how the Church had information of what was happening before it was common knowledge and did NOTHING for political reasons.
Heres a snippet about the heroics of the Christian West -
Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.
And one more snippet -
More recently, however, the Christian Churches have been far more specific -- recognizing that they not only failed to resist Nazism, but actually helped prepare the way for the mass destruction of Europe's Jews through centuries of proselytization, attacks on Judaism, and tacit or overt support for pogroms and other anti-Jewish violence.
Last snippet as I think the point has been made -
The Christian leaders outside of Germany who spoke out against the persecution of the Jews and against genocide were a minority in the Christian world. They failed to win significant support from their own Church members. There were early attempts (in 1933 and 1934, in the United States and Britain) to establish an interfaith Catholic, Jewish and Protestant network to help refugees from Nazi Germany. These efforts failed, in part, because of the lack of widespread support in the Christian Churches. 

The info is out there in abundance if anyone wants to actually know the truth as opposed to what they just want to believe. Anyone wanting to make an argument that the Christian West is the hero is going to have to deny and ignore a lot of historical facts to do it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz.  If each individual determines his own propose and morals there is no right and wrong behavior.  I don't know how else to put it.



I just don't understand how you get no right or wrong behavior if each individual determines his own purpose and morals. 
I can choose to go on a murder spree to kill the devils of society. Is that a right or wrong behavior. May be right to me, may be I am a little crazy. Will I be punished by society?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you believe life has no value and its just survival of the fittest then you feel perfectly justified to take a bat to an old lady, and if morals aren't defined then who is to say you're wrong.



I guess this is why some folks need religion. The inability to empathize or know right from wrong without a book or higher power telling you how to act. Point noted. 

There is a lot of morals created to control or push ones belief system on others. Take the porn industry in the 70s and the obscenity laws that came about by the christian politicians. The prosecutions that came about. The same obscenity laws are on the books today. Ever heard of anyone associated with porn being indicted? Morals changed? Or, did morals of some not get pushed to others. Is porn wrong. To some, it is. To others, just normal.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2013)

CAIRO (AP) — Tens of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters took to the streets Friday in several Cairo neighborhoods and other towns across Egypt in defiance of a military-imposed state of emergency following the country's bloodshed earlier this week.

The protesters poured out of mosques after traditional mid-day prayers, responding to the Muslim Brotherhood's call for a "Day of Rage" as armored military vehicles sealed off main squares in the Egyptian capital and troops with machineguns stood at the ready on key junctions.

Thousands marched on one of the bridges across the Nile River in Cairo, chanting in support of the Brotherhood and against the military coup.

The protests swelled, ignited by the outrage over the deaths of 638 people on Wednesday, when riot police backed by armored vehicles, snipers and bulldozers smashed two sit-ins in Cairo where ousted President Mohammed Morsi's supporters had been camped out for six weeks to demand his reinstatement.

The assault triggered running battles and deadly clashes between security forces and Morsi-s supporters elsewhere in Egypt, prompting the Interior Ministry to authorize the use of deadly force against anyone targeting police and state institutions.

Egypt, the Arab world's most populous nation, has been sharply polarized since the military removed Morsi from power on July 3, following days of mass protests against him and his Brotherhood group.

But Morsi's supporters have remained defiant, demanding the coup be overturned. The international community has urged both sides in Egypt to show restraint and end the turmoil engulfing the nation.

More than 40 policemen were also killed on Wednesday and dozens of churches were attacked as violence swept several provinces. Many of Morsi's supporters have voiced criticism at Egypt's Christian minority for largely supporting the military's decision to oust him from office.

The Brotherhood's political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party, said in a statement Friday that the group is not backing down and "will continue to mobilize people to take to the streets without resorting to violence and without vandalism."

"The struggle to overthrow this illegitimate regime is an obligation, an Islamic, national, *moral*, and human obligation which we will not steer away from until justice and freedom prevail, and until repression is conquered," the statement said.

Separately, the Brotherhood's supreme guide Mohammed Badie, wanted by police for allegedly inciting violence, warned in a statement Friday that removing Morsi was an attempt for the military to take over and establish a "dictatorship".

The revolutionary and liberal groups that helped topple Morsi have largely stayed away from street rallying in recent weeks.

Many Egyptians, while voicing concern over the scale of the police attacks this week, are supportive of the government's decision to the clear out of the Brotherhood-led sit-ins and protests, which blocked two main intersections in the capital and clogged traffic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Ultimately each individual does determine what is right for them. Society judges them holds them accountable.



That's my point.  Society in many cases is either complicit in or directly responsible for the injustice.  Therefore society cannot be the standardbearer for what is right and wrong.  Society perpetrated slavery and later, oppression in this country.  It took people appealing to the morals of a higher authority to change it.  The entire concept of abolition and civil rights were built on this concept...that there is a higher authority that man is accountable to than government of the vacillating whims of society.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  Society in many cases is either complicit in or directly responsible for the injustice.  Therefore society cannot be the standardbearer for what is right and wrong.  Society perpetrated slavery and later, oppression in this country.  It took people appealing to the morals of a higher authority to change it.  The entire concept of abolition and civil rights were built on this concept...that there is a higher authority that man is accountable to than government of the vacillating whims of society.



The person decides, society holds them accountable.
Go and test the system.
You can do whatever you want until someone stops you. Your defense can be society said it was alright or God said it was alright, but in the end society(either a judge or jury of your peers) will determine your fate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  Society in many cases is either complicit in or directly responsible for the injustice.  Therefore society cannot be the standardbearer for what is right and wrong.  Society perpetrated slavery and later, oppression in this country.  It took people appealing to the morals of a higher authority to change it.  The entire concept of abolition and civil rights were built on this concept...that there is a higher authority that man is accountable to than government of the vacillating whims of society.


Some good examples of that higher moral authority in my above post for your viewing pleasure.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again I would point to slavery and the Holocaust as just two examples of what happens when society determines morals.
> 
> I'll go even further.  I would say this is what happens when individuals determine morality.  Bad things like the Holocaust happen, but just as in Germany nobody takes accountability instead passing the buck to "Society" did this.  We do the same thing here everyday too.  A heinous crime is committed.  The perp is brought to trial and the defense presents the case that the perp isn't accountable.  He just had bad wiring and a bad environment.  Not his fault.  Same exact argument.  If there's no transcendent objective morals one can be held to then its a valid defense and crime doesn't exist.  Everyone is just daning to their DNA and environment.



You keep going back to the Holocaust and slavery. WE saw slavery as an every day even expected practice at one point. WE DID. It was perfectly fine. Our idea changed. The only reason that other groups of people, whether in a different area or time period, do things morally "wrong" is because they aren't aligning with our morals. There are two things at play here, hindsight is 20/20 or might makes right. If Germany had won and you were lucky enough to be one of the blondies left, then you may very well see it as completely moral. If you take the bat to the old woman in the street, the government has the might to throw you in jail because they said it's not right. 

What will you call it when your great grand children are all using the same restroom? When segregation of men and women's restrooms is considered to them as immoral as a black and white water fountain. You currently justify why it's not immoral to treat men and women differently in that way... it's expected. It's just that the moral changed, not that you are immoral right now. It's justified to you and your society and that's all that matters. 

You think to yourself, yeah right, that's completely moral and right... but at some point all of what we look back on that is no longer acceptable was probably looked at the same way at some point.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  Society in many cases is either complicit in or directly responsible for the injustice.  Therefore society cannot be the standardbearer for what is right and wrong.


 There is right and wrong and accepted and not accepted. I think banning the sell of alcohol on Sundays is wrong. However, it was accepted for many many years. 





> Society perpetrated slavery and later, oppression in this country.  It took people appealing to the morals of a higher authority to change it.


Makes no sense to me. God was obviously o.k. with slavery so, what higher authority did folks appeal to. Lincoln? 



> The entire concept of abolition and civil rights were built on this concept...that there is a higher authority that man is accountable to than government of the vacillating whims of society.



Thinking that, and saying that does not make it reality. Like has been stated numerous times. Like it or not, vacillating whims and government is what you will answer to. 

Thomas Jefferson didn't need a higher power:

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life.  Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.  Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.  These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

"My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816


"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> I just don't understand how you get no right or wrong behavior if each individual determines his own purpose and morals.



Griz if the individual determines their own purpose and morals then the INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST authority.  There is no one or nothing higher to appeal to. If you go on a killing spree, who am I to condemn you.  We are each our own person, each our own judge.  You are only accountable to yourself for your actions, not me.  I'm only accountable to myself for mine, not you.  We are morally on equal footing.  If I find your killing spree offensive there is no one, no higher concept to appeal to in order to judge or condemn your actions because again, THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> As far as the Christian West ending ANYTHING one might do a little reading about how the Church aided in Hitler coming into power and how the Church had information of what was happening before it was common knowledge and did NOTHING for political reasons.
> Heres a snippet about the heroics of the Christian West -
> Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.
> And one more snippet -
> ...



Speaking of ignoring historical facts:


_For nearly twenty years after World War II, Pope Pius XII (reigned 1939–1958) was respected worldwide for saving countless Jewish lives in the face of the Nazi Holocaust. When he died on October 9, 1958, Golda Meir, future Israeli prime minister and then Israeli representative to the United Nations, spoke on the floor of the General Assembly: "During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims."

Among the organizations praising the Holy Father at the time of his death were the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Synagogue Council of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, the American Jewish Congress, the New York Board of Rabbis, the American Jewish Committee, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and the National Council of Jewish Women.

Yet, at the beginning of the new millennium, when Pope John Paul II issued his historic apology for sins committed in the name of the faith, he was attacked for his "silence" in regard to the "silence" of Pius XII. Lance Morrow in Time magazine referred to the Church’s "terrible inaction and silence in the face of the Holocaust" and wrote that any defense of Pius or the Church as "moral pettifogging." There was no need for him to prove or defend that statement. The charges against Pius XII were simply "fact," and disagreeing was on par with denying the Holocaust itself. Pius is now routinely accused not only of silence but even complicity in the Holocaust. He has been called "Hitler’s Pope."

Our purpose in this column is not to defend Pius. That has been done ably by many others. Rather, we want to look at the sources and reasons behind the creation of the Catholic urban legend of Pius that has become part of contemporary conventional wisdom._

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-pius-legend


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life.  Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation.  Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.



So why did he own slaves?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's my point.  Society in many cases is either complicit in or directly responsible for the injustice.  Therefore society cannot be the standardbearer for what is right and wrong.  Society perpetrated slavery and later, oppression in this country.  It took people appealing to the morals of a higher authority to change it.  The entire concept of abolition and civil rights were built on this concept...that there is a higher authority that man is accountable to than government of the vacillating whims of society.



What about prohibition? The government tried to make it change the outlook on alcohol. Did people appeal to the morals of a higher power in order to get their alcohol back?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the individual determines their own purpose and morals then the INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST authority.  There is no one or nothing higher to appeal to. If you go on a killing spree, who am I to condemn you.  We are each our own person, each our own judge.  You are only accountable to yourself for your actions, not me.  I'm only accountable to myself for mine, not you.  We are morally on equal footing.  If I find your killing spree offensive there is no one, no higher concept to appeal to in order to judge or condemn your actions because again, THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY.


Because no matter what you determine your individual morals are, you are still accountable to the laws set forth by the society you live in. So yes you have your own individual morals but society has set the laws you have to live by if you want to remain a part of that society. I think this fact has been pointed out numerous times already.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the individual determines their own purpose and morals then the INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST authority.


 Uh...no. Unless you don't live amongst folks. 





> There is no one or nothing higher to appeal to. If you go on a killing spree, who am I to condemn you.  We are each our own person, each our own judge.  You are only accountable to yourself for your actions, not me.  I'm only accountable to myself for mine, not you.


 O.k. Let me know how that works out for ya. 





> We are morally on equal footing.  If I find your killing spree offensive there is no one, no higher concept to appeal to in order to judge or condemn your actions because again, THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY.



I'll try again. Fact is, if God tells me to go on a killing spree, or my dog, I can pronouce my moral fortitude all the way to lethal injection. Appeal to any power you want. (I would pick someone on earth first.) Unfortunately, thinking you are right and moral does not equal not being sent to death row. Does that make sense? You will be judged and held accountable based on the morals and laws of society. 
You, as an individual, can chose to do whatever you wish. You can also chose to live within societies "norm." Accept the consequences of both. 

Let's say I want to buy beer on Sunday, it is against the law. I pay off a cashier to sell me some. We both get caught, we are both punished...why? No killing spree, just getting a beer. The morals in the society I live deem it unlawful to purchase beer on Sunday. So, I get all my Sunday beer on Saturday night. See. No higher powers needed. No appeals. I wait...knowing morals will change cause this is just stupid.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the individual determines their own purpose and morals then the INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST authority.  There is no one or nothing higher to appeal to. If you go on a killing spree, who am I to condemn you.  We are each our own person, each our own judge.  You are only accountable to yourself for your actions, not me.  I'm only accountable to myself for mine, not you.  We are morally on equal footing.  If I find your killing spree offensive there is no one, no higher concept to appeal to in order to judge or condemn your actions because again, THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY.



If that is the case, why are there different laws everywhere? You answer to the local authority. How is that not completely evident?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> So why did he own slaves?



Because economics wins over morality?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> I wait...knowing morals will change cause this is just stupid.



They already are changing.. When we tell our grandkids that we weren't allowed to buy beer on Sunday they'll laugh at us.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Speaking of ignoring historical facts:
> 
> 
> _For nearly twenty years after World War II, Pope Pius XII (reigned 1939–1958) was respected worldwide for saving countless Jewish lives in the face of the Nazi Holocaust. When he died on October 9, 1958, Golda Meir, future Israeli prime minister and then Israeli representative to the United Nations, spoke on the floor of the General Assembly: "During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims."
> ...


Not ignoring anything and agree this to be fact. Does that change what the churches prior stance was? The churches moral stance changed it would appear.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> Because economics wins over morality?



Because the view on it's morality changed. PLENTY of people saw absolutely no problem with it. They weren't biting their tongue or crying themselves to sleep at night.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> So why did he own slaves?



Can't ask him obviously but, if I had to guess...
Everybody was doing it. It was the cool thing to do. 
Kind of like being a christian in politics. You just have to be or say you are, or you have no shot.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Can't ask him obviously but, if I had to guess...
> Everybody was doing it. It was the cool thing to do.
> Kind of like being a christian in politics. You just have to be or say you are, or you have no shot.



So he was a hypocrite?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Uh...no. Unless you don't live amongst folks.  O.k. Let me know how that works out for ya.
> 
> I'll try again. Fact is, if God tells me to go on a killing spree, or my dog, I can pronouce my moral fortitude all the way to lethal injection. Appeal to any power you want. (I would pick someone on earth first.) Unfortunately, thinking you are right and moral does not equal not being sent to death row. Does that make sense? You will be judged and held accountable based on the morals and laws of society.
> You, as an individual, can chose to do whatever you wish. You can also chose to live within societies "norm." Accept the consequences of both.
> ...


Seems like you've had to explain your stance over and over and over and it hasn't changed. Maybe its just me that thinks that though.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Not ignoring anything ...



Well, I thought you were ignoring me.  




WaltL1 said:


> Does that change what the churches prior stance was? The churches moral stance changed it would appear.



What was their prior stance?  Please elaborate.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Well, I thought you were ignoring me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I was, but Ive determined your just not a person I need information about religion from.
Their prior stance was in the post you replied to and confirmed in what you posted.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Well I was, but Ive determined your just not a person I need information about religion from.



I'm better than whoever you're getting your info from now.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm better than whoever you're getting your info from now.


You certainly have a right to your opinion.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> So he was a hypocrite?



Yep. You make that sound like a bad thing. 
Like everyone in church. (Quote from a preacher.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yep. You make that sound like a bad thing.
> Like everyone in church. (Quote from a preacher.)



You're the one singing his praises.


----------



## JFS (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm better than whoever you're getting your info from now.



I get my info from youtube


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like you've had to explain your stance over and over and over and it hasn't changed. Maybe its just me that thinks that though.



I have. I will again until I come to my senses and admit a "HIGHER POWER" and get off this evolution fad.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

JFS said:


> I get my info from youtube



Bless you, my son.

(I must admit, though:  _Young Frankenstein_ was Mel Brooks' last good movie.)


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> You're the one singing his praises.



Thus the, "You make that sound like a bad thing."

Would it be better to sin, and not go to church?
Would it be better to have slaves and think that is o.k.?

In his case, would it be better, since he owned slaves, to love having them and wish everyone did? 

I am missing your point. (Well, really I am not.) You are trying to pick apart a man...not because of his history with slaves but, because of his history with religion. Right?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> I have. I will again until I come to my senses and admit a "HIGHER POWER" and get off this evolution fad.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Would it be better to sin, and not go to church?
> Would it be better to have slaves and think that is o.k.?
> 
> In his case, would it be better, since he owned slaves, to love having them and wish everyone did?



It would be better if his deeds matched his words.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like you've had to explain your stance over and over and over and it hasn't changed. Maybe its just me that thinks that though.



No.  I feel the same way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I feel the same way.


Hit him with some actual facts. Its much harder to deny those. Usually. If you can post up some actual facts, I'll even help you out in trying to convince him to see the light.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> It would be better if his deeds matched his words.



Maybe. It would have been better if no slaves were ever used in any country back to the begining of time.  

For what it is worth, he knew it was wrong without christianity. That never goes over real well. 
With your logic, it would have been better if he had slaves and justified it with the bible. His deeds would surely match his words then. Better to own slaves and like it than be a hypocrite. And we want morals from this? I'll pass.

Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used as a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.

Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.

Slaveholders justified the practice by citing the Bible, Brinton says.

They asked who could question the Word of God when it said, "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling" (Ephesians 6:5), or "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

Christian opponents of slavery elevated biblical principles of justice and equality above individual passages that approved exclusion, Brinton says. (Cherry picking)


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  I feel the same way.



Well shoot. Catch up. What is your stance on morality and purpose?

Or, point me to a post number where your stance is stated so I can get a refresh without you having to type much.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> With your logic, it would have been better if he had slaves and justified it with the bible.



I'm not saying anything like that.  Jefferson wrote against slavery ... while owning slaves.  He said one thing and did another.




660griz said:


> Henry G. Brinton, a pastor at Fairfax Presbyterian Church in Virginia, writes that the Bible was used as a weapon by both the North and the South. Brinton says some contemporary Americans are making the same mistake their Civil War ancestors did by twisting the Bible to support their own battle cries.
> 
> Brinton, author of “Balancing Acts: Obligation, Liberation and Contemporary Christian Conflicts,” says both the Union and the Confederacy invoked the Bible to justify their positions on slavery.
> 
> ...



I'm not familiar with Brinton and haven't read his book.  However, his quotes above are typical of people who use Biblical passages on slavery as a basis to argue for the acceptance of homosexuality, so I suppose that's where he's going with this.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not saying anything like that.  Jefferson wrote against slavery ... while owning slaves.  He said one thing and did another.


I think that could be called a fact. I read where he sort of tried to justify not freeing his slaves because they might go to another owner who wouldn't treat them good.
Seems like a pretty weak excuse though when you consider he owned thousands of acres and depended on slave labor.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

Society is made up of individuals.  If individuals define purpose and morality yet depend on "society" to hold them accountable, isn't this just another way of saying one is holding theirself accountable.  If not, how so?  If so, then who holds society accountable?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I'm not saying anything like that.  Jefferson wrote against slavery ... while owning slaves.  He said one thing and did another.


 You said it would be better if the deed matched the words. 
You said he was a hypocrite. Now, if he owned slaves and liked it, or didn't own slaves and was against it, either would have been better to you than being a hypocrite? Just trying to determine why the hypocrite title was  so quickly tossed into the ring.
My point was that Jefferson knew he was doing wrong and that slavery was wrong without a higher power. Seems like you were trying to deflect. I could be wrong.




> I'm not familiar with Brinton and haven't read his book.  However, his quotes above are typical of people who use Biblical passages on slavery as a basis to argue for the acceptance of homosexuality, so I suppose that's where he's going with this.



So, in a discussion about slaves + morality + religion..."where he is going with that" is relevant? Are those passages not in the bible? Would you feel better with another source that stated how the bible was used to justify slavery and to condemn slavery? 
I did not include anything about the justification or acceptance of homosexuality. And, I will not on future post about slavery + morals + religion. I promise.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I think that could be called a fact. I read where he sort of tried to justify not freeing his slaves because they might go to another owner who wouldn't treat them good.
> Seems like a pretty weak excuse though when you consider he owned thousands of acres and depended on slave labor.



It is definitely a fact. He owned slaves and was against slavery. 

Last year, I baited deer cause it was legal even though, I am against it. Exactly the same as Jefferson's predicament.  Kidding of course.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Society is made up of individuals.  If individuals define purpose and morality yet depend on "society" to hold them accountable, isn't this just another way of saying one is holding theirself accountable.  If not, how so?  If so, then who holds society accountable?



You first. Who?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 16, 2013)

God made morals
Man made God,
Therefore man made morals.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Society is made up of individuals.  If individuals define purpose and morality yet depend on "society" to hold them accountable, isn't this just another way of saying one is holding theirself accountable.  If not, how so?  If so, then who holds society accountable?


Already been asked in 20 different ways and answered.
An individual can only determine their individual morals. However society sets forth laws/morals that the individual has to live by regardless of individual morals if they don't want to be locked up. Society holds society accountable as morals change.. Slavery was once acceptable. Then societies morals changed and it was not acceptable. The individuals whose individual morals still said it was ok and continued to do it went to jail.
All you have to do is look around at how we live as a society and the answer is right under your nose. Societies change and  the standard of accepted morals change with it. Undeniable fact.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> It is definitely a fact. He owned slaves and was against slavery.
> 
> Last year, I baited deer cause it was legal even though, I am against it. Exactly the same as Jefferson's predicament.  Kidding of course.


I as an individual find baiting immoral and sentence you to prison. Oh wait, society said its not immoral. I guess my individual morals lose to societies morals. You avoided those disgusting cheese sandwiches they serve in the slammer thanks to society.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

Hey SFD maybe a change in the scenario will help -
You are a member of a hunting club.
There are 20 individual members in that club.
The rules are you can shoot anything that walks including the young ones with spots.
So one day you are all standing outside at your club and a gut shot little fawn with spots comes crawling by and suffering.
18 of your members see that and feel horrible.
2 couldn't care less.
The 18 which is the majority of the club feel so bad seeing that that they decide no more fawns can be shot.
The club is going to police the members to make sure they are following the new rules.
The 2 remaining guys even though they couldn't care less about the fawn, have a choice of either following the new rules or finding a new club.
Sooo all 20 members have their individual morals. 18 of the members have the same moral. Majority wins. 
Does this scenario make any difference?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Already been asked in 20 different ways and answered.
> An individual can only determine their individual morals. However society sets forth laws/morals that the individual has to live by regardless of individual morals if they don't want to be locked up. Society holds society accountable as morals change.. Slavery was once acceptable. Then societies morals changed and it was not acceptable. The individuals whose individual morals still said it was ok and continued to do it went to jail.
> All you have to do is look around at how we live as a society and the answer is right under your nose. Societies change and  the standard of accepted morals change with it. Undeniable fact.



Gotcha. 





> Society holds society accountable as morals change..



When one societies beliefs change, as in Pre WWII Nazi Germany, and their morals changed to support their new found beliefs, then as a result they as a society, started acting on those beliefs I don't see any evidence that the society was holding itself accountable.  In fact it plunged the whole world into a war precisely because this did not happen so I find your argument empty of both reason and evidence.

You state 





> Slavery was once acceptable. Then societies morals changed and it was not acceptable.


. Well what, may I ask, do you attribute that change too?  I would suggest that change came from the notion of something along these lines 





> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights,


.  Odd they ascribed these "self-evident rights" being endowed upon "all men" to a CREATOR don't you think.  Maybe, just maybe, it was because they saw the logical bankruptcy of attributing it to man or society, or maybe they just saw it as a self evident truth.  That's is what they said isn't it?  Self-evident?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Odd they ascribed these "self-evident rights" being endowed upon "all men" to a CREATOR don't you think.  Maybe, just maybe, it was because they saw the logical bankruptcy of attributing it to man or society, or maybe they just saw it as a self evident truth.  That's is what they said isn't it?  Self-evident?



Slavery was abolished in places all over the world long before. 

3rd century BC: Ashoka abolishes slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well but does not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire, covering the majority of India, which was under his rule.

221-206 B.C.E: The Qin Dynasty’s measures to eliminate the landowning aristocracy include the abolition of slavery and the establishment of a free peasantry who owed taxes and labor to the state. They also abolished primogeniture and discouraged serfdom.[2] The dynasty was overthrown in 206 B.C.E and many of its laws were overturned.

17: Wang Mang usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform. After his assassination in 23 C.E., slavery was reinstituted.

1117: Slavery abolished in Iceland

1214: The Statute of the Town of KorÄ�ula (Croatia) abolishes slavery.[6]

1215: Magna Carta signed. Clause 30, commonly known as Habeas Corpus, would form the basis of a law against slavery in English common law.

1723: Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Hey SFD maybe a change in the scenario will help -
> You are a member of a hunting club.
> There are 20 individual members in that club.
> The rules are you can shoot anything that walks including the young ones with spots.
> ...



What if 18 could care less and two felt bad about it.  Does that scenario make any difference? Would you say that the two that felt bad were just or unjust in their stance?  Does a mere majority of opinion dictate to you what is right and wrong or does your concepts of right and wrong come from a higher plane than mob rule?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Maybe, just maybe, it was because they saw the logical bankruptcy of attributing it to man or society, or maybe they just saw it as a self evident truth.  That's is what they said isn't it?  Self-evident?



Maybe, just maybe, they know the power the idea of creator has to control people.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Just trying to determine why the hypocrite title was  so quickly tossed into the ring.



Because it's accurate in this case.  TJ said one thing and did another.




660griz said:


> My point was that Jefferson knew he was doing wrong and that slavery was wrong without a higher power. Seems like you were trying to deflect. I could be wrong.



There is no indication of that in post 138.  There, you make Jefferson out to be a saint for opposing slavery ... while he owned slaves.




660griz said:


> So, in a discussion about slaves + morality + religion..."where he is going with that" is relevant? Are those passages not in the bible? Would you feel better with another source that stated how the bible was used to justify slavery and to condemn slavery?
> I did not include anything about the justification or acceptance of homosexuality. And, I will not on future post about slavery + morals + religion. I promise.



Let me respond by rephrasing my previous post:

I don't care what Henry Brinton says because I think he has an agenda.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Odd they ascribed these "self-evident rights" being endowed upon "all men" to a CREATOR don't you think.



Or, maybe they(Thomas Jefferson) was trying to make everyone happy. Creator to some meant nature. Creator to others meant God.  
Otherwise, why not just put God?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> There is no indication of that in post 138.  There, you make Jefferson out to be a saint for opposing slavery ... while he owned slaves.



Well, I stated my point. Ignore it if you like. However, I do think Jefferson was a great man. I don't believe in saints.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> When one societies beliefs change, as in Pre WWII Nazi Germany, and their morals changed to support their new found beliefs, then as a result they as a society, started acting on those beliefs I don't see any evidence that the society was holding itself accountable.  In fact it plunged the whole world into a war precisely because this did not happen so I find your argument empty of both reason and evidence.
> 
> You state . Well what, may I ask, do you attribute that change too?  I would suggest that change came from the notion of something along these lines .  Odd they ascribed these "self-evident rights" being endowed upon "all men" to a CREATOR don't you think.  Maybe, just maybe, it was because they saw the logical bankruptcy of attributing it to man or society, or maybe they just saw it as a self evident truth.  That's is what they said isn't it?  Self-evident?



Who created you SFD? A god or your parents?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Because it's accurate in this case.  TJ said one thing and did another.



I admitted the accuracy. Just not related to the point.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What if 18 could care less and two felt bad about it.  Does that scenario make any difference? Would you say that the two that felt bad were just or unjust in their stance?  Does a mere majority of opinion dictate to you what is right and wrong or does your concepts of right and wrong come from a higher plane than mob rule?



Then the two can keep their morals and act on them as they wish but they likely won't be able to impose it on the rest of the team who enjoys the tender fawn meat.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't care what Henry Brinton says because I think he has an agenda.



I'll repost my question then.
Would you feel better with another source that stated how the bible was used to justify slavery and to condemn slavery?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Well, I stated my point. Ignore it if you like.



I didn't ignore anything.




660griz said:


> I do thing Jefferson was a great man.



Agreed.




660griz said:


> I don't believe in saints.



O ye of little faith!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe, just maybe, they know the power the idea of creator has to control people.



Yeah.  I'm sure that explains it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> I'll repost my question then.
> Would you feel better with another source that stated how the bible was used to justify slavery and to condemn slavery?



Use whatever source you want.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> O ye of little faith!



MY EYES!  Showing the rivals is a low blow.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Or, maybe they(Thomas Jefferson) was trying to make everyone happy. Creator to some meant nature. Creator to others meant God.
> Otherwise, why not just put God?



I kinda doubt he was making an attempt to appeal to pagans and atheist in the crowd since most of the colonist left England in an attempt to worship more freely.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Use whatever source you want.



Whatever source I want? <heavy sigh> Fine, I give up.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Who created you SFD? A god or your parents?



First birth or second?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What if 18 could care less and two felt bad about it.  Does that scenario make any difference? Would you say that the two that felt bad were just or unjust in their stance?  Does a mere majority of opinion dictate to you what is right and wrong or does your concepts of right and wrong come from a higher plane than mob rule?


If 18 could care less the rules wouldn't have changed so yes it makes a difference. Doesn't matter what the 2 felt they were outvoted. No majority rule doesn't dictate to me what is wrong, I decide that for myself, however the majority makes the rules that I have to follow if I want to remain in the club.
You are arguing against the very way we live as a society.
Its futile.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I kinda doubt he was making an attempt to appeal to pagans and atheist in the crowd since most of the colonist left England in an attempt to worship more freely.



I am not surprised you doubt that.  
Why do you think he put "their creator" and not "God", or "their God"?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> First birth or second?



This why you cannot understand the real life stuff.

Ignore,dodge and deflect.
I must have asked you ten different direct questions in this thread and you refuse to give a solid answer if/when you do finally answer.
Why ask us any questions if you want to play in a world of your own anyway?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> When one societies beliefs change, as in Pre WWII Nazi Germany, and their morals changed to support their new found beliefs, then as a result they as a society, started acting on those beliefs I don't see any evidence that the society was holding itself accountable.  In fact it plunged the whole world into a war precisely because this did not happen so I find your argument empty of both reason and evidence.
> 
> You state . Well what, may I ask, do you attribute that change too?  I would suggest that change came from the notion of something along these lines .  Odd they ascribed these "self-evident rights" being endowed upon "all men" to a CREATOR don't you think.  Maybe, just maybe, it was because they saw the logical bankruptcy of attributing it to man or society, or maybe they just saw it as a self evident truth.  That's is what they said isn't it?  Self-evident?


Your rebuttal is both empty of reason and evidence.
The German people didnt declare war, Hitler did.  Did you vote to go to war in Afghanistan? I know nobody asked me but maybe I was out fishing that day and wasn't home when the President stopped by my house to ask me.

And I reject your suggestion on the basis that those words alone changed absolutely nothing. Sorry.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> If 18 could care less the rules wouldn't have changed so yes it makes a difference. Doesn't matter what the 2 felt they were outvoted. No majority rule doesn't dictate to me what is wrong, I decide that for myself, however the majority makes the rules that I have to follow if I want to remain in the club.
> You are arguing against the very way we live as a society.
> Its futile.



You didn't answer the question Walt so I will repeat it.  Were the two that felt bad just or unjust in their stance?

To quote 



> No majority rule doesn't dictate to me what is wrong, I decide that for myself,



Based on what exactly?  Be specific.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> I am not surprised you doubt that.
> Why do you think he put "their creator" and not "God", or "their God"?



I'll tell you what I think Griz.  The Declaration of Independence is a powerfully worded document, perhaps the most powerfully worded document our country has ever produced.
The message to King George was in short "We don't answer to you.  We answer to God."  Using "Creator" instead of "God" in the wording not only recognizes God as our Sovereign but points to purpose.  A Creator creates and a creation has purpose and direction, so in essence the use of the word "Creator" adds strength to the message in a sense that the word God would not have.  

Before I could give any credence to your supposition that it was so worded to include pantheistic, pagans and atheist I would have to first see some type of demographic evidence that there were enough people that held those beliefs to even warrant consideration.  Honestly I have my doubts.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You didn't answer the question Walt so I will repeat it.  Were the two that felt bad just or unjust in their stance?
> 
> To quote
> 
> ...


I answered in a way that addressed the circumstance. Just or unjust does not come in to play. You are trying to take a fact of the way our society operates and turn it into some philosophical debate that strays from the fact that this is how our society operates.

Based on what I view as to be right and wrong again which does not change the fact that I have to follow the rules of the club if I want to remain in the club. Or I could choose to leave the club if I feel that strongly about it.

Again you are trying to argue against the way our society operates including you. You just don't recognize the futility of your case. You can ask 10,000 more philosophical questions and our society will operate the same way. Unless society decides to change while youre asking the questions. Thems the facts.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Your rebuttal is both empty of reason and evidence.
> The German people didnt declare war, Hitler did.  .



I never said anything about anyone declaring war on anyone.  You know Walt if we are going to continue to have this discussion I'm going to have to ask you to stay on point and to not continue to take my words out of context nor to put words in my mouth. Please go back and re-read what I posted and try to provide a rebuttal that is within the scope of point being asserted.



WaltL1 said:


> Did you vote to go to war in Afghanistan? I know nobody asked me but maybe I was out fishing that day and wasn't home when the President stopped by my house to ask me..


 



WaltL1 said:


> And I reject your suggestion on the basis that those words alone changed absolutely nothing. Sorry.



Willing to bet King George, The Declaration's signers, and history disagrees with you, but again,off topic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I answered in a way that addressed the circumstance. Just or unjust does not come in to play. You are trying to take a fact of the way our society operates and turn it into some philosophical debate that strays from the fact that this is how our society operates.
> 
> Based on what I view as to be right and wrong again which does not change the fact that I have to follow the rules of the club if I want to remain in the club. Or I could choose to leave the club if I feel that strongly about it.
> 
> Again you are trying to argue against the way our society operates including you. You just don't recognize the futility of your case. You can ask 10,000 more philosophical questions and our society will operate the same way. Unless society decides to change while youre asking the questions. Thems the facts.



I'm not trying to do anything, but get you to answer two questions regarding assertions you made.  The reason you won't is that the answers will expose the absurdity of your convictions.  i guess it could be that you are silent because you realize that if purpose and morality are defined by the individual you can't contend that your definitions are any more credible and justified than anyone else's in which case I would be silent too.  Well played brother.  Well played.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I never said anything about anyone declaring war on anyone.  You know Walt if we are going to continue to have this discussion I'm going to have to ask you to stay on point and to not continue to take my words out of context nor to put words in my mouth. Please go back and re-read what I posted and try to provide a rebuttal that is within the scope of point being asserted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is you -
When one societies beliefs change, as in Pre WWII Nazi Germany, and their morals changed to support their new found beliefs, then as a result they as a society, started acting on those beliefs I don't see any evidence that the society was holding itself accountable. In fact it plunged the whole world into a war.

You placed blame for the war directly at the feet of the society of Germany. Their society did not plunge Germany into war, Hitler did.
And your attempt at accusing me of exactly what you do is a joke.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll tell you what I think Griz.  The Declaration of Independence is a powerfully worded document, perhaps the most powerfully worded document our country has ever produced.
> The message to King George was in short "We don't answer to you.  We answer to God."  Using "Creator" instead of "God" in the wording not only recognizes God as our Sovereign but points to purpose.  A Creator creates and a creation has purpose and direction, so in essence the use of the word "Creator" adds strength to the message in a sense that the word God would not have.
> 
> Before I could give any credence to your supposition that it was so worded to include pantheistic, pagans and atheist I would have to first see some type of demographic evidence that there were enough people that held those beliefs to even warrant consideration.  Honestly I have my doubts.



http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...refathers+use+the+word+creator+instead+of+god


What did the Founding Fathers mean by "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?

	The Christian Fundamentalists won't believe that "Creator" didn't mean God to the Founding Fathers.
	If the Founding Fathers had wanted to include a god in the making of the United States, it would have been in the law of the land, the Constitution.

The man who wrote the Declaration of Independence didn't believe in a god, he was a deist.

Wedding Church And State, Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry-Metro New York, writes:

In 1773, the Rev. Isaac Backus , the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, observed that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."

If only that reverend manqué, President George W. Bush, had consulted the Reverend Backus' "An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty" before endorsing the mischief implicit in a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and "prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever."

One of the most ironic aspects of the current assault on separation of church and state is that the apostles of religious correctness have managed to obscure the broad and tolerant origins of the godless Constitution, which was written and ratified by a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians equally fearful of entanglements between religion and government.
By Arthur Schlesinger Jr., published in the Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2004:

The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.
George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion.

John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian.

The Godless Constitution

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation. The U.S. Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1789 -- thirteen years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a soveriegn being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

From Legacy Of Freedom by Rob Boston, Church and State, January, 2003. "Jefferson, Madison And The Nation's Founders Left Us Church-State Separation. Can We Keep It?"

What the Religious Right doesn't tell people, and what, tragically, many Amer- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -icans apparently don't know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Consti- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -tution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian. The Religious Right's constant appeals to documents like the Declaration of Independence, which contains a deistic reference to "the Creator," cloud the issue and make some people believe their rights spring from these other documents.

The Godless Constitution was written by two professors of government and history at Cornell University. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have spent their careers studying religion in American life. Some quotes from their book:

The preamble of the Constitution invokes the people of the United States. It does not invoke any sort of God

The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold office. A godless person is just as eligible as a godly one! (Article 6, Paragraph 3)

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin strongly suggested on June 28 that the convention have prayers said there. Evangelists take this as proof that the convention then went on with prayers. But, in fact, the convention did not accept the suggestion, and the convention went on without prayers.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not trying to do anything, but get you to answer two questions regarding assertions you made.  The reason you won't is that the answers will expose the absurdity of your convictions.  i guess it could be that you are silent because you realize that if purpose and morality are defined by the individual you can't contend that your definitions are any more credible and justified than anyone else's in which case I would be silent too.  Well played brother.  Well played.


\
First of all I am not your brother. Lets get that straight.
The rest of your post is filled with ignorance and nonsense and doesn't deserve a response.


----------



## JFS (Aug 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> if purpose and morality are defined by the individual you can't contend that your definitions are any more credible and justified than anyone else's



Ha, don't be silly.  People always think their own opinions are more credible and justified than other people's.  Just read this thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> This is you -
> When one societies beliefs change, as in Pre WWII Nazi Germany, and their morals changed to support their new found beliefs, then as a result they as a society, started acting on those beliefs I don't see any evidence that the society was holding itself accountable. In fact it plunged the whole world into a war.
> 
> You placed blame for the war directly at the feet of the society of Germany. Their society did not plunge Germany into war, Hitler did.
> And your attempt at accusing me of exactly what you do is a joke.



Sorry not seeing any declaration of war mentioned.  Look, just man up and admit you got carried away when you attributed something to me I never said.  No big deal.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...refathers+use+the+word+creator+instead+of+god
> 
> 
> What did the Founding Fathers mean by "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?
> ...



Beyond absurd.  And to think someone as eminent as á½¤Tá¹»ndeÎ„Ó‚ would put it's name to such.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> \
> First of all I am not your brother. Lets get that straight.
> The rest of your post is filled with ignorance and nonsense and doesn't deserve a response.



Still waiting on those answers friend.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

JFS said:


> Ha, don't be silly.  People always think their own opinions are more credible and justified than other people's.  Just read this thread.



Noooooooo.  Say it ain't so.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 16, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This why you cannot understand the real life stuff.
> 
> Ignore,dodge and deflect.
> I must have asked you ten different direct questions in this thread and you refuse to give a solid answer if/when you do finally answer.
> Why ask us any questions if you want to play in a world of your own anyway?




I actually couldn't resist.  That was too easy.  Where's your sense of humor Bullet.  It's Friday, but OK I will answer your question in a serious manner, if you will a first answer me this.

Who made this?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Beyond absurd.  And to think someone as eminent as ὤTṻnde΄ӂ would put it's name to such.



In an interview on the History Channel, on the evening of July 3, 1999, Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who had spent the previous 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points: 

(1). The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc.. 

(2). That all these religious connections and meanings etc that have been added by others later was never implied as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc. 

(3).One of the points made over and over again was that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to justify/explain the separation of the colonies from England to other European countries and elicit support from them. 

(4). It also points out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution for Virginia) The Va Declaration of Rights, and other sources. That such practices were quite common practice at that time period. 

 The Declaration was not meant to give a religious foundation to this nation, to its founding, its founding documents, its legal system or laws. It was not intended to give a theological discourse on the creation of mankind.  

The very things that people remember, focus on and quote today, those 16 or so words would have been the least important words of the document to those who wrote it, debated it, passed it and signed it. It is like we reversed things. The least important words are now the most important and the most imporant words at that time are all but forgotten, surely not argued about, debated, quoted, etc


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Still waiting on those answers friend.


I'm not your friend. You may address me as my screen  name which is Waltl1 or you may shorten it to Walt.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry not seeing any declaration of war mentioned.  Look, just man up and admit you got carried away when you attributed something to me I never said.  No big deal.


I was incorrect to use the word declare as opposed to plunge. However your entire post is incorrect.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll tell you what I think Griz.  The Declaration of Independence is a powerfully worded document, perhaps the most powerfully worded document our country has ever produced.
> The message to King George was in short "We don't answer to you.  We answer to God."  Using "Creator" instead of "God" in the wording not only recognizes God as our Sovereign but points to purpose.  A Creator creates and a creation has purpose and direction, so in essence the use of the word "Creator" adds strength to the message in a sense that the word God would not have.
> 
> Before I could give any credence to your supposition that it was so worded to include pantheistic, pagans and atheist I would have to first see some type of demographic evidence that there were enough people that held those beliefs to even warrant consideration.  Honestly I have my doubts.


I find it very interesting that you quote this -

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights 

And you call it this -



SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll tell you what I think Griz.  The Declaration of Independence is a powerfully worded document, perhaps the most powerfully worded document our country has ever produced.
> 
> And then you say this -
> 
> ...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2013)

To sum what is known: 

The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator. 
A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator 
At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today.

Also, freedom of religion and freedom from religion was being declared. You cannot declare freedom from religion while picking a religion for all colonist at the same time. 

Mute point since the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document but, for the sake of argument, since most christians love siting it as proof of our christian roots.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2013)

660griz said:


> To sum what is known:
> 
> The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator.
> A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator
> ...



Here's the opening statement and it goes right back to the OP and the point I raised regarding purpose.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

This comes from The Heritage Foundation regarding the question "What are the laws of nature and nature's God that the DOI appeals to?

"The laws of nature are universal standards of right and wrong which apply to all men at all times. They are closely related to man’s natural rights: Murder, for instance, violates the laws of nature because it deprives men of their natural right to life. *These laws are natural because they do not owe their existence to any man or government*: Murder is always wrong even if the government does not declare it to be illegal.
*In justifying their independence before the entire world, the Founders needed to appeal to a standard that all reasonable men could recognize. The Declaration of Independence therefore appeals to the laws of nature’s God, that is, that aspect of theological creation that man grasps by his own reason.By speaking of nature’s God, instead of a specific religious conception of God, the Founders made a universal argument, thereby showing “respect to the opinions of mankind.” At the same time, they pointed to a profound agreement between reason and revelation about man and the proper ground of politics."*


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "The *laws of nature* are universal standards of right and wrong which apply to all men at all times. They are closely related to *man’s natural rights*: Murder, for instance, violates the *laws of nature *because it deprives men of their natural right to life. *These laws are natural because they do not owe their existence to any man or government*: Murder is always wrong even if the government does not declare it to be illegal.



Yep. Nature. However, this is just the DOI. Constitution basically says governed by the people(society) and none of the above...rights...are mentioned.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> In an interview on the History Channel, on the evening of July 3, 1999, Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who had spent the previous 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:
> 
> (1). The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc..
> 
> ...




In other words he's argument is to disregard the plain text, common sense understanding of what is written, because it doesn't mean what it plainly states.  Yeah.
The hoops one has to jump through to deny the nose own your own face........
Well if you can do that then I don't think his words mean what he plainly states either.  It's a fools errand.

BTW, I notice he didn't deny that the DOI appeals to a Creator as the agent from whence our inalienable rights are granted, nor did he deny the concept of a universal standard of morality which applies to everyone and is implicitly understood to exist within the DOI.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2013)

660griz said:


> Yep. Nature. However, this is just the DOI. Constitution basically says governed by the people(society) and none of the above...rights...are mentioned.



Griz if the government endows you with rights, morals and purpose then they can dictate what they are and/or take them away.  If they come from God, as the Founding Fathers were asserting, then they can't.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the government endows you with rights, morals and purpose then they can dictate what they are and/or take them away.  If they come from God, as the Founding Fathers were asserting, then they can't.


Think about that statement and then consider the volumes of laws that we have to live by or be punished for up to and including our right to life. If God gave us the right to life and therefore the government can't take that away, the guys on Death Row definitely needed you in their corner on the day they were in court. Unfortunately its too late for the ones that were hung, shot, gassed, fried or injected. They are dead. Legally executed by the government. Their right to life taken away. Therefore the right to life didn't come from God because as YOU said above, the government couldn't take it away if it did. Not to mention since they were executed, liberty and the pursuit of happiness didn't come from God either because well, they were executed. So we've covered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What other rights in the DOI would you like proven that didn't come from God? And what's REALLY interesting is, your own words are what's proving they didn't.
Gotta love that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In other words he's argument is to disregard the plain text, common sense understanding of what is written, because it doesn't mean what it plainly states.  Yeah.
> The hoops one has to jump through to deny the nose own your own face........
> Well if you can do that then I don't think his words mean what he plainly states either.  It's a fools errand.
> 
> BTW, I notice he didn't deny that the DOI appeals to a Creator as the agent from whence our inalienable rights are granted, nor did he deny the concept of a universal standard of morality which applies to everyone and is implicitly understood to exist within the DOI.


You should give him a call and debate him. I'm not the expert on the DOI, you and he are. I merely posted the information for consideration. I would love to listen in on that call though.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the government endows you with rights, morals and purpose then they can dictate what they are and/or take them away.  If they come from God, as the Founding Fathers were asserting, then they can't.



1) The founders were not asserting that your god gave us anything. 

2) Name a right the government cannot take away.

3) I never said the government endows me with anything.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Think about that statement and then consider the volumes of laws that we have to live by or be punished for up to and including our right to life. If God gave us the right to life and therefore the government can't take that away, the guys on Death Row definitely needed you in their corner on the day they were in court. Unfortunately its too late for the ones that were hung, shot, gassed, fried or injected. They are dead. Legally executed by the government. Their right to life taken away. Therefore the right to life didn't come from God because as YOU said above, the government couldn't take it away if it did. Not to mention since they were executed, liberty and the pursuit of happiness didn't come from God either because well, they were executed. So we've covered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What other rights in the DOI would you like proven that didn't come from God? And what's REALLY interesting is, your own words are what's proving they didn't.
> Gotta love that.



Still waiting on an answer. 
BTW getting further off topic.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 17, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You should give him a call and debate him. I'm not the expert on the DOI, you and he are. I merely posted the information for consideration. I would love to listen in on that call though.




Not an expert but I ain't skered either.  Btw off topic and.......still waiting.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Still waiting on an answer.
> BTW getting further off topic.


You are getting ignorant again. My evidence of that is you are calling specific responses to your specific posts "off topic".
When you do that I am no longer going to participate. Unfortunately its the only way to intelligently deal with your nonsense.
When you stop, I will participate again if I am so inclined. If you can get one person that is participating in this thread to agree with you that my responses didn't directly relate to your questions or statements in posts #224 and #225, which are the ones you claimed to be off topic, I will consider that I may be wrong and review my position.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If they come from God, as the Founding Fathers were asserting, then they can't.



What I have also stated is the DOI is not a legal document. We go by the constitution which makes no claim to creator or rights mentioned in DOI. I know you know this cause you even mentioned it as a letter to England declaring our independence.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 17, 2013)

I would have to disagree that the founders didn't think God gave us anything. Look at how much Providence is discussed. 

BTW, I disagree with the death penalty EXACTLY because I feel is redundant to believe God gave us life and then allow man to take it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I would have to disagree that the founders didn't think God gave us anything. Look at how much Providence is discussed.


 Once again, not a legal or binding document. Just a letter to England. 



> BTW, I disagree with the death penalty EXACTLY because I feel is redundant to believe God gave us life and then allow man to take it.



You can blame God(the Bible) for that. eye for an eye etc.

 12“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.13“But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.14“If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.

    15“He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

    16“He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.

    17“He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> 1) The founders were not asserting that your god gave us anything.



You better re read it.  





> that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,





660griz said:


> 2) Name a right the government cannot take away.



Any right God has endowed me with.



660griz said:


> 3) I never said the government endows me with anything.



Never said you did.  Just pointing out that if we ascribe to the idea that our purpose, morality, and rights are derived from society/government then society/government can take them away.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You are getting ignorant again. My evidence of that is you are calling specific responses to your specific posts "off topic"..



Walt the OP dealt with the question "Can you define and justify a moral framework without first defining the purpose, if there is one, of life itself?

That lead into a debate over what was meant by the word Creator which has now devolved into a debate over whether does the plain reading of the DOI mean what is plainly stated or something else.  So yes it it going further and further off topic.



WaltL1 said:


> When you do that I am no longer going to participate. Unfortunately its the only way to intelligently deal with your nonsense.



In the words of Curly Bill from the movie Toombstone...Well bye.



WaltL1 said:


> When you stop, I will participate again if I am so inclined. If you can get one person that is participating in this thread to agree with you that my responses didn't directly relate to your questions or statements in posts #224 and #225, which are the ones you claimed to be off topic, I will consider that I may be wrong and review my position.



Well if you do become "so inclined" how about starting out by answering the question you've been dodging since it was posed to you.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Any right God has endowed me with.


 Which are?
I know it cannot be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cause I think there have been numerous examples of those being taken away. 
Going to heaven? Let me be more specific. What right has God endowed you with that cannot be taken away?




> Never said you did.  Just pointing out that if we ascribe to the idea that our purpose, morality, and rights are derived from society/government then society/government can take them away.



Show me a guaranteed right that cannot be taken away. 

I'll say knowledge. It is probably not written anywhere but, I'll go with that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Any right God has endowed me with.
> 
> Never said you did.  Just pointing out that if we ascribe to the idea that our purpose, morality, and rights are derived from society/government then society/government can take them away.



Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post 
Think about that statement and then consider the volumes of laws that we have to live by or be punished for up to and including our right to life. If God gave us the right to life and therefore the government can't take that away, the guys on Death Row definitely needed you in their corner on the day they were in court. Unfortunately its too late for the ones that were hung, shot, gassed, fried or injected. They are dead. Legally executed by the government. Their right to life taken away. Therefore the right to life didn't come from God because as YOU said above, the government couldn't take it away if it did. Not to mention since they were executed, liberty and the pursuit of happiness didn't come from God either because well, they were executed. So we've covered life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What other rights in the DOI would you like proven that didn't come from God? And what's REALLY interesting is, your own words are what's proving they didn't.
Gotta love that.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You better re read it.



I have read it many times. To you, it means your God, to other religions, it means their deity. To non-believers it means nature. To the writers it meant, natural and non-specific creator or...THEY WOULD HAVE PUT GOD.

Now, you read the Constitution. Much more important...and enforceable.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Now, you read the Constitution. Much more important...and inforceable.


Correct and a very important point. I know you've said it several times already but I wanted to let you know that you aren't the only one that gets your point. Well its not really a point its a fact.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> I have read it many times. To you, it means your God, to other religions, it means their deity. To non-believers it means nature. To the writers it meant, natural and non-specific creator or...THEY WOULD HAVE PUT GOD.



Uhhhhh, they did.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's  God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Unless you know of another term that one predominantly Christian group would refer to when writing to another predominately Christian group (King George was Anglican and it was the official State religion of England) when referring to a Creator, then I would submit that the God cited above is the same God that I worship and in fact the one that all of Christianity worships.  Again, the hoops you guys are willing to jump through to deny what a seventh grader could see as self evident.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Uhhhhh, they did.


Sigh. For some reason I was focused on the "endowed by their creator" portion. I just don't have the energy to go through the entire document. Quick one. Who was this for?  *Laws of Nature *

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature.

If the DOI would have said hindu God, or Sun God, would you still quote? Leaving out the Nature part is well...nevermind.
The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural. 


You do have a point. The hoops we will go through to try to help you better understand a document that is of historic importance only is pretty ridiculous when your power, morals, and purpose come from the bible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

So Im curious if we were all to agree that your particular god gave us our rights, morals and purpose. Then what?
How would you explain all the differences in morals and the fact that our government can take away your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?? What about the fact that it was morally ok for a grown man to marry a 13 year old not too many years ago? How do you explain that morals have drastically changed over our history?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> How do you explain that morals have drastically changed over our history?



Uh. God did it. If he gives us morals and they changed, he would have had to send down the updates...right?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

660griz said:


> Uh. God did it. If he gives us morals and they changed, he would have had to send down the updates...right?


Yeah that whole kill your kid if they cussed you thing seemed like a good moral at first but not so much now I guess.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt the OP dealt with the question "Can you define and justify a moral framework without first defining the purpose, if there is one, of life itself?
> 
> That lead into a debate over what was meant by the word Creator which has now devolved into a debate over whether does the plain reading of the DOI mean what is plainly stated or something else.  So yes it it going further and further off topic.
> 
> ...


Maybe you didn't notice but you have been participating all along and asking additional questions, so if its gone off topic you are just as responsible as anybody else. In fact more responsible because you are the OP. Do you actually not understand that If Im only responding to your questions and statements, YOU dictated what direction the thread went in, not me? Really you don't get that?  

That question wasn't posed to me. It was posed to anybody and everybody who wanted to participate. On this forum people are allowed to participate as much or as little or not at all as they want. I have answered questions and made statements where I have chosen to participate. Same as everybody else. Same as YOU.
You really ought to give up. You aren't very good at this.
By the way, you said the thread devolved into debating the reading of the DOI. Go back and see who interjected the DOI into the conversation by quoting from it. You'll never guess in a million years who it was. They certainly took your thread off topic because then everybody started discussing that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe you didn't notice but you have been participating all along and asking additional questions, so if its gone off topic you are just as responsible as anybody else. In fact more responsible because you are the OP. Do you actually not understand that If Im only responding to your questions and statements, YOU dictated what direction the thread went in, not me? Really you don't get that?
> 
> That question wasn't posed to me. It was posed to anybody and everybody who wanted to participate. On this forum people are allowed to participate as much or as little or not at all as they want. I have answered questions and made statements where I have chosen to participate. Same as everybody else. Same as YOU.
> You really ought to give up. You aren't very good at this.
> By the way, you said the thread devolved into debating the reading of the DOI. Go back and see who interjected the DOI into the conversation by quoting from it. They certainly took your thread off topic because then everybody started discussing that. You'll never guess in a million years who it was.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> I have read it many times. To you, it means your God, to other religions, it means their deity. To non-believers it means nature. To the writers it meant, natural and non-specific creator or...THEY WOULD HAVE PUT GOD.
> 
> Now, you read the Constitution. Much more important...and enforceable.



When "they" make a translation of the DOI to the New Baptist Version, it will say GOD. Because it's what makes it work for them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> Sigh. For some reason I was focused on the "endowed by their creator" portion. I just don't have the energy to go through the entire document. Quick one. Who was this for?  *Laws of Nature *



Not sure what you are asking?  I read it as they were implying the unalienable rights were as evident and as sacred as the other " laws of nature". ie gravity, reproduction, etc., but that's just my take.



660griz said:


> Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature.
> 
> If the DOI would have said hindu God, or Sun God, would you still quote? Leaving out the Nature part is well...nevermind.



Yes because the point is, and it goes right back to the OP, is that they held that their rights were endowed by a transcendent entity, and did not come from the individual.  The ramifications of that are huge.



660griz said:


> The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
> 
> 
> You do have a point. The hoops we will go through to try to help you better understand a document that is of historic importance only is pretty ridiculous when your power, morals, and purpose come from the bible.



I don't mind a little help understanding, but dont try to tell me the plain text meaning doesn't mean what it plainly states.  Not saying YOU did that.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> Which are?
> I know it cannot be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Cause I think there have been numerous examples of those being taken away.
> Going to heaven? Let me be more specific. What right has God endowed you with that cannot be taken away?
> 
> ...



Griz you asked earlier for me to name a right the government could not take away, and I responded "any right God has given us."  Let me elaborate because you then ask above " What right has God endowed you with that cannot be taken away?  I think I can answer them both.

You state that you know that it cannot be the right to life liberty and happiness, because there have been numerous examples of those being taken away.  Here's the rub though, and hear me out before you quit reading, but there's a huge and fundamental difference with regards to the implications of your questions depending on if you are a Theist or Atheist.

To a Theist who holds that our rights are derived from a God, although the government may snuff out our life, our  liberty, our pursuit of happiness, it can never snuff out the RIGHT itself, because it is held the RIGHTS are derived from a power that transcends the power of the government.  The individual may in fact perish, but the RIGHT is unblemished, because it isn't derived from the individual.

For the Atheist who asserts that rights are assigned by the individual, the society, or the government, (it makes no difference which), if the government snuffs out those rights then that's it, those in power rule and again it really makes no difference what form of government we are speaking of?  There is no higher concept or authority to appeal to.  The rights die with the individual, society or government, because it was to those in which it's origin and power resided.

Now you might say, well what good does it do to have a Right to life if that life is taken away.  I would say it makes a huge difference. The concept doesn't die when the individual, group, society, or government dies. It endures.  The only way to destroy it is to destroy the concept of God as its progenitor.

(Don't know if you ever saw the movie Braveheart but there is a scene in it where William Wallace gives the following address to his troups just prior to a battle:

William Wallace: I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?!
Young Soldier: No, we wil run and live!
William Wallace: Yes!, Fight and you may die. Run and you will live at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one cahnce, to come back here as young men and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!

Whether the event ever happened or not is irrelevant.  I use it to point out the concept expressed in the last statement of the speech 
"that they may take our lives but they will never take our freedom!" that freedom along with other concepts* if they are viewed as transcendent * cannot be destroyed by government.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 19, 2013)

I think freedom is from a group standpoint. I'll ponder some more and get back to you. I prefer his other quote: "Every man dies but not every man lives." Or something to that affect.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> I think freedom is from a group standpoint. I'll ponder some more and get back to you. I prefer his other quote: "Every man dies but not every man lives." Or something to that affect.



That's it....the quote.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> Once again, not a legal or binding document. Just a letter to England.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also...
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 19, 2013)

660griz said:


> Once again, not a legal or binding document. Just a letter to England.



I was talking about the writings of the founders. 
I agree they did not frame a government based on religion-and thank goodness for that. 
But for you to say they were not influenced by God/providence is unfounded.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I was talking about the writings of the founders.
> I agree they did not frame a government based on religion-and thank goodness for that.
> But for you to say they were not influenced by God/providence is unfounded.


I think you are both correct.
Influenced by religion in their personal lives.
Did not allow that to carry over into framing the government for very good reasons.
And I second that thank goodness.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> I was talking about the writings of the founders.
> I agree they did not frame a government based on religion-and thank goodness for that.
> But for you to say they were not influenced by God/providence is unfounded.



If I said some were not influenced by God, I mispoke. I just meant our governing documents purposely leave out God for a reason.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You state that you know that it cannot be the right to life liberty and happiness, because there have been numerous examples of those being taken away.  Here's the rub though, and hear me out before you quit reading, but there's a huge and fundamental difference with regards to the implications of your questions depending on if you are a Theist or Atheist.
> 
> To a Theist who holds that our rights are derived from a God, although the government may snuff out our life, our  liberty, our pursuit of happiness, it can never snuff out the RIGHT itself, because it is held the RIGHTS are derived from a power that transcends the power of the government.  The individual may in fact perish, but the RIGHT is unblemished, because it isn't derived from the individual.



I think I see your point. However, I think no matter who one thinks the individual right to freedom(will take that one for now) comes from, if all of society feels that way, the right cannot be taken away unless you enslave everyone. They may all feel they have the right to freedom and they do...they just don't have it. I was referring to individual rights. 
Whitney Houston said, "They can't take away our dignity." 
Then, she fell into a drug induced unconsciousness, fell into the bathtub and drowned. Not exactly a dignified way to die.  
Does anyone really have freedom? No, you are either bound by morals, obligations, religious teachings, or government punishment. 
What I have been trying to convey is that there are very few rights that can't be taken away. 
I choose to live in the U.S.A because it has the most 'freedoms'. You may think you have God given rights which can't be taken away but, actually, you are bound/enslaved by something. We just can't have a useful society if true freedom existed. 
Freedom definition: 1.The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
2.Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

To sum up, 1) You really don't have freedom. 2) Even if you think you do, it can be taken away. When you are locked up or enslaved, knowing you have a right to freedom is not the same as having it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also...
> 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.



So, which ones should you go by? Exodus or Matthew? I think this goes back to my Old vs New testament and the cherry picking issue. Obviously, laws dating back before the bible were based on Eye for and Eye which was a paraphase of Hammurabi's Code, which dates many years before the bible.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> I think I see your point. However, I think no matter who one thinks the individual right to freedom(will take that one for now) comes from, if all of society feels that way, the right cannot be taken away unless you enslave everyone. They may all feel they have the right to freedom and they do...they just don't have it. I was referring to individual rights.
> Whitney Houston said, "They can't take away our dignity."
> Then, she fell into a drug induced unconsciousness, fell into the bathtub and drowned. Not exactly a dignified way to die.
> Does anyone really have freedom? No, you are either bound by morals, obligations, religious teachings, or government punishment.
> ...



Agreed, but there is another way to lose your rights other than have them taken away and that is to give them up or to cede them over to another entity.  That is the point I was making.  If we cede our RIGHTS over from an abstract and transcendent point of reference to a concrete and finite point of reference I think the RIGHT itself is lost.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Agreed, but there is another way to lose your rights other than have them taken away and that is to give them up or to cede them over to another entity.  That is the point I was making.  If we cede our RIGHTS over from an abstract and transcendent point of reference to a concrete and finite point of reference I think the RIGHT itself is lost.



And I agree with that. My point was no matter where they come from, they can be taken away.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> So, which ones should you go by? Exodus or Matthew? I think this goes back to my Old vs New testament and the cherry picking issue. Obviously, laws dating back before the bible were based on Eye for and Eye which was a paraphase of Hammurabi's Code, which dates many years before the bible.



A clear reading of the entirety of the bible will point you to Matthew. The Mosaic law was never a permanent covenant  Even the old testament prophets foretold this. Read Jeremiah 31:31

Besides that, Jesus is speaking in Matthew. He is directly telling us what to do.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> A clear reading of the entirety of the bible will point you to Matthew. The Mosaic law was never a permanent covenant  Even the old testament prophets foretold this. Read Jeremiah 31:31
> 
> Besides that, Jesus is speaking in Matthew. He is directly telling us what to do.



Once again, there is disagreement, even among believers as to what 'Jesus' and/or God meant. 

Here is an article written by a pastor. 
http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 20, 2013)

660griz said:


> Once again, there is disagreement, even among believers as to what 'Jesus' and/or God meant.
> 
> Here is an article written by a pastor.
> http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML



That's a good read. 
I believe man is corrupted. Our justice system is far from perfect. Not to mention I distrust the government. That was why I said I don't think man should take life. 
I will readily agree I am in the minority amongst Christians.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2013)

660griz said:


> Once again, there is disagreement, even among believers as to what 'Jesus' and/or God meant.
> 
> Here is an article written by a pastor.
> http://www.theologyonline.com/DEATH.HTML



You are correct about the disagreements among believers, but most of them are over the details.  Kind of like arguing which bullet is better for killing a deer, the big caliber slow movers or the smaller caliber fast ones.  Not many are going to argue with John 3:16.  Btw the best bulletin for killing a dear it the one that is placed in the kill zone.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz if the individual determines their own purpose and morals then the INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST authority.  There is no one or nothing higher to appeal to. If you go on a killing spree, who am I to condemn you.  We are each our own person, each our own judge.  You are only accountable to yourself for your actions, not me.  I'm only accountable to myself for mine, not you.  We are morally on equal footing.  If I find your killing spree offensive there is no one, no higher concept to appeal to in order to judge or condemn your actions because again, THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY.



Individuals are the highest moral authority.  Each of us determines our purpose, each of us chooses our own morality.  Without a god that actually comes down and claims authority, then that is all there is.  The individual is sovriegn and must be, or else without an actual diety that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are accepting the word of another individual.  You might have faith that individual is correct but that does not negate that fact, that you are assimilateing to that individuals point of view.  

You need to read more than the bible.  Some philosophy perhaps. 



> "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant...The only part of the conduct, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. in the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."-John Stuart Mill


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> The individual sovriegn and must be, or else without an actual diety, that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are accepting the word of another individual.



Good stuff.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You are correct about the disagreements among believers, but most of them are over the details.  Kind of like arguing which bullet is better for killing a deer, the big caliber slow movers or the smaller caliber fast ones.  Not many are going to argue with John 3:16.  Btw the best bulletin for killing a dear it the one that is placed in the kill zone.


Go upstairs to the thread with over 1,000 posts of disagreement. They aren't arguing over minor details.
Although I do understand if you realize how the bible was assembled its not suprising that there are argument over interpretation.


----------

