Morals, Morality and God

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 7th, 2018, 9:25 am

Fire clearly affects carbon dating since it generates carbon. It cannot change the molecular composition of nearby discolored material on the Shroud which chemical change has already been determined.

The best way to defend science is to study it and objectively use it.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2806
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Burning ghost » September 7th, 2018, 9:34 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 7th, 2018, 9:25 am
Fire clearly affects carbon dating since it generates carbon. It cannot change the molecular composition of nearby discolored material on the Shroud which chemical change has already been determined.

The best way to defend science is to study it and objectively use it.
? So ?

I guess you mean if doubt over the radio carbon dating gives you reason to think it’s Jesus’ snapshot that is okay. Yet when I mentioned a different theory (Leonardo) that is not okay? Then we have to believe the date?

Either you take the date at face value or you don’t. It is blantantly bias to use one argument defensive and then say anyone else using the same argument to be wrong and doing “bad science”.

I think that means ... bye!
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Thinking critical » September 9th, 2018, 6:05 am

Mark1955 wrote:
September 6th, 2018, 10:00 am
Thinking critical wrote:
September 6th, 2018, 6:59 am
In my opinion, religion needs to be more transparent in it's moral advocacy and promote their ideologies as philosophy as opposed to divine command, at least then there would be some accountability.
Surely that would defeat the purpose of religion, which is to provide answers you do not question so you do not have to worry that the questionable answers are so very questionable.
This type of totalitarian approach to the well being of others is what leaves the religious driven approach to morality in complete and utter philosophical crisis. Those who commit themselves to such views inadvertently surrender their ability to reason, highlighting one the underlying causes of the sorts of dogmatic and radical approaches which lead to irrational and somewhat delusional behaviour.
Once people dehumanise their understanding of what it means be moral, the act of being moral is no longer done in the interest or concern of well being, it is done out of the self interest the person has invested in themselves.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 9th, 2018, 3:22 pm

The "totalitarian approach" to defining the morality or well being of others is not unique to religion. It can be found in every ideological movement or system of belief or non-belief. It is not a function of the particular belief but of the ego of the person who becomes so committed in time, money and reputation that their belief become part of their identity. At this point, any rational argument contradicting their belief is ignored or somehow rationalized away to protect their mental health.

The best antidote to this is to follow the simple maxim of not believing everything you hear or read on any subject. It is the obligation of every educational system or authority to teach people how to think not what to think. Now to imagine that every person has the time, effort or ability to debate with themselves regarding their religion, economics, politics, philosophy, etc. is not being realistic. But it doesn't take much to at least be skeptical and question what is being promulgated by any pseudo authority in any field. And many of the contradictions being broadcast would be easy to spot with little thought

For those who may not be familiar with organized religion or with those who participate in such, don't believe for a minute that all followers believe everything they are told. Despite what the leaders say or think, many of their dictates are ignored. Of course there are the blind followers who prefer not to question.

Then there is the false notion that since a religion postulates a reward in the afterlife, that followers perform good reads only to get to heaven. There may be people like this but they are far from the large majority. It would be like accusing a non-religious person of only doing good deeds because she wanted to leave a good reputation or get a statue. This is true for some but not for the many.

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 9th, 2018, 5:17 pm

Reply to Tommarcus:

For those who may not be familiar with organized religion or with those who participate in such, don't believe for a minute that all followers believe everything they are told. Despite what the leaders say or think, many of their dictates are ignored. Of course there are the blind followers who prefer not to question.


This all sounds very reasonable but it says little of significance. What does matter is if one person’s belief is foisted on another. That was one of the driving issues for the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Yet you have refered to "this anti-religion trend" and have commented that, “Our laws have gone far beyond the Constitutional requirement that the Government not establish a religion”.

I have tried to engage with you on this issue but you did not respond to my questions. You seem to regard an ‘anti-religion trend’ as a problem without saying why, specifically. Yet you have not similarly condemned evangelism. I am genuinely unsure where you stand on this and I tried to find out. Thus the paragraph which I shall repeat for the second time:

"This is why I tried to engage with Tommarcus in relation to his concern that objections were being made to a manger scene on the town green but he/she did not reply. I would have pointed out that there was space for a manger scene in each and every church in the land, that there are quite a few of these, and that this is freely permissable in law. Why, therefore, should it be assumed that they can be placed anywhere else of the religious group’s choosing, particularly when the First Amendment in in place to control this? Why is there a requirement that ‘in God we Trust’ be included in the print of all US paper currency? Would it make a difference if the government required ‘in Allah we Trust’? Why would a candidate for the highest office in the land (George Bush snr) say, ” …I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God … Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists”?

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 9th, 2018, 8:22 pm

lapetus,

Please, don't feel insulted but I don't believe that anything I say will will help us to find a meeting of the minds. You don't understand what government body makes the laws in the US. I tried to explain that it is the Congress and not the Supreme Court. If you don't believe me you will have to study this on your own.

I politely asked that you not ask me to defend any politician, on the left or right.

For decades, Christmas trees, Christmas symbols and manger scenes were allowed on public property and even in public schools. Now such displays are all of a sudden against the law. It didn't bother the Founders. As a matter of fact, many of the Founders, especially Washington, stated that religion is an important part of the democratic republic which they were trying to create.

Our currency uses the term "God" not Jesus, Allah or Yahweh which is intentionally inclusive of any religion.


I appreciate your comments but if you disagree with these responses please check them out.

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 10th, 2018, 4:48 am

Reply to Tommarcus:
Please, don't feel insulted but I don't believe that anything I say will will help us to find a meeting of the minds. You don't understand what government body makes the laws in the US. I tried to explain that it is the Congress and not the Supreme Court. If you don't believe me you will have to study this on your own.
A reasonably detailed response to a reasonably specific queestion would certainly have helped. Please don’t try to cloud the issue by reference to side issues.

I politely asked that you not ask me to defend any politician, on the left or right.


If your concerns are about individual beliefs then that is fine, but my question about George Bush was related to the principle of a presidential candidate – who was actuallly elected - questioning the right of atheists to be recognised as citizens. That strikes me as something worthy of comment, particularly in relation to your reference to an ‘anti-religion trend’. As I explained, it goes to the heart of the principles embedded in the First Amendment.

For decades, Christmas trees, Christmas symbols and manger scenes were allowed on public property and even in public schools. Now such displays are all of a sudden against the law.


If your argument is that things should remain as they have always been, then that could have been used as an argument for slavery. And it was. It is nonsense.

As I explained in detail, there is plenty of space for ‘such displays’ in each and every church in the land and this is entirely lawful. The First Amendment was first adopted in 1791. It is not a sudden change to the law. If the law has had to be interpreted because of objections to religious displays in public spaces, then that is entirely within the bounds of the Amendment. You ignored my reference to, ‘In Allah We Trust’. Would you take exception to this? If so, then how is this different?

It didn't bother the Founders. As a matter of fact, many of the Founders, especially Washington, stated that religion is an important part of the democratic republic which they were trying to create.


It bothered one Founder – James Madison – sufficiently that he was motivated write the basis for the First Amendment. It bothered another – Thomas Jefferson – sufficiently that he was prompted to write an open letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut in support of their complaint against oppression by … the Congregationalists of Danbury, Connecticut. This included the famous pronouncement that the legistature should, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I challenge you to find any instance where I have indicated that religion is not – or should not be – an important part of any democratic republic. I am also entirely in agreement that a ‘wall of separation between Church and State’ is an important means of assuring freedom of belief. But that necessarily limits, to a certain degree, freedom of expression. It limits printing ‘In Allah we Trust’ on every banknote. But it did not, for some reason, limit, ‘In God We Trust’. It implicitly prohibits restricting citizenship on the basis of individual belief, even though a successful presidential candidate seemed to think otherwise.

Our currency uses the term "God" not Jesus, Allah or Yahweh which is intentionally inclusive of any religion.

That again, is a wriggle and you know it. It is certainly not “intentionally inclusive”. If you are trying to assert that God and Allah are the same entity, then then are plenty of correspondents – particularly on other forums – who will tell you otherwise. If you think that non-believers will feel included, then you have some way to go to demonstrate that. If you think that ‘pagans’ or Buddhists or Jains or plenty of other beliefs will feel included, then think again.

What it does assert is that the dominant religion feels comfortable enough in its dominance to shout it out in its currency.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 10th, 2018, 5:08 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 6th, 2018, 2:34 pm
ThomasHobbes,

The science to which you refer is outdated and has been debunked. Carbon dating relies on measuring the radioactive decay of a Carbon isotope. However, the introduction of carbon to a sample, such as through a fire, contaminates the sample to the point where reliable dating is not possible. The Shroud of Turin was burnt in a fire during the Middle Ages as evidenced by the significant burn marks on it.

Now if you think this was created in the 12th Century why don't you explain how. Or why don't you try to give a credible theory. Just remember, there is no pigmentation, except blood, on this material and the image is a negative, not a positive. So don't forget to explain why someone would make a fake image that was a negative photographic image during a time when no one knew what a negative image was.

Suggest you read the book. If you don' t understand the science it is worthwhile to get help from someone who does.
Tut, tut!!
I have a degree in Archaeology and am pretty sure I know a bit more about Rc dating than you do.
There is not a scrap of evidence that the shroud is not exactly what it appears to be; a 12thC corpse wrapping. And as with other similar items there is absolutely NOTHING remarkable about it. This along with splinters of the cross scattered across Europe which would add up to a entire forest, and the mountain of "Christ's fingers", saints skulls and other fake paraphernalia add up to a massive collection designed to fool idiots like yourself to get more in the collection plate.
Where you get the idea that is is radioactive is beyond a joke.
You are making a fool of yourself.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 10th, 2018, 5:20 am

Actually it's not even that old. The 12thc Is the absolute earliest it could possibly be according to RC dating, from the several samples taken all over the shroud and far from the burn marks. The most likely date is exactly that of the first time the objects appears in literature; the same moment it was created and the same moment it was seen by the public; around 1390.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 10th, 2018, 5:24 am

Your clinging to the absurd idea that the SofT is anything more than a medieval fake relic, is a sad reflection on the those who will cling to the slightest hope against a mountain of evidence. Such is typical of the religiously minded.

Steve3007
Posts: 5568
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Steve3007 » September 10th, 2018, 6:40 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:I have a degree in Archaeology and am pretty sure I know a bit more about Rc dating than you do.
You didn't by any chance get that degree from the University of York did you? I only ask because I knew quite a lot of archaeology students there. It seems to be quite a big centre for the subject in the UK.

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Thinking critical » September 10th, 2018, 7:06 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 9th, 2018, 3:22 pm
The "totalitarian approach" to defining the morality or well being of others is not unique to religion. It can be found in every ideological movement or system of belief or non-belief. It is not a function of the particular belief but of the ego of the person who becomes so committed in time, money and reputation that their belief become part of their identity. At this point, any rational argument contradicting their belief is ignored or somehow rationalized away to protect their mental health.

The best antidote to this is to follow the simple maxim of not believing everything you hear or read on any subject. It is the obligation of every educational system or authority to teach people how to think not what to think. Now to imagine that every person has the time, effort or ability to debate with themselves regarding their religion, economics, politics, philosophy, etc. is not being realistic. But it doesn't take much to at least be skeptical and question what is being promulgated by any pseudo authority in any field. And many of the contradictions being broadcast would be easy to spot with little thought
I accept that it is only a minor denomination of theists which have a totalitarian approach to morality, such has some extremists Muslim sects an young earth creationist in the American binge belt. However Christian theology constantly and publicly push there ideological morals onto society in the name of religion in regards to public matters such as same sex marriage and abortion. I can't think of any examples where secular groups attempt to push any such agenda onto the public, can you?
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 10th, 2018, 9:34 am

I finished my last post with, "What it does assert is that the dominant religion feels comfortable enough in its dominance to shout it out in its currency". I made a silly mistake. The currency is not, of course, the property of the dominant religion. It belongs to everybody and should represent everybody. It is "In God We Trust" which is doing the excluding.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 10th, 2018, 10:59 am

lapetus

A detailed response is not necessary, As I have already said it twice already, Congress makes the laws, not the Supreme Court. You don't want to believe this so do some research on the US government.

While you are doing that, you will find that the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion. This has been twisted by our legal system to mean that any religious display on public property imposes a religion on the public. There is a recent trend by weak-minded people that claim that any comment to which they disagree is either offensive or an imposition on them. I predict that this will eventually be reversed. I have made reference before to the stupity of the Dread Scott Decision which was also reversed by the elimination if slavery by Congress.There is no reasonable way that this implies that I have used the past as a basis for justfying the present. Just the opposite. Nice try though.

Like it or not this country was founded by great people who believed in God, (that includes Deists), and made reference to God throughout their discussions when building this country. This country has been protected by many people who died for it by believing in God. Take a trip to Arlington and count the crosses and stars. This should not offend or take away from those who have died for our country who have not believed in God. If it does significantly disturb someone, then he or she should think long and hard. As I also have said, I believe that all religions and beliefs including atheism should be allowed on public property, not the opposite. As you quoted, the freedom of religion should not be impinge upon. The amendment does not make an exception for public property.

I don't question the right of atheists to be citizens. Just the opposite. If Bush said that, then that would be a stupid statement. I have said that their beliefs should be equal to any religion and that they should be treated with the same rights and restrictions as any religion. As I said, trying to defend what politicians say is a tedious waste of time.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 10th, 2018, 11:21 am

ThomasHobbes,

I am glad to hear that you have a degree in Archaeology. That means that when you read the book to which I have refetenced, you will be able to understand the chemistry and physics. Now show us that you are not closed minded, as you accuse people who disagree with you, and read the book, "Test the Shroud". But since you are so sure that the Shroud is a fake, then on you must have a theory as to how it was created. Test your theory against the science in the book which also addresses the carbon dating including distances from the burn marks and discoloration.

I don't need the Shroud to determine whether Jesus was real or not. There is plenty of history to prove that. Regarding his miracles or powers, even Josephus refers to him as a healer. There are also many other arguments to support him. But the Shroud is a big problem for people who don't want to believe in him if it is proven to be a relic of Jesus. The fact that there has been so much other relic fakes does not imply that this falls in the same category.

I feel very good about your personal attacks and aspersions. When an person's arguments become weak, the standard approach is for him to attack his opponent personally more and his argument less.

Post Reply