The title sums it up quite well. If there is no god, gods, or deity then right and wrong can never truly exist, only opinions.

The title is based on the premise that there is such a thing as ethics:  Right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, and so on.  The entire discussion is encompassed in a body of philosophy called moral relativism.

It's just like it sounds.  Morals are based on how relatively malevolent or benevolent an action is, either to an individual, group or society as a whole.

Without using God and His commandment as a baseline, it comes down to the relative injury being caused, to the individual, the individual's family, and the community.

In Texas, they used to have a law that said a killing is justified if the accused can find 3 upstanding citizens to testify that the deceased "needed killing."

Taking a life is the most injury one can inflict.  Therefore, on a scale of low-to-high relativity, it's at the top.  That's from a pure physical perspective.  In some cultures, to dishonor the family is relatively worse than death.  Therefore, some cultures placed murder of one who dishonored you below other injuries.  Suicide was used as a form of "apology" for failure to maintain one's honor. 

So, on its face, the question of any act being "wrong" needs to be defined.  "Sin" implies a religious context.  Illegal implies a set of socially agreed upon rules.  "Bad" implies a negative impact other than to the victim.

Plenty of discussions all over the web on moral relativity and "is murder wrong."  Not sure regurgitating it here is productive use of everyone's time considering the volume of information and ideas involved.

My brother, who is deeply religious, believes that a person can't be good unless they believe in God. When I finally told him I was an atheist he refused to believe that I didn't believe in God. Because he knows I am a good person. If it doesn't fit in with his way of thinking he just refuses to believe that I don't believe in God.

But people interpenetrate "god" differently throughout the years(new testament etc).  Just like how peoples opinions of morality change over the years.  This guy is wrong on that.  Morality is opinions and that there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact murder doesn't have to be viewed as evil.  All that is needed is the fact that if you do murder someone there is punishment.  That alone will keep people moral.  Rules and punishments are all we need as a society. 

But people interpenetrate "god" differently throughout the years(new testament etc).  Just like how peoples opinions of morality change over the years.  This guy is wrong on that.  Morality is opinions and that there is nothing wrong with that.

I believe you "aired" in your usage of the word "interpenetrate". 

 

But people interpenetrate "god" differently throughout the years(new testament etc).  Just like how peoples opinions of morality change over the years.  This guy is wrong on that.  Morality is opinions and that there is nothing wrong with that.  In fact murder doesn't have to be viewed as evil.  All that is needed is the fact that if you do murder someone there is punishment.  That alone will keep people moral.  Rules and punishments are all we need as a society.

It's been proven in many societies that the mere existence of rules and punishment is not all we need.  The gun arguments in the US are a perfect example.  Murder is illegal, yet when someone commits murder with a gun, people call for more laws against owning guns.  Obviously, we need more than rules and punishment.

Integrity and morality have to do with doing what's right even when no one is watching.  Acting ethically only when you believe someone in authority might see you is not ethics.  It's a belief that nothing is illegal as long as you don't get caught! 

It's much easier to instill a sense of ethics if you have the belief God is always watching you.

If there is a God, then. I'm ok....
If there isn't, then I'm ok....
WIN./W/IN 

I believe you "aired" in your usage of the word "interpenetrate". 

 

i prefer not to think about omni interpenetrating anyone/anything...

Believe it or not interpenetrate is an actual word. Here is the first definition in Merriam-Webster:

Definition of interpenetrate
intransitive verb
:  to penetrate mutually 

Sorry, but that one is too good to pass up!!!!!! 

Believe it or not interpenetrate is an actual word. Here is the first definition in Merriam-Webster:

Definition of interpenetrate
intransitive verb
:  to penetrate mutually 

Sorry, but that one is too good to pass up!!!!!! 

heads

It's been proven in many societies that the mere existence of rules and punishment is not all we need.  The gun arguments in the US are a perfect example.  Murder is illegal, yet when someone commits murder with a gun, people call for more laws against owning guns.  Obviously, we need more than rules and punishment.

Integrity and morality have to do with doing what's right even when no one is watching.  Acting ethically only when you believe someone in authority might see you is not ethics.  It's a belief that nothing is illegal as long as you don't get caught! 

It's much easier to instill a sense of ethics if you have the belief God is always watching you.

No the gun logic is so flawed.  You punish the person not the tool. You don't destroy a car if it crashes and kills someone.  Just cause you are not caught the fact that you can and will be punished is perfectly valid.  You will not always get away with murder, you will be eventually caught.  You don't have to fear your interpretation of the magic man in the sky.


Yes spell check fucked up "interpretation"

No the gun logic is so flawed.  You punish the person not the tool. You don't destroy a car if it crashes and kills someone.  Just cause you are not caught the fact that you can and will be punished is perfectly valid.  You will not always get away with murder, you will be eventually caught.  You don't have to fear your interpretation of the magic man in the sky.


Yes spell check fucked up "interpretation"

My logic is sound.  You're focusing on the subject, not the concept.

The concept is, if rules and punishment were enough (as you stated), then murders would never occur.  Even as more and more laws are passed to try and prevent murders (whether by guns, knives or fertilizer), we still have murders.

Your concept is flawed.  Rules and punishments do not prevent human behavior.  A sense of right and wrong has a much higher chance of working.

Yes spell check fucked up "interpretation"

I know you don't care about anyone but yourself, but it is STILL YOUR FUCK UP. You have all the time in the world to review and correct everything you write before you press the POST button. Don't blame the spell checker, just admit you are lazy. 

I know you don't care about anyone but yourself, but it is STILL YOUR FUCK UP. You have all the time in the world to review and correct everything you write before you press the POST button. Don't blame the spell checker, just admit you are lazy. 

He is a good example of how fallible humans are.  That's why rules and punishments are not as effective as he theorizes. 

Instilling a set of moral guidelines is much better than a building full of law books, because we don't have to know every law.  Following our morals is usually going to keep us on the right side of the law.

Too bad he doesn't have an innate set of guidelines when it comes to proofreading/correcting his posts.  So many misstatements would have been avoided!   

Many in their 20s believe in a natural morality. If you treat others well then they will treat you well. There's no need for religion and rules because people naturally know not to hurt or kill others. By their 30s, they see bad people doing bad things and getting rewarded for it. Eventually, many turn to religion (hopefully not a cult) to find balance and order in their lives. Bad people might get away with murder, but they will be punished in the afterlife, and you will be rewarded for being kind to others.

Furthermore, young women tend to be liberal with a desire to share resources among society. When they start having children, they become more conservative and resist any attempts by others to take unearned resources away from their family. Young men see this and tend to be conservative but start to mellow with age and realize that society improves when resources are shared. These are all huge generalizations and what I've observed in my lifetime.

Many in their 20s believe in a natural morality. If you treat others well then they will treat you well. There's no need for religion and rules because people naturally know not to hurt or kill others. By their 30s, they see bad people doing bad things and getting rewarded for it. Eventually, many turn to religion (hopefully not a cult) to find balance and order in their lives. Bad people might get away with murder, but they will be punished in the afterlife, and you will be rewarded for being kind to others.

Furthermore, young women tend to be liberal with a desire to share resources among society. When they start having children, they become more conservative and resist any attempts by others to take unearned resources away from their family. Young men see this and tend to be conservative but start to mellow with age and realize that society improves when resources are shared. These are all huge generalizations and what I've observed in my lifetime.

I've come to believe people are mainly imitative by nature.  It's how we learn our first language, to sing, to play instruments, to ride a bicycle, or to be sociable. 

If the examples we see daily display good qualities and receive good (desired) outcomes, most will imitate that behavior in hopes of obtaining the same outcome.

If an urban youth sees his parents working hard and living off of welfare while the dealer down the street drives a new Caddy and wears $50K in gold around his neck, guess which example he's more likely to aspire to.

It speaks to your comment about seeing bad people doing bad things and getting rewarded.  Our society has a tendency to romanticize some criminals, much the way some rap music does.  That's part of the perception problem we have keeping individuals from imitating the "wrong" role models.

My logic is sound.  You're focusing on the subject, not the concept.

The concept is, if rules and punishment were enough (as you stated), then murders would never occur.  Even as more and more laws are passed to try and prevent murders (whether by guns, knives or fertilizer), we still have murders.

Your concept is flawed.  Rules and punishments do not prevent human behavior.  A sense of right and wrong has a much higher chance of working.

By your logic religious people commit no crimes.  But we know that is completely false.  Some people will always do bad, and if there are laws they are punished and served as an example for the rest.  We are human we are not perfect.  Also there are many like the Muslim terrorist that commit murder cause of religion.  Or even for Christianity in the past crusades.

By your logic religious people commit no crimes.  But we know that is completely false.  Some people will always do bad, and if there are laws they are punished and served as an example for the rest.  We are human we are not perfect.  Also there are many like the Muslim terrorist that commit murder cause of religion.  Or even for Christianity in the past crusades.

Why must you always twist everyone's statements into something that is not what was said, nor is it even close to an accurate extrapolation?  Can you not have an honest discussion?  You have a need to be right (just like EEF), and that seems to require that you reframe comments into strawman positions so you have something to work from.

Your dishonesty is pathetic.

There is no group "religious people" because not all religions are the same.  Islam should be a good example of how some religions expect killing, where others (most others?) teach murder is a sin.

Your entire response is invalid on its face, because  you can't see past your narrow-minded bias towards religion.

NEWSFLASH:  The Crusades were a RESPONSE to murders committed by Muslims, and they ended in the year 1291 AD.  Your example of "murders committed for Christianity" is completely invalid based on (1) the seven and a half centuries since then, and (2) Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.