How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or

1. 41

   Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years ago

   How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or appealing to God?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Link10103posted 9 years ago

   Umm, easy. I don't want to get punched in the face, so its probably a good idea to not punch others in the face. The majority of people would probably agree. Punching people in the face would become widely avoided and eventually seen as wrong unless a valid reason is in effect.
   
   So aside from it being not a social norm to deck people in the face, it hurts like hell, so why would I need someone to tell me not to do it?
   
   Now, what reason are you going to give me that I somehow arrived at that conclusion because of god? Not just any god mind you, but your specific one that you will probably assert exists without actually saying why that is, which would make me wonder why you asked this potentially baited question to begin with.
   
   Or did I jump the gun a bit?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You jumped the gun, I think. Some people don't know what it's like to get punched in the face and cannot say it hurts. You're assuming it would because it's someone trying to inflict pain and expecting that reaction. You can't say everyone hates it.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The jumping the gun part was centered around the last part of the comment, not the initial
      
      There are very few people immune to pain/never experienced it before. The majority, like I mentioned, would most likely avoid that pain if possible by default

      replyreport
   3. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Whatever YOU think most people would want is morality?Without God morality is whatever each person wants it to be, I want to be punched in the face,so it's OK for me to punch u in the face,that's morality?You really think you've made your case?

      replyreport
   4. 67

      Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Neat red herring. That still does not explain WHY it is "wrong" to punch someone in the face. You and me are just animals that evolved from pond scum that exploded into existence. If I decide to punch or even kill you...well, survival of the fittest!

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Morals are determined by the society in question, there are no predetermined morals otherwise all cultures would share them. If a society decides punching people in the face is wrong and that it hurts it becomes bad to do
      Or was that too complicated?

      replyreport
   6. 61

      Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's just an example though. You can't say that is so just because you don't like getting punched in the face. What's the difference between moral right and plain right?

      replyreport
   7. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I can't say I understand the difference between the two Phil. Any way you could elaborate on that?

      replyreport
   8. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Link
      
      So, in your worldview, boxers, MMA fighters and the like are all immoral?

      replyreport
   9. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Boxing is a sport. Both willingly consent that they will be punching each other in the face and accept its going to hurt like hell. Some might think it is, but personally as long as they both agree I don't view it as such, like a good majority don't.

      replyreport
   10. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       So between those of you who think violent sports are moral and those who feel otherwise, how do you PROVE your position is absolutely correct and their's is wrong?

       replyreport
   11. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       On an individual level? You don't. Accepted morality is determined by the society as a whole and what actions are beneficial and detrimental to the group, not the individual, which is why there are so many grey areas.

       replyreport
   12. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Which necessarily means that the Holocaust, for instance, was moral since the overwhelming majority of Germans at the time approved of the murder of Jews and other undesirables ...
       
       How do you prove them wrong?

       replyreport
   13. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The systematic slaughter of an entire group of people is viewed as abhorrent by a lot more people than it was viewed right by the Germans at the time.
       By majority alone it was wrong, it was also severely detrimental to those affected.

       replyreport
   14. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       And let's not forget that only 38% of Germans voted for the Nazi party in 1942, which is far from the "overwhelming majority." And JoPol's statement also happily assumes every single last one of them supported every single action the Nazi party took.

       replyreport
   15. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Z,using a straw man again.A%of voters has little to do with the total population which did nothing to stop the holocoast.If the majority didn't approve they didn't express their disapproval which you'd lead us to believe was the majority view?

       replyreport
   16. 67

       Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If society determines morality, then you should have no problem with decapitation of homosexuals (as goes on in Gambia), murder of atheists (as some Islamists do), or with denying women rights. It is moral to do those things in your worldview.

       replyreport
   17. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The society one is a part of...
       
       I didnt think the obvious had to be stated. Silly me that I thought common sense was a thing. And unless the vast majority of those populations does those things, it wasn't particularly pertinent to mention

       replyreport
   18. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       And what if the opposite was true, that the majority of the global population approved of the Holocaust? Would that have made it a moral action?

       replyreport
   19. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The world would be a very different place if that were so so it probably would be considered moral yes. As it stands psychopaths think its okay to murder. They are a minority. Is it easier to conform to their thinking or write them off as a minority?

       replyreport
   20. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So you'd write them off as a minority? That's not logical reasoning, just a convenient dodge. Atheists are a minority, so you feel the same about writing them off, as a minority?

       replyreport
   21. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       So, in your worldview, morality is simply dictated by the majority.
       
       Hopefully you can now appreciate why atheists enjoy such a ghastly reputation ...

       replyreport
   22. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Im not sure how that would affect an atheists reputation Jo. If my morals stem from the people in my immediate surroundings and they are "good", the only reason to think ill of me would be from some predetermined biased viewpoint
       
       Sounds familiar...

       replyreport
   23. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'll elaborate, then. As your answers reveal, your morality is nothing more than a herd mentality. In this worldview, nothing is absolutely wrong or right. It's all relative which means you could be induced to commit terrible evils by the herd.

       replyreport
   24. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       At this point in my life no I wouldn't, but had I grown up around people who saw things differently than yes that could have been. Same goes for everyone.
       
       Its simple to look at history and at all the things that were considered moral at the time.

       replyreport
   25. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       Sure you would. So long as you continue to believe morality is not absolute you'll remain at the mercy of your herd. After all, when you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.

       replyreport
   26. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I say one thing, you tell me I would do another. Not surprising honestly...
       
       I do find it funnily ironic that an advocate for the murder of children is telling me this though.

       replyreport
   27. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       Strawman. Try again.

       replyreport
   28. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Odd how I pointed out your straw man first and you completely ignored it...
       
       And you outright said earlier that the slaughter of "evil" children was okay...how the hell is that a straw man if you can literally scroll up to see it?
       
       Lol...

       replyreport
   29. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       Nonsense. I said God had no choice but to execute the evil offspring of the Canaanites. That's a world away from advocating the wholesale murder of children. Any simpler and I'm gonna have to break out the crayons.

       replyreport
   30. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       "If they were executed it was because they would INEVITABLY become evil monsters just like their parents"
       
       Maybe advocate was the wrong word. I apologize, I meant justify the death of children. When you're right you're right Jo, my mistake.

       replyreport
   31. 61

       keishialeelouisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Actually, your statement goes back to the Bible. It's called the Golden Rule and this hubber talks all about it http://japtaker.hubpages.com/hub/Do-Unt … ible-Verse Western secularists are influenced by the Bible too...

       replyreport
   32. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Except that the golden rule has existed since the dawn of civilization. One of the leading causes for survival and all that jazz.
       Awkward...

       replyreport
   33. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       What's your source?

       replyreport
3. 61

   Phil Perezposted 9 years ago

   First of all, to receive an objective answer, you must initially understand the factors that make something morally right or wrong. Unless it is universally agreed upon using logic and reason to prove/disprove something is right or wrong. There has to be a way to determine worse or better. Once that's done could you only have something that's determined to be morally right or wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's a bunch of gobbledygook. "There has to be a way to determine worse or better." Yes, and that way is "the way" it's name is Jesus.

      replyreport
   2. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Phil
      
      You've given me the broad strokes but I was looking for an answer with all the specifics. Care to take another stab at the question?

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think I can be specific without giving an example. Which would imply I know what is determined to be immoral/moral. I know I'm being vague but I can't say even though I have values I don't really know if those values are good ones or bad.

      replyreport
   4. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Some of  us have been saying there is a more basic source of morality than the Bible. The Bible itself speaks of this in Romans 1:18-20.  It teaches an innate knowledge of God and morality. This must be true because man lived prior to any scripture.

      replyreport
   5. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And what if a person doesn't have a healthy, fully functional conscience? How would that person learn right from wrong?

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The same way any other non-criminal sociopath does: The consequences have to outweigh the benefit of the crime. I could always steal what I want from this convenience store, but then it might lose funding and close, and that'd sure be inconvenient.

      replyreport
   7. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Or I could totally steal my neighbor's car--it's a lot better than mine--but oh, right, grand theft auto is a pretty major felony, and I can't go out to Joe's every Friday if I'm in jail, so I'll just have to deal with my junker.
      
      And so on.

      replyreport
   8. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So Z anything goes if you can get away with it and not get caught. OK to rob a store if you know you can't get caught, owner gets paid by insurance company, who has tons of money and won't be hurt at all, cause people always pay for insurance.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's what we call "projecting," Tsad. You only think sociopaths would commit crimes if they could get away with it because that's what you would do. An actual sociopath would just see one of the surveillance cameras and say, "Screw that, I'll pay."

      replyreport
   10. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That's the other thing you have to keep in mind: The possibility of punishment. Even if no one ever checks the surveillance cameras, like, at all, it's still enough of a deterrent to make a sociopath second-guess how beneficial lifting a $2 item is.

       replyreport
   11. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Projecting, I didn't project, your scenario was what you would do " I could totally steal my neighbor's car" I guess you are the sociopath?

       replyreport
   12. 61

       Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Zelkiiro, I think you don't quite understand the psychology of a sociopath. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but sociopaths don't care about punishment. What happens to them is irrelevant in their minds. They could get beat up and still continue.

       replyreport
   13. 68

       rmmercerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Nice

       replyreport
   14. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Phil, that's not a sociopath; that's a psychopath. A sociopath will follow laws if they perceive the punishment to be inconvenient, not because of any moral reason. A psychopath is the person who doesn't care about what punishments fall upon them.

       replyreport
   15. 60

       fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph,Sir "JW",shouldn't U be out proselytizing door to door?  know, working on being one of that SELECT group pf 144,000 elite persons who shall reign in Heaven? Better hurry b4 all positions are filled.  DOZENS of Christian sects, yet none agree!

       replyreport
4. 76

   jlparkposted 9 years ago

   Does it harm myself or another?
   Yes - then it could be seen as morally wrong
   No - then if could be seen as morally right.
   
   Nothing to do with God or the Bible.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Gee, you've really put a lot of thought into this! It's is so simple isn't it? Then abortion is morally wrong, according to you. Defending yourself is morally wrong. Why is your version of morality more valid than someone elses?

      replyreport
   2. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Jacqui
      
      Do you agree, then, that abortion is immoral since it causes fatal harm to another human being?

      replyreport
   3. 76

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It isn't more valid. It's just simple. Y would yr's b more valid than mine?
      Abortion - pre 12wks cannot survive outside uterus on own. Body aborts during this time a lot ( had a miscarriage myself, not being insens). Not enuff space 4 full answer

      replyreport
   4. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Not enough space? How much space do you need for "yes" or "no"?

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hey TSAD, you'd better watch it--Jesus says defending yourself is morally wrong, too. "Turn the other cheek," anyone?

      replyreport
   6. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As usual the best you can do Z is raise a straw man. You have no idea what Jesus was talking about. Anyone who thinks morality is it's OK to lie as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and It's OK to cheat if it doesn't hurt anyone needs help.

      replyreport
   7. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Jacqui
      
      If you could just clarify for me, do you agree, then, that abortion is immoral since it causes fatal harm to another human being?

      replyreport
   8. 76

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It cannot survive outside womb pre23wks, most abortions r performed pre12wk(in NZ). The body aborts often pre12wk, r we going 2 call all women who miscarry murderers? No. I no where u r trying 2 go. I wouldn't have 1 but pre 12wks, no, I don't.

      replyreport
   9. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see what viability has to do with the question. Are you suggesting that an eleven week old child-in-utero is not a human being?

      replyreport
   10. 60

       fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       MMMM Jacqui my dear..."a 12 wk fetus can't survive outside the uterous on it's own."  Newsflash: A 12 MONTH old living child cannot survive ON IT'S OWN.  What's your point?

       replyreport
   11. 0

       SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Great point Paula.  You could sit a 12 month old child in a corner with everything it needs to survive, but it would die without help from someone.

       replyreport
5. 60

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   Does it hurt someone else in some way? Yes? Then it's wrong.
   
   Does it hurt someone else in some way? No? Then it's a-okay.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You call that morality? So it's OK to lie as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in some way? It's OK to cheat if it doesn't hurt anyone in some way? How do you define "hurt anyone." I't's wrong to defend your life if it hurts someone? You need help.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Asa2141posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That is still no basis for something being right or wrong. In an atheistic world, we are all just chemical accidents that exploded into existence. There is no reason why certain actions we do are wrong even if they hurt people. Survival ofthe fittest

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Altruism is also a beneficial evolutionary trait--it encourages the survival of a group, and the group's survival increases the chances of your own survival. And it also earns you favor towards your group. Therefore, it is evolutionarily beneficial.

      replyreport
   4. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Asa
      
      Very well put!

      replyreport
   5. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Asa, but isn't it interesting that people don't behave that way.  All over the world, societies have developed with laws that work very well.  The discussion here is purely academic and that fact is demonstrated wherever social orders have developed.

      replyreport
   6. 68

      Huntgoddessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes it is okay to lie if something is none of their business anyway.
      
      Otherwise -- that would imply that a person has the right to know everything there is to know about another. That would in turn imply that nobody has the right to privacy.

      replyreport
6. 74

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   You can't.
   
   As William Lane Craig puts it, “to say that the Holocaust was objectively evil is to say that it was evil, even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was good, and it would still have been evil even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody thought the Holocaust was good.”
   
   Certain actions are objectively immoral, not meaning everybody knows that they’re immoral but they’re immoral, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks. In other words binding morality depends upon the existence of God. Objective morality, is binding upon everyone, even the most powerful. If it’s not objective, it’s not binding
   
   This argument has big implications for how we approach the topics of Christianity and atheism, as well as how we discuss morality. We can’t ground objective morality in anything other than God.
   
   The easiest way to prove this is to begin with test. Reformulate this moral philosophy (We can’t ground objective morality in anything other than God) in this format:
   
   “If you want to achieve X, you must do Y.” (Obviously, this works in reverse as well: “if you want to avoid X, you must avoid Y,” etc.). Now, ask three questions.
   
   Could there exist a person who doesn’t want to achieve X?
   
   Could there be some good other than X that an individual values more than X?
   
   Is there another means of achieving X besides Y?
   
   If the answer to any of these three questions is yes, your system is neither objective nor binding. This test will quickly show that the non-theistic moral systems fail. Try to provide an objective, binding moral system in this format that doesn’t require God., you can't.
   
   Why am I bound to obey society, or even my own conscience?
   Why am I obliged to act upon my genetic predispositions, or to act in such a way that it produces the greatest aggregate happiness?
   
   At a minimum, these ideas fail the first prong: we can easily imagine a person who is a social misfit, and who isn’t particularly concerned with survival of the fittest. In deciding to cheat on your wife or rob a bank, you’d weigh the amount of guilt you’ll feel compared to the amount of pleasure. If that’s the case, conscience is no more binding than indigestion is “binding” on my decision to eat eight tacos.
   
   Objective moral obligations point to the existing of a universally-binding end. Since arbitrary ends cannot bind, objective moral obligations require the existence of God.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Beautiful!

      replyreport
   2. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joshua, ch 6-12 OT. God is the basis for morality? Moved by "holiness" GOD COMMANDED THE KILLING of thousands of men women and children. Genocide. Any pregnant women there? Most certainly.  So much for a biblical basis for anti abortion beliefs.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Well Chris,all I can say is you never fail to demonstrate that you are the common man.If you studied these scriptures you'd understand that your interpretation of scripture out of the context of the whole Bible leads to your error. Research it.

      replyreport
   4. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Chris
      
      You have a problem with evil people being punished for their wrongdoing ... I get it ...

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Mmm...and what exactly was the evil committed by any children too young to speak or even do much for themselves, along with any unborn lives that had yet to do anything? Must have been pretty evil stuffs

      replyreport
   6. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Elizabeth Bathory, Brian And David Freeman, Nelson Byrdwell, Edmund Kemper, Joshua Phillips, Willie Bosket, Laurie Tackett, Brenda Anne Spencer, Jon Venables, Robert Thompson, and Vlad Dracula once children too?

      replyreport
   7. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Military leader gets PRIVATE message from God to exterminate tens of thousands of men, women, children and unborn in land grab with invisible, angry, holy? god as motivational force.  Aggressors at least as evil/idolatrous as those murdered. Get it?

      replyreport
   8. 60

      Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Ahh, so your advocating to kill children on the possibility they may do evil stuff in the future Jo.
      Sounds legit. Or insanely homicidal. So what was the evil committed by those children I mentioned earlier again?

      replyreport
   9. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      TSAD, nice ad hominem.  Do you have more formal biblical training or ministry than me? You don't know. I took general and immediate biblical contexts into consideration in my comment and my comment stands.Your arrogance is appalling and uncalled for.

      replyreport
   10. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Nice,a strawman and personal attack to change the subject.I made no assumptions,you have stated disdain for theologians&called yourself the common man. All I said was"If you studied these scriptures you'd understand"&you don't because u haven

       replyreport
   11. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       Not a question of "possibly." If they were executed it was because they would INEVITABLY become evil monsters just like their parents.
       
       @Chris
       
       There was nothing "private" about God's will toward the evil Canaanites. See Joshua 10.

       replyreport
   12. 88

       cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       TSAD, you know nothing about me or what I have studied or taught. I looked again at your profile.  You have some decent hubs here, but now I know the man a little more.  Unfollowed and out of this conversation.  Very arrogant and unsociable behavior.

       replyreport
   13. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So rather than take steps to either just not create those evil little children or to make sure they don't become evil, god said screw it and ordered hundreds if not thousands to be killed off?
       
       Sounds lazy

       replyreport
   14. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       You're not paying attention. Their parents would have raised them to become evil in the very same way they themselves were raised to be evil.
       
       Furthermore, God's love for the Israelites compelled him to act and protect them from their evil.

       replyreport
   15. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Ehh...that doesn't really affect what I said though...still sounds lazy.

       replyreport
   16. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       I'll put it another way then. Would you want God to force you to do anything you don't want to do like, say, believe in his existence?

       replyreport
   17. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I never said anything about forcing them. Besides, since this is god, would it not be simpler to change their perspective, rather than purposely slaughter them to then send them to hell for eternity? Assuming hell is in play here.

       replyreport
   18. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       And just how would God CHANGE their perspective without forcing them? And, no, there is no such thing as a fiery Hell where people are tortured for all eternity. This is not taught in the Bible.

       replyreport
   19. 0

       Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @JOP:  With all due respect, there IS a hell that is fiery, and it is mentioned in the Bible that people would be forever tormented.  Aside from that, I agree with everything you are telling Link.

       replyreport
   20. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Having your perspective changed into wanting to do something is actually different from forcing you to knowingly do something you dont like.
       You could say that's being forceful, but not within the same context of each other.

       replyreport
   21. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       How is it different?

       replyreport
   22. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       One involves *poof* "I suddenly wish to do good", while the other is the equivalent of holding a gun to your head, forcibly making you do it, and probably pulling the trigger anyway.

       replyreport
   23. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       You assume that everyone is willing to accept evidence. However, as you yourself manifest, people can be presented with enormous evidence and still refuse to accept it. In such a scenario, God has no choice but to forcibly change that person.

       replyreport
   24. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Mmm, terribly sorry that I can't accept "evidence" that not only doesn't make sense but in itself has spawned thousands of different denominations in which the people within the same religion can't even agree upon.
       
       Call it a character flaw...

       replyreport
   25. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       You're reasoning is a fallacious a dicto simpliciter. It would be like claiming, "Because counterfeit money is in circulation this necessarily means all currency is counterfeit." The fact of the matter is that no religions are the same.

       replyreport
   26. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Not sure how that fallacy applies here when what I said was more along the lines of: agree with each other first on whats what and then try to convince other people.
       
       Getting people to convert would be much easier without all the BS.

       replyreport
   27. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       99.999% of the world is Theist yet you insist on being Atheist. So much for consensus, eh?

       replyreport
   28. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       99.99% of the WORLD is theistic? Can you provide a source for that please...
       
       Regardless, unless 99.99% of the world is christian, or whatever you affiliate yourself with, you didn't prove anything wrong about what I said. Red herring and all.

       replyreport
   29. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Research is a good thing, JoPo. The fact is that, worldwide, 32% of people are Christian, 23% are Muslim, 16% are Atheist/Agnostic/Unaffiliated, and 15% are Hindu.
       
       http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/glob … cape-exec/

       replyreport
   30. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I was being hyperbolic. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of the world's population is Theistic not Agnostic or even Atheistic. What is it that you seem to know and the rest of the world doesn't?

       replyreport
   31. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Is this the part where I define those terms just to have you say some other definitions that suits your bias? I highly doubt you are dumb enough to think that question makes sense considering their definitions Jo
       
       And please, someone stop the irony..

       replyreport
   32. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No definitions required. Nice attempt at a dodge, though
       
       I'd really like to know what it is you understand that the rest of the world just doesn't seem to get. The floor is yours.

       replyreport
   33. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, a dodge at a question you are smart enough to know makes no damn sense to begin with but asked anyway in order to either start an argument and/or jump topics...again.
       
       You truly are a master Jo, I'll give you that.

       replyreport
   34. 60

       JennyDelToroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       This didn't make sense. Morality's not objective, morals are subjective. During Old Testament times, it was the moral thing to require a woman to marry the man that raped her, per God. What about people that kill attackers? that's objectively immoral

       replyreport
   35. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       DinoMommy,  just like cam, you demonstrate your ignorance of scripture meaning. https://whitedragonawa.wordpress.com/20 … till-holy/

       replyreport
   36. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Dino
       
       Deu 22:28,29 isn't describing a rape because rapists were executed in ancient Israel. What we have described here is a case of consensual sex and a good 'ol fashioned shotgun wedding. (cf. Ex 22:16,17)

       replyreport
   37. 61

       keishialeelouisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Truly excellent! This should be a hub, not for traffic's sake, but simply to make whoever finds it think about the standard for morality.

       replyreport
7. 60

   fpherj48posted 9 years ago

   Joseph......Although it's wholly apparent you have asked not only a baited question, but a rather foolish one, all due respect, Sir.
   You speak of "proving," when in at least 90% of cases recognizing morality is a matter of humanity, common sense and appropriateness. 
   Without question, it is an absolute FACT that toddlers as young as a year old begin to understand and eventually KNOW that behaviors are either correct and acceptable or they are inappropriate and NOT to be done. Because this is passed on from one generation of civil adults to the next, WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE BELIEVERS IN A GOD (YOURS OR THE GOD OF HUNDREDS OF DIFFERENT MORES).....is no reason whatsoever to think that morals are right or wrong because of knowledge of the bible and/or prayer (appealing to God). 
   Human beings are taught, shown and led to embrace morality by living their lives, seeing, listening, doing, "experiencing life" and observing the outcome, to include repercussions, consequences or rewards and overall results of their behavior and that of others.
   Are you by any chance suggesting that perhaps "Atheists" for instance, are completely void of any and all morals and in this case, raise their children to be selfish, lying, disgusting thugs and criminals with zero concern for all of humanity, no manners, compassion nor common decency?  Let's HOPE not since that is an utterly ignorant concept.
   Before responding to me, if you intend to, understand that I am NOT an Atheist, nor am I agnostic.  Not that this is any of your business, but I don't wish to give you a lame excuse to attack me ~~( besides the fact that I DO bite back, Mr. Polanco)   .......From the beginning of time to the very end, there will exist morality and immorality.  Belief in God and the wisdom of the bible may be the very best means of support for a vast majority and this is GOOD.  However, I refuse to be judge, jury and executioner in terms of the MORALITY of all others/unbelievers.. You may choose to be this executioner, but the question is......do you think YOU are God??   Peace to you,.Paula

   replyreport
   1. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Best answer.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you have to feel so offended, Paula? Either defend your point with what you know or don't comment at all, I'll tell you that you won't get very far reacting to what you don't like instead of calmly rebutting.

      replyreport
   3. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I see you too make an appeal to one's conscience. What, then, of those who don't have one or simply refuse to obey it? How would you prove to that person that what they do is wrong?

      replyreport
   4. 88

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      By the consequences of their actions. If what they do is wrong, they should be arrested and prosecuted according to the law. If there is no law against it, then they are doing nothing wrong. Unless YOU are judging them and it's not up to YOU.

      replyreport
   5. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Austin
      
      So because certain jurisdictions allow parents to kill their baby simply because she is a girl, infanticide is moral?

      replyreport
   6. 88

      Austinstarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Holey Moley! How did you get what you asked from what I said? Maybe you need a reading comprehension course? I said absolutely NOTHING about morality in my comment, only that illegal actions have bad consequences and that is what controls us.

      replyreport
   7. 76

      MarieLBposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Peace to you does not seem to fit your militant stance!v Why so aggro Paula?

      replyreport
   8. 60

      fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      MarieLB, What "does not seem to fit," is a matter of perception & opinion. Millions of "militants" have fought for "Peace" & justice since time began.A "stance" that allows children to use slang/"aggro" & ask useless questions.U'll mature

      replyreport
8. 0

   Stargrrlposted 9 years ago

   Basically, if you do something and your conscience keeps nagging at you, you've probably done something or someone wrong.

   replyreport
   1. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And what if the person doesn't have a healthy, fully functional conscience? What then?

      replyreport
   2. 74

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joe, I addressed conscience in my answer, it's obvious no one has read my answer, why do you think that is, laziness or a desire not to acknowledge the truth.

      replyreport
9. 88

   cam8510posted 9 years ago

   After living for 58 years inside the Christian subculture, both as layman and minister, and outside, I have to say that it is my opinion that there is no measurable difference between the morality of Christians and non-christians.  Every culture, whether based on Christian principles or not, has a sense of morality because it is hardwired into mankind through social evolution.  Without the Bible, people understand that they can't take the property of another person.   Humans around the world know that it is wrong to take another life, with the exceptions of self defense and war. 
   
   How do you account for an obvious sense of morality among atheists and non-christians?  That really is the question.  Your question implies that without the Bible there is no sense of morality.  That is clearly not true. 
   
   By the way, according to God's explicit command, Israel marched into Canaan and wiped out whole populations...men, women and children.  Will he do that again?  Would it be morally right?  To exterminate whole populations because they worship another god is morally wrong in my book. 
   
   It would seem to be the Christian belief that genocide is morally wrong unless the Christian God demands it of his people.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      jlparkposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Chris.

      replyreport
   2. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Jacqui, we'll see if this rant gets a response.  Fools walk where angels fear to tread, and I've played the fool before.  But I've said what I believe.  Good luck with your novel, by the way. 

      replyreport
   3. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      And what if the person doesn't have a healthy, fully functional conscience? What then?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's what we call a sociopath, JoPo. Sociopaths lack the natural stimulus of empathy, and so tend not to play well in social groups (See: Congress). They are intelligent enough to know the rules, but their understanding of them is purely arbitrary.

      replyreport
   5. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      How, then, do you prove to a sociopath that the evil they commit is immoral?

      replyreport
   6. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      God based moral code is an empty shell.OT Israel NEVER lived by the Law.Modern Christians are NOT more moral than others.The argument for a biblical,God based moral code MISSES THE BIBLICAL POINT of God's Spirit producing good people from the inside.

      replyreport
   7. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So, in your opinion, God forces people to be good?

      replyreport
   8. 88

      cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Joseph, have you ever heard of the fruit of the Spirit?

      replyreport
   9. 41

      Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      @Chris
      
      Galatians 5:22,23. Your point?

      replyreport
   10. 88

       cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph, my point is simple and clear.  No further explanation is needed.  Just read two posts back for me, then your previous post,  then mine, then the Galatians passage.  If you still don't get it then drop it.

       replyreport
   11. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Joseph,Chris never even attempted to answer the question.He gave no  proof of anything,justa misguided opinion.You can'tprove anyone's morality is better or worse without God.You didn't imply anything&he didn't answer anything.smoke&mirror re

       replyreport
   12. 0

       Jay C OBrienposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you in your analysis.  Another point is: morality does not consider an afterlife, whereas an afterlife is accepted in all religions.  Whatever happens in the material world is subject to correction in an afterlife.  Bible is contrary.

       replyreport
   13. 60

       fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Chris..pls take NOTE:  After 4 weeks, not a single one of the Holier than Thous have even TRIED to reply to my question about Atheists & their children. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT, W/O BEING IGNORANT.  Some Christians make them ALL look bad & that i

       replyreport
   14. 61

       keishialeelouisposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       This is a good statement, but it doesn't answer the question, which is "how can we prove that something is morally right or wrong"...

       replyreport
10. 84

    M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

    There are two sources of human morality that are superior to the bible. The first is our pack-based survival instincts. We survive when our pack survives, therefore helping others has always been beneficial for us. The second is social consensus. As we evolved towards a higher intelligence, base instincts were no longer capable of keeping up with the situations surrounding us, so we entered into a sort of contract with each other that has continued to change subtly with each new generation.
    
    The bible was one such moral contract, but it has shown its age with outdated ideas on slavery, homosexuals, and women. If the bible was the source of morality, there would have been no morality before it, and no morality without it now. And if god imparted morality to us, then why did he need to give us the bible?

    replyreport
    1. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So morality is pack-based instincts (pack preys on weak, eats their own to survive) and social consensus? The Nazi's morality was based on their social consensus, kill all Jews. Islam's  social consensus, kill all infidels, that's your morality?

       replyreport
    2. 84

       M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Nazi's and Islamic radicals DO think they are being moral. And human packs DO prey on the weak and turn against their own.

       replyreport
    3. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Thanks MT for proving my point, without God there is no way to prove your morality is more right or wrong than Nazi's or Islam, so unless morality is objective and binding it is not morality. Morality can't be relative but has to be without God.

       replyreport
    4. 88

       cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       There is no morality more relative than what I found in 50 years in the Christian world.The Bible is cherry picked for favorite rules. Obedience is a matter of convenience. e.g. abortion is wrong until it's your own daughter's unexpected pregnancy.

       replyreport
    5. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Chris
       
       That may be true of Antichrists but sedulous Christians adhere to Bible teachings.

       replyreport
    6. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Chris,you just demonstrated why without God your morality is no more right or wrong than another's.Cherry pickingBible is creating your own morality from a menu,Gods morality IS abidingGod doesn't approve of abortion whether your daughter ornot.

       replyreport
11. 0

    SirDentposted 9 years ago

    Without an absolute moral code, everything is allowed or permitted.  Some say society depicts morality in their culture.  Does this mean the only reason they don't murder is because society says it is bad?  Of course not.
    
    People want to follow their own minds and thoughts but they follow what society says is right and good.  They call Christians narrow minded and foolish because we do believe in an absolute moral code. 
    
    In all honesty, you cannot prove morality or immorality without God, who is absolute morality.

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Brilliant!

       replyreport
    2. 88

       cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What biblical morality would you suggest? No murder of course. Church attendance? Saturday or Sunday worship? Pork or no pork? Stone adulterers? Men would choose which biblical commands would be enforced  because God doesn't speak to the masses.

       replyreport
    3. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Again Chris you demonstrate your ignorance of scripture & knowledge of God. Had you truly"studied&researched"(what theologians do)the Bible instead of simply reading it&forming uneducated opinions about what you read, you'd not pose sucqu

       replyreport
    4. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Chris
       
       He most certainly does. He speaks to everyone through the Bible which is why no one will have a valid excuse at Armageddon when all of us will have to account for how we've used the gift of life he's provided.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Chris.  Jesus Christ.

       replyreport
12. 68

    rmmercerposted 9 years ago

    Joseph, I like your peaceful communication. You questioned how to make a sociopath know if something is wrong. Take it a step further and lets say he agrees. Ok. Its wrong. So what. I'm still going to do it. What makes a difference is the consequence to the selfish one. Others brought up the Holocaust. Was it right in the eyes of the Nazis? Well, probably not after they were brought up on war crime charges. When it affected them, then perhaps, they could admit it was "wrong." Before I ramble too much, my point is, there is right and wrong eternally. Doesn't matter who believes it, how it "changes" with evolving society, etc. In the end, what matters is that there will be consequences and rewards for obeying morality and shunning immorality.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sociopaths don't agree what they did is wrong. You can't be hypothetical because it's irrelevant since it won't happen. If he believes it's wrong, he wouldn't even consider doing it. It would imply it's harmful. Involving sympathy. They lack that.

       replyreport
    2. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Robin
       
       Thank you so very much for your enthusiastic participation!

       replyreport
    3. 60

       fpherj48posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Phil Perez,  LOL, Mr. "student" of psychology: Clearly you have barely brushed the 1st pages of your text books & have ZERO hands-on experience!  Sociopaths certainly DO know what they do is WRONG.  They just don't give a damn!  Keep studying chi

       replyreport
13. 56

    Josephf bailey jrposted 9 years ago

    That's quite simple the bible scriptures states ( my people suffer from a lack of knowledge) ; you see knowledge is taught ,but now when you start getting wisdom this is something totally different because wisdom is not taught its gained through experience or through your own intuition (morally) you should know if somthing you do is right or wrong you don't need the Bible to tell you it's wrong to steal or it's wrong to kill someone you should just intuitively know these things and if you continue to break moral codes or rites of passage in some villages where indigenous people live in other countries around the world you can be executed, on the other hand in America if you don't have morals it can possibly land you in jail or get you killed in the process; say for instance you get caught sleeping with a married mans wife in his house in his bed now you definitely don't need the bible to tell you that's wrong lol PEACE.
    Joseph F Bailey Jr

    replyreport
14. 52

    narender aggarwalposted 9 years ago

    Ask your self
    
    No holly book or God can help you in all the problem you face in life
    But you can help yourself in judging the situations
    think for the situation you want to judge, think for all its positive impact as well as negative onces
    investigate societies reaction towards that situation
    think on the basis of worng or right, think what you felt about that situation
    examine the impact
    visualize the future of your decision
    visualize the impacts of your decision
    a morally right decision will always have a positive impact in long future
    you may not be able to see a near future positive response but deep inside you'll be knowing the positive impact of your decision
    Bible or any other holly book or God doesn't show you the right track to follow they pass you indication to follow the right track
    its you who follow the path
    holly books and god, they just help you
    believing in your self will lead you to a right decision
    sometimes morally right decisions may lead you to trouble, they may make you stand against the society with know one there to support you
    but believing in youself and a determination will make you win the battle, not instantly but definitely
    morals come from society and society may not be correct every time, in every aspect
    but principal belongs to you
    believe in ur principal's
    after analysis of all aspects if you feel you decision is right
    the stand with it
    you will be win
    standing with bunch of people may not work always
    but standing with truth will always show a leading path
    and decision for what is true and what is false will be taken by you
    know one will help
    the last decision taker for right or worng will be you

    replyreport
15. 0

    Diana Abrahamsonposted 9 years ago

    Walking in a way that is an example, not just talking, but walking the talk. Still learning, I must add!

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Huntgoddessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with all you say here. Thanks.
       
       I'm wondering if you are related to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin?

       replyreport
16. 0

    Joshtheplumberposted 9 years ago

    Morally right essentially means what you perceive to be good for you. Morally wrong means what you perceive to be bad for you. Groups of people come together on what is right and wrong based on common experiences. So, to prove something is morally right, you must demonstrate how what someone is doing is good for the target audience. To prove something is morally wrong, you must demonstrate how what someone is doing is bad for the target audience.

    replyreport
17. 51

    Suprabha Prustiposted 9 years ago

    I guess the way people look at things determine the way they consider a particular matter to be morally correct or wrong.There are certain thing which are considered universally to be wrong or right like cheating someone no matter for whatever reason one has done it for is morally wrong.I feel rather than judging the action to be correct or wrong it is better to look at the circumstances under which the action was done.I personally feel judging the circumstances or situation due to which the action was made will gave a clear idea about whether the action so performed is morally correct or wrong.

    replyreport
18. 71

    somethgblueposted 9 years ago

    All humans are born with this ability, inherent in their souls. They are only taught to disregard the truth as they gain experiences to formulate their EGOs.
    
    What most people don't accept is that our Egos are created by our brains, through experiences we learn, to work as software for the mind (hard drive). Most people 'think' their Ego is who they are but this is incorrect thinking brought about by education and conditioning.
    
    The soul is who we are and our bodies, which our brains are a part of, is merely the vessel we inhabit in third dimensional space. The brain creates the Ego as an 'operating system' and defense mechanism, something it can use to dispense information.
    
    To answer your question, one merely has to learn to 'think' with your heart and not your mind and you will intuitively know the truth without the conditioned need for proof, the Bible or the use of a higher power.
    
    Everyone is their own higher power, we all are God . . . grasshopper!
    
    Look at the comments and you will see that most people don't even come close to recognizing this about themselves.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Is this drivel your personal opinion or do you have a reference for these statements that presents them as fact. The Bible is presented as fact, the inerrant Word of God&nothing you said is in it. I give you my source,what's yours? Your feelings?

       replyreport
    2. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Inerrant, you say? What's this, then:
       
       http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
       
       I had no clue Pi was just 3, and not 3.1415926[...]! Thanks, Bible!

       replyreport
    3. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Zel
       
       Actually Pi is not 3.1415926 it's 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303

       replyreport
    4. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That's what the "[...]" is meant to convey.

       replyreport
    5. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So the Bible is correct when it estimates Pi as 3.

       replyreport
    6. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Not even remotely. The ten-cubit-long circle would not be 30 cubits around--they're missing an entire cubit and some change. That'd be like missing several of the shingles you need to fix your roof, and just saying, "Ahh, close enough."

       replyreport
    7. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You should have actually read your source before playing it like your ace of spades:
       
       "the circumference is accurate at 30 cubits, and the diameter, 9.5492965855137(…) cubits, has been rounded off to the nearest cubit, i.e, 10 cubits."

       replyreport
    8. 71

       somethgblueposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       It is merely the truth, what you do with the information is your business. The Bible is a tool to manipulate the sheep, written by men for men.

       replyreport
    9. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Some
       
       Prove it. Prove that the Bible is just an ordinary book "written by men for men."

       replyreport
    10. 0

        Joshtheplumberposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        @ blue... I know it's frustrating, but remember the plan? The experiment? We knew it would be this way. Maybe this will help- I deactivated my gene that allows alcohol to affect my brain. And don't get me started about the truth about Ebola.

        replyreport
    11. 61

        Phil Perezposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Haha, somethgblue, your comment was incredibly funny just now. You must be the sucker who believes one is capable of thinking with a heart,

        replyreport
    12. 74

        tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Blue, So if the Bible,our only testimony of Jesus,who he was,what he taught and His life on earth as well as Heaven is just a tool to manipulate the sheep, written by men for men why do you believe anything it says Jesus taught us?

        replyreport
19. 0

    vhaywardposted 9 years ago

    If you look at cultures worldwide and throughout history they all have eerily similar moral codes. For instance, almost all cultures find rape, murder, and adultery to be among the most abhorred behaviors. This is true for cultures that had little to no contact with one another. Certainly there are examples where they defy these norms, but they are far and few between. 
    
    There is also our natural internal moral compass. With rare exception, pretty much everyone can instinctively know the difference between right and wrong. Those who cannot typically suffer from some type of mental illness or emotional trauma.
    
    As far as proof, even outside of theology there are thousands of years worth of philosophy that ponder just that question. While some "right and wrong's" are more gray than others, some are very clearly able to be argued such as murder which nearly everyone will agree is wrong.
    
    As far as any substantial proof, proving morality is similar to proving the existence of god. Our culture tends to require proof before belief and these proofs tend to not be tangible.

    replyreport
20. 62

    M Asif Jameelposted 9 years ago

    We can prove it through the attitude of the people toward other people which really can tell us that what's right or not.

    replyreport
21. 56

    Rahemaposted 9 years ago

    the way people  react to it defines alot what others think about that specfic thing...

    replyreport
22. 56

    Tapas Gaikwadposted 9 years ago

    I've just read your question and found a very easy solution to it.
    One can investigate through the topic which they feel a bit confused and they themselves can get it that was it morally right or wrong.
    You just have to look into the matter very carefuly and make your own decision about the right or wrong.

    replyreport
    1. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So your morality is totally subjective, which makes it no more right or wrong than someone elses morality, so two moralities that are totally opposite can exist at the same time, actually millions can be totally different. That is morality?

       replyreport
23. 71

    LeslieAdrienneposted 9 years ago

    There is no way that you can, because, without a standard, such as the Bible, any and everything goes. Morality or the lack thereof becomes a question of personal preference.
    
    Anarchy and confusion, evil and destruction will abound....

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Link10103posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That might make sense if civilizations didnt exist before the era of the bible.
       But they did exist...lots of them.

       replyreport
    2. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       @Link
       
       Such as?

       replyreport
    3. 74

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       The Bible is the word of God, God existed before any civilization and so did morality since true morality must be objective and binding. Objective moral obligations require the existence of God. Otherwise everyone can have different moralities.

       replyreport
24. 60

    JennyDelToroposted 9 years ago

    The Bible is one of the most immoral books I've ever read. If you're using an archaic book that condones rape and slavery as a moral compass, you've got problems.
    
    Appealing to God for moral advice is also a ludicrous approach, considering that he is imaginary. Asking Yahweh for advice will be about as productive as asking Thor or Zeus.
    
    Why not just consider the well-being of the person who your actions will affect? It's simple really, will your actions harm this person in any way? If so, then what you're doing is immoral.
    
    No fairy tales or imaginary friends required.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       rmmercerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That is so silly DinoMommy. It neither condones rape nor slavery. The NT is very clear about our conduct toward one another. Considering the well-being of others is a good idea...and the Bible was the one to make that foundational!

       replyreport
25. 48

    erorantesposted 9 years ago

    There are things that other people do that are not God conscious mind. What is morally wrong for others are good for others. You can teach them by showing or telling them the out come of their actions according to their crime. If we talking about feelings. You tell them that your hurting other people's feelings.

    replyreport
26. 68

    Huntgoddessposted 9 years ago

    All human beings are interconnected.
    
    Bringing harm to another also harms myself, as well.

    replyreport
27. 0

    fit2dayposted 9 years ago

    Conscience tells a person something is wrong, which is why people without the Bible search for ways to be justified. For instance, a muslim (who's not as faithful to the korap as Isis, boko haram, isil, etc.) who wants to attain eternal life would faithfully pray 5 times a day, not eat pork, etc. People use religion to justify themselves and will often adhere to certain guidelines in hopes of being good enough. Atheism is on the rise and yet still follows the same concept of justifying oneself.
    
    Many people claim freedom in their atheism, but still have to suppress their conscience and tell themselves that God doesn't exist. If that weren't so, then groups like freedom from religion wouldn't be so active at trying to stamp out religion.
    
    Many people reject Christianity in practice, but not in tongue. For instance, Joel Osteen's church claims to believe the Bible to be flawless, but he preaches against it. (Jude1:16 These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage.)
    
    The heart of every false religion is self-justification (good outweighs bad, saying something's not sin that is, abstaining from certain foods, doing certain hand motions, etc.) all in effort to dodge the True and Living God. Like Adam and Eve did in the garden, man runs from God. Romans 3:10 As it is written:
    
    “There is none righteous, no, not one;
    11 There is none who understands;
    There is none who seeks after God.
    12 They have all turned aside;
    They have together become unprofitable;
    
    Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

    replyreport
28. 61

    DATALOADposted 9 years ago

    Morality is relative like many things. Although one person sees something as "wrong," another person could see it as justified.
    
    Maybe the only way to be right or wrong in morality is to compare an individuals actions in relation to their own beliefs.

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So the Holocaust was moral since its perpetrators felt so?

       replyreport
29. 72

    lone77starposted 9 years ago

    Selfishness and self-concern are the indicators of evil.
    
    Think of every evil thing of the past and you will find selfishness lurking behind it. This is ego -- or self-concern.
    
    For example, many of the 1% think of themselves as gods and the rest of us as ants, so using their immense wealth to buy governments, control agencies, fly planes into buildings and blame it on religious groups is all good, for them, but it's the height of selfishness and self-concern. The people in those buildings would have thought so. The Marsh and McLennan staff with their evidence of corruption in the meeting room targeted by the first airplane would have thought so.
    
    To many of the evil in this world, the ends justify the means. Lacing vaccines with toxins and making them available to the world may look good to the Corporate Party news audience, but killing or crippling billions of people is the one percenter's selfish way to leverage more power to themselves.
    
    Siding with environmentalists and promoting the Global Warming alarm is yet another example of evil run amok. Protecting the planet is a good thing, but when you pull back the covers on the Global Warming dialog, you find deceit and corruption. Global Warming is good, but selling all those Carbon Taxes gives them not only $Trillions, but more importantly control over governments and peoples. Global Warming is good. Just try growing crops in the snow when the Holocene suddenly ends. After all, we're still in an Ice Age. But the morally corrupt, Corporate Party press won't tell you that.
    
    But why this aversion to the Bible and God? If you stopped taking the Bible literally, you might learn something. God is love. Everything in the Bible tells us this, if you know how to read it. If you disagree, you're merely misinterpreting and disagreeing with your own misinterpretation. It takes humility (lack of ego) to learn anything, even in science, but especially reading the Bible.
    
    The love of which I speak is the non-self-concerned, altruistic kind -- the kind that has no limitations and which created this universe all those 13.7 billion years ago.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Huntgoddessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Very beautiful, intelligent, powerful. Thanks lonestar

       replyreport
30. 72

    Aime Fposted 9 years ago

    I think that the Divine Command Theory is a way to simplify morals and give outlines to people who perhaps don't trust themselves/other people to behave morally.
    
    Good ol' Socrates brought up a good question: is something moral because God says so, or does God say it because it's moral? Does he MAKE moral truths or does he just RECOGNIZE them?
    
    If he makes them truths, then is anything really inherently good or bad? God could have just as easily said "Beating your children to a pulp is moral" - would we all be walking around beating our children? If God makes something moral and just picks and chooses and we have to believe it because he says it's moral, then what's the basis behind morality?
    
    If he doesn't make them truths and he just recognizes that, hey, kicking the crap out of your kid is bad... then that sort of defeats the whole purpose of God telling us it's bad, doesn't it? Because the moral law would already exist without him and would presumably be recognizable by most people (as a mother I can assure you that if God was in front of me telling me I would burn in hell if I didn't severely beat my child, I wouldn't lay a finger on her. My instincts as a mother are to protect my child and I would rather die than hurt her.)
    
    I think that morality is an effort to behave based on reason. You think about the reasons you're going to do something and give equal weight to everyone affected by the decision. Morality is also being able to look at past indiscretions and say "well, that wasn't very good of me" and learn from it. No one makes sound, reasonable decisions all the time. I think that being a moral person means TRYING to make fair, well-thought-out decisions, and learning from the times when we don't.
    
    I think most humans have a very basic, inherent, minimum morality thanks to empathy. Most of us value life above all else and murder - taking away someone else's entire existence - becomes basically incomprehensible for most of us thanks to empathy.

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If what you claim is accurate, why is the world plagued with so much evil?

       replyreport
    2. 72

       Aime Fposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I did say *most* humans. In a world with 7 billion people, even a small percentage who lack morals or empathy leaves a lot of room for "evil".
       
       I also get the idea that your list of "evil" would be a lot longer than mine.

       replyreport
31. 61

    Jan Lovaposted 9 years ago

    Simple, morals was something created by society before the idea of religion. Maybe in some other universe the morals are completely opposite. I mean when you think about it morals are just mass opinions. So can you prove morals at all in the first place?

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So if everyone, say, agreed that the Holocaust was moral that would make it so?

       replyreport
32. 55

    peter565posted 9 years ago

    The bible are written by men, not god.  And men are flawed.  Consider both the mean and end, to consider what is right and what is wrong

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       What's your evidence?

       replyreport
33. 48

    Neolposted 9 years ago

    Do Some thing any Wrong Way to Killed Some Person or any Other Matter, 
    
    Visit Us, http://www.besanttechnologies.com/train … a-training

    replyreport
34. 48

    Prasad K Kulkarniposted 9 years ago

    Ask your mind first..
    Let your mind answer it..
    Your inner voice is equal to God's voice.
    If your inner voice supports your actions then go for it. If your mind stops you then STOP.

    replyreport
35. 59

    Hiromisaitoposted 9 years ago

    From a Platonic perspective, what is socially right and wrong are based on abstract concepts (forms) like justice and morality. Unfortunately they do not exist in the empirical realm and instead they are present tin the realm of forms. In other words, it is impossible to work out what is morally right and wrong through pure empirical experiences. According to Plato, in the Plato's Republic, you must become a true philosopher in order to grasp the knowledge of the forms. This is in fact similar to the religious idea of having something (someone in a religious context) beyond the sensory world.
    
    My personal view is that what is right and what is wrong is subjective to the society or the social trend and expectations. Perhaps similar to sisal agreements. It is so far impossible to tell if there are an objective version of moral codes.

    replyreport
36. 60

    MonkeyShine75posted 9 years ago

    Does it hurt someone in a serious way? such as stealing from them, killing them, or taking their spouse away? Or does it hurt yourself?
    If so, it's morally wrong!
    It doesn't take much to figure it out

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So, in your worldview, boxing is immoral, correct?

       replyreport
    2. 60

       MonkeyShine75posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No, two people who agree to fight as a sport, is not immoral

       replyreport
    3. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So it's moral to harm or even kill someone so long as they agree to it?

       replyreport
37. 72

    Nolapeteposted 9 years ago

    Easily.  Would you want it done to you, your spouse, your child, your mother, or your other family members?  Does it do harm?  Would it be something you'd want everyone in the world doing?  Answer questions like these and you have your answer without involving the Bible or appealing to God.  Morality doesn't require religion or even faith.

    replyreport
    1. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Based on your logic, it stands to reason that Ultimate Fighting is grossly immoral, right?

       replyreport
    2. 72

       Nolapeteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No, fighters who participate in ultimate fighting are doing so by choice.  The physical "harm" is not the type of harm that I was referring to.  That harm is infringing upon a person in a way that they have not agreed to.  S&M is similar to fight

       replyreport
    3. 41

       Joseph O Polancoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So it's moral to harm or perhaps even kill someone so long as they agree to it?

       replyreport
38. 48

    Dominic Curtisposted 9 years ago

    To answers your question, you can't. Morality does not extist only negative and positive, hot and cold, ect. Morality is a pigment of our imagination and this is not looking at this from an aitheist standpoint and I'm not trying to be insulting. But morality does not occer anywhere but the human mind, where the ego is dominent in most people. If something makes a positive impact overall... Do it! If it makes a negative impact and you find it "moral" maybe you should pick it apart a bit. I find in moral philosophy there are a lot of exceptions/loopholes. In conclusion  it wouldn't be a good idea to look morality from the bible in the first place.

    replyreport
39. 48

    Charlotte Jurgensposted 9 years ago

    Whether something is morally right or wrong is very subjective as everyone has there own moral standards.
    Some things are very clear as to right or wrong, like murder, and illegal actions but many things have a fine line that each person has to decide for themselves whether to cross it.
    If your a believer in God and follow His moral standards then you could then use that as a basis for what is morally right or wrong, but if you don't want to appeal to God or use the bible then you could just stick to your conscience and what you believe is right.
    But really, in the end, what you decide is morally right and wrong will probably end up being very close to the principles in the bible.

    replyreport
40. 55

    Vivskyposted 9 years ago

    If u are doing right thing like helping others understand patience and to the society

    replyreport