Religious belief and morality

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The "no matter what" line was ominous. The gays have got their freedom, no one is suggesting that their liberty be infringed, that fight is over. Yet now the opposite is the danger.
New Campaign For Free Speech polling results demonstrate just how vulnerable free speech protections are in the United States
51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. The First Amendment protects your right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion, among other things.
48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined—we left it up to the individual participant.) Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine.
...................................................
I really think that you see community or cultural standards as being what morality is. You are wrong. In Plato's Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a "divine something") that frequently warned him—in the form of a "voice"—against mistakes but never told him what to do. That is what sets your morality.... your inner daimonion. It is this same phenomenon that Paul is referring to when he talks about your conscience. Nietzsche wrote in "Will to Power" that the death of god would require man to invent new values... he was unsure whether we were capable of such a feat and predicted a nihilistic fragmented world if we failed to live up to the awesome resposibilities of being our own Gods. They were right. Morality requires the divine.

Again, I disagree. Morality does not require "the divine." It only requires that you recognize that "it's not just all about you." My morality recognizes my deep and inseverable connection to my fellow man, and to the planet that bred me, and the creatures that inhabit it. That is not "divine," its merely knowing my place, that I am not the be-all and end-all.

As it happens, I'm still a huge believer in free speech. I recognize the right of anybody to tell me, to my face, that they dislike the fact that I'm gay. My response is usually something along the line of, "I wasn't looking for your approval anyway, so no worries."

I would like to see "hate speech" better defined, but for right now, as far as I'm concerned, the laws dealing with "incitement to violence or crime" ought to be enough to deal with any real issues. But to the person who simply says, "I hate ****" or "I hate Jews" or something similar, I do not agree that there should be any legal recourse at all. The proper social recourse, yes. If somebody I liked said something of the kind, I would certainly rethink how much I wished to spend with them.

 

[Moz]

So you want people to be just what they have between their legs. Their feelings, in your view, shouldn't enter into it, right?

I have spent my lifetime trying to live by the maxim that "people's feelings are real." How you feel is, really is, who you are. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, "you shouldn't feel that way, so get over it."

And a wee question for you: how many people are we talking about here? I see dozens, sometimes hundreds of people every day, and rarely, very rarely, do I ever come across someone who identifies as other than the physical gender that they were born into. How many do you see every day, that it gives you such concern?

And, no, morals are not about JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT is about getting even after a moral indiscretion.

I am a moral person. I don't wave my genitals in anybody's face, nor do I call people unkind names, and I don't spit on the sidewalk. I don't do any of these things because I am concerned about causing discomfort to othIers. That's what being moral is. And I don't judge others for the things that are beyond their control -- as you seem to want to do. I find my way to be moral, a lot more moral than yours.

But I'm also gay, and though I am a man, the person I sleep with every night for these many years is also a man -- and he's the only one I sleep with. I also call that moral, while you might think otherwise. I've known Christians who actually thought it would be MORE moral for me to sleep with a woman I couldn't love or even be attracted to, just because, well, just because. I'm also fascinated that those people didn't even seem concerned with what that might mean to the woman I was doing it to -- as if she didn't even figure into it! Unbelievable!

So you want people to be just what they have between their legs. Their feelings, in your view, shouldn't enter into it, right?

It is not about what I want. I don't really give a rats either way.... the FACTS are that you are born with or without something between your legs and your "feelings" do not have any bearing on that fact.
If we are to bring feelings into it then we are entering the realm of psychology aren't we. And yes i agree that it is a psychological issue.
...............................

I have spent my lifetime trying to live by the maxim that "people's feelings are real." How you feel is, really is, who you are. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, "you shouldn't feel that way, so get over it."

Wow i can not believe how short sighted this is. I guess you feel warm and fuzzy is a self righteous way but the statement is flawed in so many ways. There are any number of "Feelings" that people have that you require the state to regulate. Encouraging the feelings of self deluded people is not good!
............................
And a wee question for you: how many people are we talking about here? I see dozens, sometimes hundreds of people every day, and rarely, very rarely, do I ever come across someone who identifies as other than the physical gender that they were born into.

Well the gender neutral game has only been going for a couple of years so the main cohort of these lunatics have yet to make a huge splash in the wider community but if you look at the University sector you sure see them being over represented. These are the people who will be out in the wider world very soon shaping public policy and attitudes.
A wee question for you...... Could it be possible that this 60+ gender stuff is bollocks and these kids should just behave like normal human beings?

How many do you see every day, that it gives you such concern?
The concern is the raft of compelled speech legislation that is being pushed through in many countries.
.......................................
And, no, morals are not about JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT is about getting even after a moral indiscretion.

Judgement is a NOUN it means... the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. What you are referring to is revenge or punishment. Sloppy word choice leads to sloppy thinking. So morals are an aspect of the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Right!
See that is your problem... you think morals are merely feelings and that hurting someones feelings is the only moral measure. Nope. There are higher responsibilities than immediate feelings.
................................................
I am a moral person. I don't wave my genitals in anybody's face, nor do I call people unkind names, and I don't spit on the sidewalk. I don't do any of these things because I am concerned about causing discomfort to others. That's what being moral is.

Again it is only about personal feelings for you. This is soooooo short sighted. So it is immoral to chastise a child as this may cause discomfort. Is it immoral to disagree with someone because they may get their feelings hurt. Grow up dude, people are stronger than you think.
..............................................
And I don't judge others for the things that are beyond their control -- as you seem to want to do. I find my way to be moral, a lot more moral than yours.

There is NOTHING that is beyond your control in matters of personal morality. All sorts of conditions afflict the human species yet everyone has the ability to fight or surrender depending on their moral fortitude.
.................................................
But I'm also gay, and though I am a man, the person I sleep with every night for these many years is also a man -- and he's the only one I sleep with. I also call that moral, while you might think otherwise.
The gay thing does not bother me that much. It is obvious that your preference is against the natural order yet you have embraced it.... so be it. I am bothered by children being told that homosexuality is a valid and appropriate choice if they feel confused. Deciding to go against the natural order should be a hard, heart wrenching ordeal. The hetro road through those years is not without dangers and pitfalls as well.
...............................................
I've known Christians who actually thought it would be MORE moral for me to sleep with a woman I couldn't love or even be attracted to, just because, well, just because. I'm also fascinated that those people didn't even seem concerned with what that might mean to the woman I was doing it to -- as if she didn't even figure into it! Unbelievable

That's a very strange thing to be irritated about. And it just shows that you want to paint the religious in the worst possible light. They didn't even seemed concerned about the woman... what heartless ********. As if they were advising you to just stick it in a vagina, any vagina, regardless of the rest of the christian standards of love honour respect and care.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe Abraham was led murder to son by his forefather Adam who consumed of hate, war, and violence, and both were tempted by the devil. This must be a result of original sin or else.

 

[Moz]

Again, I disagree. Morality does not require "the divine." It only requires that you recognize that "it's not just all about you." My morality recognizes my deep and inseverable connection to my fellow man, and to the planet that bred me, and the creatures that inhabit it. That is not "divine," its merely knowing my place, that I am not the be-all and end-all.

As it happens, I'm still a huge believer in free speech. I recognize the right of anybody to tell me, to my face, that they dislike the fact that I'm gay. My response is usually something along the line of, "I wasn't looking for your approval anyway, so no worries."

I would like to see "hate speech" better defined, but for right now, as far as I'm concerned, the laws dealing with "incitement to violence or crime" ought to be enough to deal with any real issues. But to the person who simply says, "I hate ****" or "I hate Jews" or something similar, I do not agree that there should be any legal recourse at all. The proper social recourse, yes. If somebody I liked said something of the kind, I would certainly rethink how much I wished to spend with them.

Again, I disagree. Morality does not require "the divine." It only requires that you recognize that "it's not just all about you." My morality recognizes my deep and inseverable connection to my fellow man, and to the planet that bred me, and the creatures that inhabit it. That is not "divine," its merely knowing my place, that I am not the be-all and end-all.

Nietzsche is a hard man to disagree with out of hand like that, his predictions of the world without god have been pretty spot on. Without the divine there are no intrinsic standards. Last century is was very easy to organize the death of 100 000 000 people because they were labeled as the oppressor class and it was morally right in the eyes of the people and for the benefit of the many. That is were human morality can lead all to easily.

You are completely backward in your idea that ...Morality only requires that you recognize that "it's not just all about you."
How can a thinking person get it so wrong! Morality is ONLY about you. Morality is not an answer to selfishness it is an answer to the responsibility that you have to yourself to be the best you can... in the image in which you were made.
Morality is the personal decisions that you take as you navigate through the world. You should NEVER modify your morals because of other peoples "feelings" that is just ridiculous. That is what leads us to this wishy washy soft world of morally stunted people.
........................................................

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it odd that you so thoroughly missed the point of my post. I don't think I'm that bad of a writer.

Aping the behaviors of others isn't learning, to me. It's called "aping" for a reason, and the reason is that even dumb animals can do it. Yet apart from religion, doing what we're told to do and aping the behavior of others is pretty much all we humans get in regards to moral guidance or instruction. We don't teach it in our secular schools. We don't teach it in our homes. We don't see it being discussed or debated in our mainstream media. Lots of "good guys and bad guys" in our stories, but not a peep about why the good guy is good, or the bad buy is bad. Or why it's often so difficult to tell the difference in real life. And I do agree with you that sometimes even religion falls into the 'blind obedience' and 'aping' method of achieving morality. But for the most part, religion is significantly involved in the idea of the righteousness/unrighteousness of human behavior, particularly toward other humans. And not just as dictation, but as part of a whole philosophy/theology.
I think you're tripping over your own bias, here.

Well my bias will fight your bias (and so many others) and perhaps eventually win.

The point I was making is that we do seem to imbibe our behaviour just as much from observing the behaviour of others, and what our parents insistently tell us no doubt, such that we reflect over what we experience and come to some moral understanding through such. Children are notoriously immoral when very young (most probably) and it only comes from maturity and experience that they actually develop their moral behaviour. Telling them (particularly shouting) rules will hardly work until they begin to understand the reasons behind such.

I look at it this way: the very concept of a possible 'higher power' brings along with it the concept of a possible 'higher authority'. And if the power is superior to our own (in that it creates and sustains us) then so must be the righteousness with which that power is being wielded. Which means there must be a higher expression of morality than that which we humans are currently willing to achieve. Nearly all religions come to this conclusion at some point, and in some fashion. So, like it or not, they are the most common and outstanding generators of moral import.

One way to look at it, but the problem with this, apart from it just being posited, is that (as we have seen) it just results in a variety of different interpretations of this one basic theme - a higher authority. It also ties us to some past event - the origin and setting in stone of some particular moral laws when what we actually need is - much like our legal laws - something that is dynamic and accommodates the changes that occur in our societies. I'm thinking here of course about such topics as equality, sexual matters, attitudes to genders, children, etc., where we have several religions having rather bizarre beliefs simply because they originated at a particular time and in a particular locale and have become fixated within that religion.

If our morality was not tied to religious belief, apart from probably enabling us to work out a consensus view ourselves, it would also enable us to cope with the changes we have seen and are going to see in the future. Religions just hold us back in this regard and also keep the divisions that form when they originate. Of course many religions over time do mellow and allow for change - I'll grant them that - but they have also caused much pain in the past which they can hardly just shrug off as collateral damage.

 

[PureX]

The point I was making is that we do seem to imbibe our behaviour just as much from observing the behaviour of others, and what our parents insistently tell us no doubt, such that we reflect over what we experience and come to some moral understanding through such.

I see no inclination on the part of parents to "reflect on the morality of their own behavior", and in fact, I see just the opposite: a persistent intention NOT to do so. Until, perhaps, they go to church on Sunday and the preacher compels them to do so through a sermon and commentary. So I doubt that their children are doing much if any reflecting on the morality of their behavior beyond how much trouble they will get in if they're caught breaking the rules, and perhaps some momentary empathy pangs.

Children are notoriously immoral when very young (most probably) and it only comes from maturity and experience that they actually develop their moral behaviour. Telling them (particularly shouting) rules will hardly work until they begin to understand the reasons behind such.

But when the "reasons behind the rules" are just the consequences of getting caught, they haven't really learned much of anything, morally speaking.

One way to look at it, but the problem with this, apart from it just being posited, is that (as we have seen) it just results in a variety of different interpretations of this one basic theme - a higher authority. It also ties us to some past event - the origin and setting in stone of some particular moral laws when what we actually need is - much like our legal laws - something that is dynamic and accommodates the changes that occur in our societies.

You don't seem to understand religion very well. All you're recognizing are the rules, when most religions are not rule oriented, but are based on a theological premise that establishes ethical priorities that then determine the rules. Religions, in general, are not just "because I said so" dogmas. I realize that some factions of them tend to become that, and they are fueling your bias, but that bias is blinding you to the bigger, and quite different, picture.

Also, religions appear contradictory in regards to morality because they are focused on the ethical priorities behind the 'rules' more-so than on the rules, themselves. Abrahamic religions admonish against homosexuality because they viewed it as an "unnatural" act. And Abrahamic religions are based on the theological proposition that God's will is being expressed (and enforced) through the natural order of Creation. Whether you agree or disagree, or other religions agree or disagree, is not the important point. The important point is the idea that morality should be based on our aligning our behavior with Divine Will as it is being expressed within the natural world. And this gives we humans a premise from which to truly understand and reflect on the moral validity of the rule being derived from that premise.

In modern times humans are slowly coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is not "unnatural". And therefor is not antithetical to the will of God. Things change, as people change and learn, and this is as it should be. That the churches are slow to acknowledge and accept this change is part of their function. What matters is that the debate takes place, and is based on something more than "because an authority said so". And although you're having a hard time accepting it, it's religion that provides the ethical and philosophical depths for that kind of enlightened consideration.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I see no inclination on the part of parents to "reflect on the morality of their own behavior", and in fact, I see just the opposite: a persistent intention NOT to do so.

Well I was referring to the children. The adults no doubt will get their morality from a variety of sources - in the UK it probably won't come from religious beliefs as much. And the vast majority of the basic rules could be worked out by everyone with half a brain.

Until, perhaps, they go to church on Sunday and the preacher compels them to do so through a sermon and commentary. So I doubt that their children are doing much if any reflecting on the morality of their behavior beyond how much trouble they will get in if they're caught breaking the rules, and perhaps some momentary empathy pangs.

As mentioned above, few will be going to church in the UK.

But when the "reasons behind the rules" are just the consequences of getting caught, they haven't really learned much of anything, morally speaking.

Hardly just that though is it - otherwise all the religious might not be just as immoral - which evidence tells us they are in fact, breaking the law just as much as non-believers.

You don't seem to understand religion very well. All you're recognizing are the rules, when most religions are not rule oriented, but are based on a theological premise that establishes ethical priorities that then determine the rules. Religions, in general, are not just "because I said so" dogmas. I realize that some factions of them tend to become that, and they are fueling your bias, but that bias is blinding you to the bigger, and quite different, picture.

Yeah, yeah. Religions actually don't have different moral value systems. That is why there is such harmony between them all.

Try telling a female in a fairly fundamentalist Islamic country about morality and how they should behave compared with how they could behave in a more liberated and less religiously controlled country.

Also, religions appear contradictory in regards to morality because they are focused on the ethical priorities behind the 'rules' more-so than on the rules, themselves. Abrahamic religions admonish against homosexuality because they viewed it as an "unnatural" act.

Not because they were just lacking any knowledge of how natural it actually is then? Which is what appears to be the case and still causes so many problems. As I said - they are tied to the past (erroneous) beliefs.

And Abrahamic religions are based on the theological proposition that God's will is being expressed (and enforced) through the natural order of Creation. Whether you agree or disagree, or other religions agree or disagree, is not the important point. The important point is the idea that morality should be based on our aligning our behavior with Divine Will as it is being expressed within the natural world. And this gives we humans a premise from which to truly understand and reflect on the moral validity of the rule being derived from that premise.

Divine Will as constructed by the originators of the religion, that is. You accept that such things came from God, many of us don't and see them as just projections of humans. Your belief, my belief.

In modern times humans are slowly coming to the conclusion that homosexuality is not "unnatural". And therefor is not antithetical to the will of God. Things change, as people change and learn, and this is as it should be. That the churches are slow to acknowledge and accept this change is part of their function. What matters is that the debate takes place, and is based on something more than "because an authority said so". And although you're having a hard time accepting it, it's religion that provides the ethical and philosophical depths for that kind of enlightened consideration.

Yes, but we would have saved a lot of trouble (especially for all those homosexuals who have suffered) if such things were never laid out as morality. The basic problem is that religions claim the high ground of morality without earning such a place.

And I still think you are wrong in seemingly claiming that before religions humans were essentially without morals when there is evidence - from other animal species at least - that morality almost certainly goes way back.

 

[Moz]

Well my bias will fight your bias (and so many others) and perhaps eventually win.

The point I was making is that we do seem to imbibe our behaviour just as much from observing the behaviour of others, and what our parents insistently tell us no doubt, such that we reflect over what we experience and come to some moral understanding through such. Children are notoriously immoral when very young (most probably) and it only comes from maturity and experience that they actually develop their moral behaviour. Telling them (particularly shouting) rules will hardly work until they begin to understand the reasons behind such.


One way to look at it, but the problem with this, apart from it just being posited, is that (as we have seen) it just results in a variety of different interpretations of this one basic theme - a higher authority. It also ties us to some past event - the origin and setting in stone of some particular moral laws when what we actually need is - much like our legal laws - something that is dynamic and accommodates the changes that occur in our societies. I'm thinking here of course about such topics as equality, sexual matters, attitudes to genders, children, etc., where we have several religions having rather bizarre beliefs simply because they originated at a particular time and in a particular locale and have become fixated within that religion.

If our morality was not tied to religious belief, apart from probably enabling us to work out a consensus view ourselves, it would also enable us to cope with the changes we have seen and are going to see in the future. Religions just hold us back in this regard and also keep the divisions that form when they originate. Of course many religions over time do mellow and allow for change - I'll grant them that - but they have also caused much pain in the past which they can hardly just shrug off as collateral damage.

If our morality was not tied to religious belief, apart from probably enabling us to work out a consensus view ourselves, it would also enable us to cope with the changes we have seen and are going to see in the future.

Probably.... really? How the hell is that supposed to happen. Human consensus on morality....... The only examples we have of state morality based on human reason did not work out so well for a couple of hundred million people who died because they were on the wrong side of the prevailing moral ideology.

The international order is really the ad hoc management of international disorder. At the macro and the micro, humans left to their own thinking will tribalise and identify the other who does not fit. It is very Nietzschian to hope that mankind will become Godlike beings able to guide their own moral path. I think the state of the world today shows that human consensus and agreement on the big issues is a fools hope.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If our morality was not tied to religious belief, apart from probably enabling us to work out a consensus view ourselves, it would also enable us to cope with the changes we have seen and are going to see in the future.

Probably.... really? How the hell is that supposed to happen. Human consensus on morality....... The only examples we have of state morality based on human reason did not work out so well for a couple of hundred million people who died because they were on the wrong side of the prevailing moral ideology.

The international order is really the ad hoc management of international disorder. At the macro and the micro, humans left to their own thinking will tribalise and identify the other who does not fit. It is very Nietzschian to hope that mankind will become Godlike beings able to guide their own moral path. I think the state of the world today shows that human consensus and agreement on the big issues is a fools hope.

Somehow forgotten about the laws we seem to enact - which most likely come from attempts to curb our less friendly behaviour towards others? Why is it so unnatural to think that we could do so for morality just as much without any religious influences? I'm not concerned about discarding religions - one can worship what one wants in my view - but just about disentangling morality from them when it just seems to be projection, and good intentions aside, a mistake. Or do you believe all religions have the same message? Argue with history, since you will lose!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If your nation drafts you and tells you to “go kill Russians”....what are you going to do?

Resist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one is teaching morality in the public schools

I had an ethics class all throughout public high school.
It concerned moral theory mostly, with special attention to secular humanism.

And no one is teaching it at home, either

During my secular upbringing at home, we had rather regular discussions about ethics, morality and stuff.

My dad especially was big on that. One of the things he used to always do... He would never give me rules without explaining them. In fact, he even flat out told me that he didn't care that I followed his rules as much as that he cared that I understood them.

He once literally told me that he would prefer me breaking my curfew while knowing / understanding that I did something wrong and feeling guilty about it, then me never breaking my curfew and that "just because" he asked me to.

It was like that all the time during my childhood.
He didn't tell me "don't smoke". He instead explained what smoking is and how it damages the body.
He didn't tell me "don't drink". He instead explained what the effect of alcohol is and how it can be dangerous.

I always appreciated his approach. So much so that I do the same with my son.
It's excellent. Instead of telling me what I had to do... he just explained things to me and in doing so taught me how to figure out by myself what I had to do.

Sure, there are rules, and everyone is being told to obey them "or else"

I wasn't told that. Well, no... I kind of was. But it wasn't the emphasis. My parents never gave me any rules that had to be "just obeyed". Every rule they ever gave me, came with a reasonable explanation for why it existed. If they couldn't rationally explain it, then there was no rule.

parents: "do this or that"
me: "why?"
parents: "because I said so!"
==> that's a situation that NEVER occured in my childhood.

So without religion, who is even bringing the subject of morality up?

Responsable parents and school teachers.

Without some concept of God in the minds of most humans, why would they care what it means to behave in a moral manner?

Perhaps you need a threat of punishment (or a promise of a reward) to find motivation to live a moral life, but I certainly don't.

Being moral is it's own reward.​

I think the idea of there being a higher power and the idea of there being a higher standard of behavior go hand in hand. They are both the result of humans wanting to do better, and to be better than just a bunch of dumb animals fighting with each other over the baubles of life.

I don't need any higher powers to realise that life and society at large will be better if the individuals that make up that society uphold a few moral standards and don't act like a bunch of backstabbing pricks.

 

[ZenMonkey]

We've heard it before: you cannot be moral without God, or other similar sentiments. (A friend of mine, Dr. Robert Buckman, great humanist and oncologist, wrote a book called "Can We Be Good Without God?" He passed away a few years ago, sadly.)

But thinker Steven Weinberg once said something along the lines of "believing in an omniscient creator doesn't contain any inherent moral value -- you still have to decide whether to obey His commands."

Thus, think of Abraham, prepared -- at the command of God -- to slaughter his son Isaac. His own son! Now, to me, it is a spurious theological argument to suggest that, since God interfered at the last moment and supplied a goat for the purpose. Abraham, as a human being with a moral sense of his own, should have KNOWN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that to kill a child -- on anybody's "orders" -- is simply wrong.

Likewise, the Israelites under Joshua, killing all the Canaanites, except for the virgin girls who could be put to "better use." Surely the Israelites were moral agents, and could reason for themselves whether such a command from God could be the right thing to do -- could they not?

Please try to stick to the argument in question: does "divine command" outweigh your own sense of moral behaviour, or is it better you should do what God seems to command, even if you feel queasy about it?

Opening statement - op ... No. Morality cannot exist without God as I understand God, and divine command vs personal moral behavior ... That's a personal question and as a god divinely inspired I choose not to answer ... yet.

 

[littleme]

You don't have to be religious to be moral. Many of the people in the Bible who believed in the deity weren't moral.

 

[PureX]

I had an ethics class all throughout public high school.
It concerned moral theory mostly, with special attention to secular humanism.



During my secular upbringing at home, we had rather regular discussions about ethics, morality and stuff.

My dad especially was big on that. One of the things he used to always do... He would never give me rules without explaining them. In fact, he even flat out told me that he didn't care that I followed his rules as much as that he cared that I understood them.

He once literally told me that he would prefer me breaking my curfew while knowing / understanding that I did something wrong and feeling guilty about it, then me never breaking my curfew and that "just because" he asked me to.

It was like that all the time during my childhood.
He didn't tell me "don't smoke". He instead explained what smoking is and how it damages the body.
He didn't tell me "don't drink". He instead explained what the effect of alcohol is and how it can be dangerous.

I always appreciated his approach. So much so that I do the same with my son.
It's excellent. Instead of telling me what I had to do... he just explained things to me and in doing so taught me how to figure out by myself what I had to do.



I wasn't told that. Well, no... I kind of was. But it wasn't the emphasis. My parents never gave me any rules that had to be "just obeyed". Every rule they ever gave me, came with a reasonable explanation for why it existed. If they couldn't rationally explain it, then there was no rule.

parents: "do this or that"
me: "why?"
parents: "because I said so!"
==> that's a situation that NEVER occured in my childhood.



Responsable parents and school teachers.




Perhaps you need a threat of punishment (or a promise of a reward) to find motivation to live a moral life, but I certainly don't.

Being moral is it's own reward.​

I don't need any higher powers to realise that life and society at large will be better if the individuals that make up that society uphold a few moral standards and don't act like a bunch of backstabbing pricks.

This is all very anecdotal, but the discussion isn't about you, and your childhood does not represent the norm.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can't be a believer if you're not going to follow God, says the atheist.

Of course you can.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you want people to be just what they have between their legs. Their feelings, in your view, shouldn't enter into it, right?

It is not about what I want. I don't really give a rats either way.... the FACTS are that you are born with or without something between your legs and your "feelings" do not have any bearing on that fact.

You are forgetting that we are all born with something between our ears, too. It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.

If we are to bring feelings into it then we are entering the realm of psychology aren't we. And yes i agree that it is a psychological issue.

It is my understanding that there is work in the medical profession that there are indeed some brain differences between males and females. For example. postmortem studies of transsexual neurological differentiation was focused on the hypothalamic and amygdala region of the brain. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some trans women were found to have female typical putamen that were larger in size than cisgender male, and some trans women have also shown a female typical central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals(BSTc) and interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus number 3 (INAH-3), looking at the number of neurons found within each. (Source Wikipedia Neuroscience of sex differences - Wikipedia)

So what happens when a brain that is more typical of one gender winds up in the body more consistent with the other gender? I think it is a very important question to ask: "which is the more reflective of the 'real you,' your genitals or your brain/mind?"

Now, I don't have the answer to all these questions, and I am therefore forced to leave it to the professionals. And the professionals seem to be leaning strongly to the notion that gender dysphorias are real.

I have spent my lifetime trying to live by the maxim that "people's feelings are real." How you feel is, really is, who you are. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying, "you shouldn't feel that way, so get over it."

Wow i can not believe how short sighted this is. I guess you feel warm and fuzzy is a self righteous way but the statement is flawed in so many ways. There are any number of "Feelings" that people have that you require the state to regulate. Encouraging the feelings of self deluded people is not good!

I did not say all feelings are good, you might notice, and of a certainty some need to be controlled, for the safety of the individual and others. But what I did say is that what a person is feeling is very real to them. And I don't think should be taken too lightly. When a husband and wife have a tiff, for example, and she says, "I feel you aren't attracted to me anymore," it will do him no good to say, "you shouldn't feel that way." That fight is sure to escalate. He's much better off accepting that this is what she's feeling right now, and then ask the obvious question, "what is it that I'm doing that makes you feel that way."

A wee question for you...... Could it be possible that this 60+ gender stuff is bollocks and these kids should just behave like normal human beings?

It is not for me to say how anyone else should behave. And I don’t understand all of the gender dysphorias that exist. The one thing that I will say is that for those very few people for whom gender dysphoria appears to be real and strong, then I agree with the professionals who say that it is probably better that the live as they identify, rather than as their assigned gender.

And, no, morals are not about JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT is about getting even after a moral indiscretion.

Judgement is a NOUN it means... the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. What you are referring to is revenge or punishment. Sloppy word choice leads to sloppy thinking. So morals are an aspect of the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Right!

See that is your problem... you think morals are merely feelings and that hurting someones feelings is the only moral measure. Nope. There are higher responsibilities than immediate feelings.
................................................

I am a moral person. I don't wave my genitals in anybody's face, nor do I call people unkind names, and I don't spit on the sidewalk. I don't do any of these things because I am concerned about causing discomfort to others. That's what being moral is.


Again it is only about personal feelings for you. This is soooooo short sighted. So it is immoral to chastise a child as this may cause discomfort. Is it immoral to disagree with someone because they may get their feelings hurt. Grow up dude, people are stronger than you think.

For the record, I don’t generally like being told to “grow up.” I’ve grown up quite sufficiently, thank you. And I am certainly not talking about something so obvious as disciplining children, for goodness sake. I’m talking about trying to turn another human being into something that they are not. And even though YOU PERSONALLY don’t approve of who they are and how they choose to live, I do not believe that you or anyone has the right to demand that they conform to your standards.

The gay thing does not bother me that much. It is obvious that your preference is against the natural order yet you have embraced it.... so be it. I am bothered by children being told that homosexuality is a valid and appropriate choice if they feel confused. Deciding to go against the natural order should be a hard, heart wrenching ordeal. The hetro road through those years is not without dangers and pitfalls as well.

So you would tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong. The problem with that is, it’s not the being “right or wrong” that drives sexual orientation – that comes from much, much deeper. So all you will have accomplished is to make the child more confused, and fell much worse and guilty into the bargain. I knew too many who grew up in such circumstances, and some of those, I am very sad to say, are now deceased by their own hand. Congratulations. That’s love for you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No one is teaching morality in the public schools. And no one is teaching it at home, either. Sure, there are rules, and everyone is being told to obey them "or else", but that's not teaching anyone why there are rules, and what they're being based on. So without religion, who is even bringing the subject of morality up? Without some concept of God in the minds of most humans, why would they care what it means to behave in a moral manner?

I think the idea of there being a higher power and the idea of there being a higher standard of behavior go hand in hand. They are both the result of humans wanting to do better, and to be better than just a bunch of dumb animals fighting with each other over the baubles of life.

I was a teacher and am a parent. The assertion that 'no one is teaching morality' is ridiculous.
As is the assertion that religion drives moral behaviour in and of itself.

There are both moral and immoral religious folk, as I'm sure you're aware.
It's much the same with non religious folk.

I've suggested this to some before, but do you really see the more secular countries (let's say New Zealand) as less moral than a country with high rates of religiosity like Papua New Guinea?

 

[Nakosis]

Of course you can.

If God sets the rules and you choose not to abide by them, what is the point of being a follower?

 

[Moz]

You are forgetting that we are all born with something between our ears, too. It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.


So you would tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong. The problem with that is, it’s not the being “right or wrong” that drives sexual orientation – that comes from much, much deeper. So all you will have accomplished is to make the child more confused, and fell much worse and guilty into the bargain. I knew too many who grew up in such circumstances, and some of those, I am very sad to say, are now deceased by their own hand. Congratulations. That’s love for you.

You are forgetting that we are all born with something between our ears, too. It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.

It is my understanding that there is work in the medical profession that there are indeed some brain differences between males and females. For example. postmortem studies of transsexual neurological differentiation was focused on the hypothalamic and amygdala region of the brain. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some trans women were found to have female typical putamen that were larger in size than cisgender male, and some trans women have also shown a female typical central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals(BSTc) and interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus number 3 (INAH-3), looking at the number of neurons found within each. (Source Wikipedia Neuroscience of sex differences - Wikipedia)

The problem is that those studies were done on postmortem adults in their 60's on average. Brain architecture changes as life is lived.Structures form and change as experience mounts. Infant brains show much less difference and when the outliers are accounted for other than physical size due to anatomy they are almost identical. The trans argument of a female brain is on its way out.
.....................................................................
It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.

And if that "sex organ" is disordered then sexual perception would be disordered wouldn't it?
Hence it is psychological in most cases.
....................................................................
It is not for me to say how anyone else should behave
So 60+ genders is fine with you. You do not feel qualified to examine the claim in the light of common sense and would rather affirm whatever they want rather than to dare to cause offence. Sweet.
....................................................
Now, I don't have the answer to all these questions, and I am therefore forced to leave it to the professionals. And the professionals seem to be leaning strongly to the notion that gender dysphorias are real.

There is a can of worms in that statement to be sure. All of the established psychological literature done by the pioneers in the field are the ones who came to the conclusion that it is a condition of a disordered mind. The change from Disorder to dysphoria has more to do with politically correct tolerance than any real science. It has also allowed the insurance industry to get into the sector and that has exploded the job opportunities in the gender dysphoria area. Ouroborus.
..............................................................
But what I did say is that what a person is feeling is very real to them. And I don't think should be taken too lightly.

Compassion and empathy can not be allowed to over ride common sense no matter how good it makes you feel about being tolerant in the short term.
Psychological disorders are real i completely agree, however, delusion should not be encouraged.
..................................................................
very few people for whom gender dysphoria appears to be real and strong, then I agree with the professionals who say that it is probably better that the live as they identify, rather than as their assigned gender.

Agreement here at least. There are definitely some people who's biology has gone astray. I think where we would disagree is in the definition of who the "very few people." actually includes. You seem to include the 60+ gender lot.
...................................................
For the record, I don’t generally like being told to “grow up.” I’ve grown up quite sufficiently, thank you.
When you think that morality boils down to.......... I don't do any of these things because I am concerned about causing discomfort to others. That's what being moral is.
I truly think that the advice to grow up is the appropriate response.
TRULY moral people cause discomfort to others just by their very presence. That morality is homogenized to the herd mentality so that the majority can feel good about themselves is not a good thing. The moral people are often the ones who are imprisoned because of conscientious objections to the craziness of the system they make the supporters of the status quo fell self conscious of their failings. That is uncomfortable. History is replete with this example over and over and over.
..................................................
I’m talking about trying to turn another human being into something that they are not. And even though YOU PERSONALLY don’t approve of who they are and how they choose to live,
It is not anything PERSONAL, nor is it about approval. It is a biological FACT OF NATURE that i am defending, if i'm defending anything.

It does seem very personal to you though. In the cause of tolerance and acceptance you seem to think that we should believe any claim that anyone makes about sexuality because to question whether they might have a mental disorder is immoral. You need to read wider on this subject and from BOTH sides so as to get to the truth which is in the middle.
..................................................
I do not believe that you or anyone has the right to demand that they conform to your standards.

My standards? All i have argued is that the Biological Standard should be the Standard that society embraces. The Biology seems pretty definitive in the majority, 99.008% of humanity so i am not demanding anything but that common sense prevail over some feel good let's not hurt anyone's feelings crap..
................................................
So you would tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong.

I do not think that you need to tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong They know it intrinsically hence the confusion.
..................................................
The problem with that is, it’s not the being “right or wrong” that drives sexual orientation – that comes from much, much deeper.

Okay. And it does not seem to be biology.... so where is this deeper place? The psyche perhaps?
Go on quote something about the gay gene if you dare.
....................................................
So all you will have accomplished is to make the child more confused, and fell much worse and guilty into the bargain. I knew too many who grew up in such circumstances, and some of those, I am very sad to say, are now deceased by their own hand. Congratulations. That’s love for you

So you know of many teenagers who struggled with issues and took their own lives ......... and I get congratulated for it. Yet again my response is for you to grow up. Cynical use of emotive story is a poor tactic. Teenage suicide is a scourge for many reasons and the gay stuff is a pimple in the statistics.
From my experience with gay people, and my nephew is one of those gay suicides in his late 20's after gay acceptance and gay equality and gay marriage so it was NOT the POLITICS of it ,it was the lifestyle and the knowledge that no matter how normalized it had become it was still not normal. Cherry picking sob stories and generalizing into a broad point is lazy thinking. We can all do that.
You seem to be hiding behind the exceedingly small number of people with genuine problems to push a much broader theme. The ideas of Gender fluidity that i have been referring to have nothing to do with the types of responses you have giving. The idea that you are whatever gender you wish to think you are is the issue that spawned this interchange.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are forgetting that we are all born with something between our ears, too. It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.

It is my understanding that there is work in the medical profession that there are indeed some brain differences between males and females. For example. postmortem studies of transsexual neurological differentiation was focused on the hypothalamic and amygdala region of the brain. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), some trans women were found to have female typical putamen that were larger in size than cisgender male, and some trans women have also shown a female typical central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminals(BSTc) and interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus number 3 (INAH-3), looking at the number of neurons found within each. (Source Wikipedia Neuroscience of sex differences - Wikipedia)

The problem is that those studies were done on postmortem adults in their 60's on average. Brain architecture changes as life is lived.Structures form and change as experience mounts. Infant brains show much less difference and when the outliers are accounted for other than physical size due to anatomy they are almost identical. The trans argument of a female brain is on its way out.
.....................................................................
It's called a "brain." And it is far and away the most important "sex organ" that we have.

And if that "sex organ" is disordered then sexual perception would be disordered wouldn't it?
Hence it is psychological in most cases.
....................................................................
It is not for me to say how anyone else should behave
So 60+ genders is fine with you. You do not feel qualified to examine the claim in the light of common sense and would rather affirm whatever they want rather than to dare to cause offence. Sweet.
....................................................
Now, I don't have the answer to all these questions, and I am therefore forced to leave it to the professionals. And the professionals seem to be leaning strongly to the notion that gender dysphorias are real.

There is a can of worms in that statement to be sure. All of the established psychological literature done by the pioneers in the field are the ones who came to the conclusion that it is a condition of a disordered mind. The change from Disorder to dysphoria has more to do with politically correct tolerance than any real science. It has also allowed the insurance industry to get into the sector and that has exploded the job opportunities in the gender dysphoria area. Ouroborus.
..............................................................
But what I did say is that what a person is feeling is very real to them. And I don't think should be taken too lightly.

Compassion and empathy can not be allowed to over ride common sense no matter how good it makes you feel about being tolerant in the short term.
Psychological disorders are real i completely agree, however, delusion should not be encouraged.
..................................................................
very few people for whom gender dysphoria appears to be real and strong, then I agree with the professionals who say that it is probably better that the live as they identify, rather than as their assigned gender.

Agreement here at least. There are definitely some people who's biology has gone astray. I think where we would disagree is in the definition of who the "very few people." actually includes. You seem to include the 60+ gender lot.
...................................................
For the record, I don’t generally like being told to “grow up.” I’ve grown up quite sufficiently, thank you.
When you think that morality boils down to.......... I don't do any of these things because I am concerned about causing discomfort to others. That's what being moral is.
I truly think that the advice to grow up is the appropriate response.
TRULY moral people cause discomfort to others just by their very presence. That morality is homogenized to the herd mentality so that the majority can feel good about themselves is not a good thing. The moral people are often the ones who are imprisoned because of conscientious objections to the craziness of the system they make the supporters of the status quo fell self conscious of their failings. That is uncomfortable. History is replete with this example over and over and over.
..................................................
I’m talking about trying to turn another human being into something that they are not. And even though YOU PERSONALLY don’t approve of who they are and how they choose to live,
It is not anything PERSONAL, nor is it about approval. It is a biological FACT OF NATURE that i am defending, if i'm defending anything.

It does seem very personal to you though. In the cause of tolerance and acceptance you seem to think that we should believe any claim that anyone makes about sexuality because to question whether they might have a mental disorder is immoral. You need to read wider on this subject and from BOTH sides so as to get to the truth which is in the middle.
..................................................
I do not believe that you or anyone has the right to demand that they conform to your standards.

My standards? All i have argued is that the Biological Standard should be the Standard that society embraces. The Biology seems pretty definitive in the majority, 99.008% of humanity so i am not demanding anything but that common sense prevail over some feel good let's not hurt anyone's feelings crap..
................................................
So you would tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong.

I do not think that you need to tell a child who is confused about his or her sexual orientation that anything but the hetero-normative one is wrong They know it intrinsically hence the confusion.
..................................................
The problem with that is, it’s not the being “right or wrong” that drives sexual orientation – that comes from much, much deeper.

Okay. And it does not seem to be biology.... so where is this deeper place? The psyche perhaps?
Go on quote something about the gay gene if you dare.
....................................................
So all you will have accomplished is to make the child more confused, and fell much worse and guilty into the bargain. I knew too many who grew up in such circumstances, and some of those, I am very sad to say, are now deceased by their own hand. Congratulations. That’s love for you

So you know of many teenagers who struggled with issues and took their own lives ......... and I get congratulated for it. Yet again my response is for you to grow up. Cynical use of emotive story is a poor tactic. Teenage suicide is a scourge for many reasons and the gay stuff is a pimple in the statistics.
From my experience with gay people, and my nephew is one of those gay suicides in his late 20's after gay acceptance and gay equality and gay marriage so it was NOT the POLITICS of it ,it was the lifestyle and the knowledge that no matter how normalized it had become it was still not normal. Cherry picking sob stories and generalizing into a broad point is lazy thinking. We can all do that.
You seem to be hiding behind the exceedingly small number of people with genuine problems to push a much broader theme. The ideas of Gender fluidity that i have been referring to have nothing to do with the types of responses you have giving. The idea that you are whatever gender you wish to think you are is the issue that spawned this interchange.

So what would you do with a little person with a penis who says, "I'm a girl?" Smack him upside the head until he gets over it?

I'll answer the rest of this screed later. Unlike you, I don't know the absolute right and wrong of everything, and have to think about it. God/Christ didn't deign to inform me of what I'm required to know.