There was certainly "no hatred" in my post. Apologies if it was rude, but to be fair, it does look as though this is too difficult for you to wrap your head around, as you completely misunderstood my point!
Perhaps we should explore "moral action" first. The only tenable position you can hold is that regardless of specific actions (having gay sex, leaving your faith, abusing your kids) there are absolute notions of "good" and "bad". I think that's what your're saying - Rev. Al Sharpton makes this point ad naseum in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens - that basically God creates the "framework" for "good" and "bad" - and without that you would just have whoever was most powerful deciding what was good or bad. Which is such a reductionist argument ("most powerful") as to be shameful for an educated man like Al Sharpton.
Now, to me, this is a ridiculous idea as in real life it takes about 10 seconds to think of an example where any action has amiguities. Ok - so killing people is bad? Howabout you have a gun, are 15 yards away from a man about to slit the throat of an innocent 10 year old? And etc, and etc.
But - this point about absolutes, is a completely different point to whether you get your morality from religion - e.g. the institutions, the Koran, etc, and so on. We can show this with the Bible - when the Bible was written homosexuality are condemned, but now we are far less savage in this respect. Similarly when most of the Abrahamic religions arose women were subjugated, and now we see that they are not, and it is good for society and fair.
Could you explain how one gets one's notions of "good" or "bad" actions without absolutes? Because it seems to be that a) this can't be proven to exist, b) this idea offers us no guidance on which specific actions are good or bad, c) imagining, for the sake of the argument, that these "good" and "bad" absolutes didn't exist - what difference would that make to human behaviour? It wouldn't many any difference, would it!
There's a seperate point about evolution - now knowing how mankind evolved - how does one explain the injection of "morals" as opposed to the evolution of different behaviours. The only explanation - to my mind - is akin the big black obelisk in 2001 - or for that matter the creation of a prophet. But then my point remains - what was going on the two weeks before that event? Were people not moral? Are we seriously expected to believe that everyone went "ahhhh, not killing people - what a good idea, cheers, we'll stop that now?". But you can ignore this seperate point for the time being.
Just to clarify once more - you don't need absolutes of "good" and "bad" to be moral, all you need is to believe that other people actually exist, and have feelings, and feel suffering in the same way that you do. Does that make sense?
First let me say that you are the one that has missunderstood the post. I did not say this is hatred but I said .......that hatred has blinded you. There is a difference between the two phrases. Why I came to that point?
This was the second point and after I mentioned that it seems that you reply without reading the thread the only other conclussion was that hatred has blinded you because the thread does not ask whether morals are formulated by Muhammed or that He was the first to introduce them to the society. You seem to reply just for the sake of replying and any chance to link everything with islam even if the question has nothing to do in specific with it. This is why I said what I said. With the atheists members I had disscused this matter before you wrote your post and none of them said what you said and do you know why? This was not the intention of the thread.
Now: It is indeed to difficult to wrap my head around when you talk about things we are not discussing at all. Had you stopped before mentioning the paragraph about Muhammed, then it would have been normal and I would have replied differently to your post. The way you put it was that the whole "argument" that you brought was in function of your clossing statement. Therefore the whole post goes in that direction. Next time you want the others
not to missunderstand your posts, keep in mind what you really intend to express and concentrate on that. I am sure you know that I am not the only one to "missunderstand" your posts in this forum.
You say: Perhaps we should explore "moral action" first.
I say, you have already have jumped the gun as there is a difference between morals (what we are talking about) and moral action. So if you want to start start by morals then jump into moral actions. There is a difference between the two.
You say: The only tenable position you can hold is that regardless of specific actions (having gay sex, leaving your faith, abusing your kids) there are absolute notions of "good" and "bad".
I say: Wrong again. From morals is to speak the truth, not to lie, not to cheat, to enjoy the good and to forbid the evil and so on and so forth. So you must check your deffinitions again.
You say: I think that's what your're saying - Rev. Al Sharpton makes this point ad naseum in a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens - that basically God creates the "framework" for "good" and "bad" - and without that you would just have whoever was most powerful deciding what was good or bad. Which is such a reductionist argument ("most powerful") as to be shameful for an educated man like Al Sharpton.
I say: Wrong again as you are already taking your position as a reference point and are "investigating" what you have denounced before you even see the evidence. This is far from realistic and constructive approach to talk about any matter. Just like you say that it is shameful for an educated man, I say that these words are a double edge sword and the same Al Sharpton would say for you.
You say: Now, to me, this is a ridiculous idea as in real life it takes about 10 seconds to think of an example where any action has amiguities. Ok - so killing people is bad? Howabout you have a gun, are 15 yards away from a man about to slit the throat of an innocent 10 year old? And etc, and etc.
I say: Wrong again. As you are taking the conditional circumstances to judge upon the general ones. This is wrong.
You say: But - this point about absolutes, is a completely different point to whether you get your morality from religion - e.g. the institutions, the Koran, etc, and so on. We can show this with the Bible - when the Bible was written homosexuality are condemned, but now we are far less savage in this respect. Similarly when most of the Abrahamic religions arose women were subjugated, and now we see that they are not, and it is good for society and fair.
I say: Wrong again. You are basing your hypothesis on relative factors and on very slipery grounds. All this is objectionable from those who do not believe to take their code of life from religion too. So where is the balance?
You ask: Could you explain how one gets one's notions of "good" or "bad" actions without absolutes?
I say: Is an action considered good or bad before or after is commited?
You continue: Because it seems to be that a) this can't be proven to exist, b) this idea offers us no guidance on which specific actions are good or bad, c) imagining,
for the sake of the argument, that these "good" and "bad" absolutes didn't exist - what difference would that make to human behaviour? It wouldn't many
any difference, would it! [/B]
I say: Your words as you analize this matter are a proof that what you say is wrong. You are already deciding upon a matter before you even speak about it. Therefore this proves that you have some understanding and a code of judging (thinking, valuating.....etc) which shows that you already are measuring what is being spoken about with your measure stick of wright and wrong. So your words are a fact that there is a discriminating factor ijn this matter as you would immediately comment on the opposite side's position. So your supposition is wrong and baseless. All this can be proven by your own words whether you like it or not.
Now let me ask you a question if you do not mind. Do you believe that man was created by God or do you believe that man is the result of the evolution of a monkey ancestor?
