Morals---Maybe I don't understand.....or maybe I do
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:47 pm
I'm sure there have been posts about this subject before, but I wasn't sure where to find them and I really want to talk about this. It's been on my mind for a few days now.
Morals-- Here is the definition according to dictionary.com--
mor·al
[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
So morals are conforming to the right conduct. Who is to say what sort of conduct is right or wrong? Well, as a Christian, GOD clarifies on what is right and wrong. As an athiest? Who decides then? The athiest?
So as an athiest, morals don't really exist. Because he/she would decide for himself/herself on what is right and wrong, based on what they feel would protect themselves and things they care about. So if everyone was an athiest, morals would differ from person to person. A person could decide that killing thousands of people would be morally right, and no one could tell them they are wrong, because that person decided that was right conduct. Furthermore, if GOD didn't exist and all we had to live for was science, then morals would not be necessary. Someone could murder millions of people in an overpopulated area, experiment on humans, or wipe out half the human race, and claim it morally right for the betterment of science. Maybe someone decides it would be better if humans did not exist. So then they kill everyone. And then there is nothing. What would our purpose be? As an athiest, maybe the world would be better without us. So why even try? Why even love? Why do anything? If all we are is science, then why not let someone rape your child to see how he/she reacts, since science involves observation and experimentation. Why not let someone cut off your child's limbs to see if they can live with out them, or to see how long it takes them to bleed to death? Afterall, it's science. And everyone decides their own morals. And there's nothing else to it.
I think I'll stick with GOD. GOD is love. And we couldn't live without HIM.
I once read something that said this--"I would rather believe in GOD and find out HE isn't there, than to not, and find out HE is."
Because afterall, if HE isn't there, then our whole existence really doesn't matter anyways.
Morals-- Here is the definition according to dictionary.com--
mor·al
[mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
So morals are conforming to the right conduct. Who is to say what sort of conduct is right or wrong? Well, as a Christian, GOD clarifies on what is right and wrong. As an athiest? Who decides then? The athiest?
So as an athiest, morals don't really exist. Because he/she would decide for himself/herself on what is right and wrong, based on what they feel would protect themselves and things they care about. So if everyone was an athiest, morals would differ from person to person. A person could decide that killing thousands of people would be morally right, and no one could tell them they are wrong, because that person decided that was right conduct. Furthermore, if GOD didn't exist and all we had to live for was science, then morals would not be necessary. Someone could murder millions of people in an overpopulated area, experiment on humans, or wipe out half the human race, and claim it morally right for the betterment of science. Maybe someone decides it would be better if humans did not exist. So then they kill everyone. And then there is nothing. What would our purpose be? As an athiest, maybe the world would be better without us. So why even try? Why even love? Why do anything? If all we are is science, then why not let someone rape your child to see how he/she reacts, since science involves observation and experimentation. Why not let someone cut off your child's limbs to see if they can live with out them, or to see how long it takes them to bleed to death? Afterall, it's science. And everyone decides their own morals. And there's nothing else to it.
I think I'll stick with GOD. GOD is love. And we couldn't live without HIM.
I once read something that said this--"I would rather believe in GOD and find out HE isn't there, than to not, and find out HE is."
Because afterall, if HE isn't there, then our whole existence really doesn't matter anyways.