Morality without god

I definitely do not agree with this statement at all, even in context of the entire statement.Charles Manson enjoys carving Swastikas into his forehead, so the more moral action for him would be to do that to others? A person enjoys bondage and whipping, so it would be more moral for them to do those things to others no matter how the receving individual felt about those actions?It becomes a slippery slope when you force how you would feel about an action onto other individuals, instead of respecting that which they would want done to them. This is one of the big problems with the golden rule and why it really is inadequate for determining a moral action. Too many people enjoy things done to them that I would never want done to me and it would not be moral for them to force their subjective ideals upon me.

First and foremost, I would like to welcome you to the board and now onto the debate... I must disagree with you on this being a "wonderful" rule. In fact, I find the idea behind this rule somewhat repugnant. At first glance it really makes you think that you are treating all people well and in most cases this is how it would work. However, we must look at it from the point of view of someone who perhaps enjoys something that other individuals might claim is a little darker.In the case of a sadist, this would be an individual who would want pain and degradation inflicted upon them because that is their enjoyment. Is this how they should then treat others, even those who do not share their enjoyment of pain? Well, according to the Golden Rule, that is the proper way for these individuals to treat others. This is one area where a flaw in logic on this idea really shines forth, but you can think of other examples where the "Rule" will break apart.This is why I have begun to move away from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and toward an ideal of "Do unto others as they would like you to do unto them". This way, instead of treating people how you want to be treated, you are treating people how THEY want to be treated.Another point I would like to make is that there are ideas that are stating we can quantify morality. Earlier in the thread, we were discussing Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape". This is an interesting idea that morality can be measured through the benefits or pains caused to sentient creatures. Creating more benefit raises our standing in the moral landscape, while creating more pain reduces our standing.An example I used to explain it was of an individual walking down the beach and seeing a fish lying there dying on the beach. There are a few options to consider in this scenario1. The person literally steps around the fish and continues on his or her way. This would reduce the standing in the moral landscape because the person is gaining no benefit and suffering is visited upon the fish through death.2. The person sees the fish, grabs it and puts it back into the water. This would raise the level in the moral landscape because the person is not increasing his or her suffering and is reducing the suffering and adding benefit to the fish.3. The person sees the fish and takes it home to feed to his or her family. This would also be a moral action because while the suffering is increased for the fish through death, the person has created more benefit by feeding a few people through this sacrifice.As I said, Harris' idea is very interesting to me and I think that given time we can definitely find a way to fully quantify morality. I just do not think that we are quite there yet.

Already showed why your stats do not involve looking at the entire picture.Please see:
Message 1937

Incorrect on everything I said in that message. Pay attention, read the message and respond. You are thinking of a different thread between us. The message I linked to explained why you are not looking at the whole picture when it comes to the death penalty and how other factors most likely played into the reduction in crime that you were pointing to in states like Texas and Virginia.So, again, please respond or admit that you are cherry picking data to prove your point.Just so you don't have to go back an entire page:
Message 1937Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Ummmm....according to the Greek Mythologies, they had a really personal connection with their gods...especially some ladies and Zeus (Think Heracles' mother). Of course, this is now a dead religion, but when it was practiced, the tales told of involvement of gods with humanity, individuals went to oracles to tell them what to do in their lives....seems like a pretty personal relationship to me...

As a youth leader at a Catholic Church for 9 years, I can tell you that you heard absolutely incorrectly on this point. You can pray directly to Jesus or directly to God in the Catholic Church. You are not told, taught, or expected to pray directly to Mary, ever. You are told you can ask Mary to intercede to God on your behalf, but you are not expecting Mary to fulfill your prayers, except to ask God to fulfill your prayers.If you feel comfortable talking to the "Father" figure, then by all means pray directly to God. If you feel comfortable with the "brother" character, then by all means pray directly to Jesus. If, as most Catholics, you are wracked by guilt and feel unworthy to speak directly to either God or Jesus, then you can ask the "Mother" character to intercede on your behalf, but you ARE NOT praying TO her, rather THROUGH her. Personally, when I prayed as a Catholic, I always skipped Mary and Jesus and prayed directly to God. And on this point, weren't you just trying to claim in another thread that the Pope is known as something that related to "God's Representative on Earth" (Can't remember the Latin Phrase you used....but it seems to be a connection with "God" of some sort.And for proof on the Mary point, look to the words of the Hail Mary:
Hail Mary, Full of Grace
The Lord is with you.
Blessed are you amongst women,
and Blest is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
PRAY FOR US SINNERS, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.All you are asking for is intercession, can't you see that?

I realized how off topic we are with this discussion, so we should probably end it here, at least in this thread. If you would like to further discuss how praying through Mary is not praying to Mary, please start a thread.As for the purpose of this thread, it seems to have gone off the rails completely recently. Morality doesn't require a God or god or gods. Rather, it requires an agreement between segments of society that this is the proper behavior. This is why we see such a difference in morals throughout the world. Is it moral to treat women as second class citizens, deny them education, beat them, and make them basically property?In America, while it does happen from time to time, it is not considered a moral behavior because the consensus of the citizenry is that women should have all the same rights and freedoms as men.In the Middle East, it would be moral to treat women in that fashion because it is the consensus of the citizenry that this is how women are supposed to be treated.If morality was stemming from an all-powerful being, then we should see more coinciding between the moral precepts in many different lands. The problem is that there is no all-powerful being, at least not the same one in any region, so these differences spring up based on culture and beliefs. Hell, we can't even always agree on the concept of Thou shalt not kill, even just in this country. Sometimes it is justified, sometimes it is not. How does the arbitrariness of these moral values speak to you of a divine inspiration?Another point is that the books that tell of these morals and how to live contain different morals that do not line up with one another. The Bible contradicts itself on the moral questions that are asked constantly. The Koran has a precept not to kill, but also makes exceptions for unbelievers. How....on....Earth....could that happen unless these moral ideals were simply written as a code of conduct for a group of people, rather than a divinely inspired gift from a God/god/gods?

My first question to you Faith, and actually everyone in the thread, is what on Earth this tangent has to do with the idea of a morality existing without the presence of the divine?Now, onto what you are arguing about, even though it is not on topic. Well, from what I can find, which includes information from St. Patrick's writings, it appears that he was raised in a Roman Catholic family after being born in 385. According to his writings, Confessions of St. Patrick, While no town named Bannavem Taberniae has been located to this day, it is important to remember that Rome did not begin to withdraw from Briton until after Patrick was born, meaning he was raised in a Roman Province. Now, it is also important to remember that in the early years of the RCC, there was not a ban on the clergy being married. According to Wikipedia, So, in Patrick's own writings, there is a reference to his father, a Deacon, and to his grandfather, a Priest. That is right, a Deacon and a Priest, two positions that still exist within the Catholic community to this day.Now, about the name of Patrick, which was not this man's given name, we find out how he received the name though. James Akin writes, So, how could a man be given a name by Celestine, who had nothing to do with the fact that he was preaching the Gospel to the Irish people?Now, as an ex-Catholic there is one statement I strongly see Patrick's Catholicism coming out and that is a comment in his confessions that discusses what can only be seen as the classic Catholic Guilt. Patrick comes out later in life discussing his wilder youthful days and states, Patrick was originally sent to Ireland to actually assist Palladius, which goes a long way toward explaining how these two individuals got combined throughout history into a single individual. St. Palladius was sent to Ireland in the year 430 to begin to preach to the Irish. St. Patrick was sent there in 432 for assistance. Before he left, he had to....you know become a priest first and this was not done, as you think, in Ireland or Briton. Rather, After Palladius died during a trip to preach in Scotland to the Picts, Patrick would don the mantle of Bishop of Ireland as conferred upon him by St. Germanus, who was the Papal representative of the Irish mission.One other piece of evidence is the words spoken about him by his assistant bishop, St. Sechnall So, a comparison to Peter as the rock of the church and Patrick as the rock of the Irish church. This statement would be incoherent if Patrick was not a follower of the same faith that claims Peter was made the rock upon which Jesus founded his church.Finally, it seems that James Akin does a great job of summing up just how Catholic St. Patrick is with one sweeping statement of the things that Patrick believed in and some things that occurred during his lifetime.He states this in response to individuals like you Faith, attempting to usurp Patrick for your faith, while at the same time robbing the deceased of his. SourceTherefore, whether you want it or not...St. Patrick = CatholicOf course, your response will simply be that my source is biased because it comes from a Catholic and you will dig your heels in and refuse to change your mind. In fact, the only references I can find denying Patrick's Catholicism come from websites and individuals that are anti-Catholic, so it would appear that they have more reason to quote mine to get their way.Besides, what damage do you think might be done to the Catholic church with the removal of St. Patrick as a Saint? I will tell you what damage, absolutely none...there was no issues when the Catholic Church sent St. Christopher packing and removed his sainthood.