what do [you think] constitutes an act which is moral?
— god must be atheist

An act which leads towards the true happiness of the individual that commits it. — Tzeentch

With all due respect, Tzeentch, my question was not that; and answering a changed question amounts to answering it.

But I appreciate that you want to spark discussion, without answering my question. That's perfectly acceptable.

Just please don't mix the two: spark a conversation at the cost of paraphrasing my question to a totally different one, and pretending that you answered it.

Otherwise carry on, my job here is finished.

I chose "Other" because my point of view is it does not matter, which way you look at it. WHAT you look at is explicable all three ways. So there is no useful information or decision-making capacity borne out of aligning one's self with any of the established viewpoints. What we perceive is the same either way. So it's futile to decide an undecidable question, especially when the anwser has no consequence to speak of.

Socrates called this an inner voice which he heard when he was about to make a mistake. It was a voice that prevented Socrates from entering into politics. It was a voice that told Socrates to be silent at his trail. And it was a voice that guided his rational discourse. — telex

Just so in case you were wondering where "trail" came from.

Not a problem, I like word games.

Factually, Socrates vehemently defended himself at his last trial. I have a vague feeling you're mixing him up with another allegedly existing philosopher who also wrote no words and we only know about his thoughts due to his students' writings. This other philosopher reportedly uttered no words at his trial.

So you believe in divine command theory, eh? — Aleph Numbers

Absolutely not.

Surely you do not believe that any given act could be moral in every situation? — Aleph Numbers

You are answering a question I did not ask. Which is fine. I don't mind if you exercise your right to free speech. Just saying that you are hedging, but I can't fault you for that. To wit: My question is, what is it about morality that ultimately, unambiguosly, and clearly delineates it from other human considerations? I ask, because my point is that though it may exist, humanity has not found out what it is, and therefore all speeches and conversations about morality that purport to make a point are futile.

Some people are so entangled in their worship of religion (not only of their god, but of the general idea of religion) that they can't divorce themselves of the thought. Yet intelligent life can exist without religion. Only the meek in spirit can't see that. But then again, they shalt inherit the Earth. Not a bad deal.

I barged in and asked a dead serious question. So far nobody I know has come up with a notion that discerns morality from non-morality. Yet we discuss morality to death, as it were a tangible, known quantity or quality. My question was aimed to throw light upon the fact that morality, though it may exist, is not something humans can agree on as to its true nature.

Brah, are you drunk? I have no idea what you are talking about here either:

Please tell me what it is about morality that makes it different from everything else, and most prominently different from good and bad.
— god must be atheist — Aleph Numbers

Obviously it is not I who haven't read your 2+ pages of posts, but it is you who were too lazy or inept to read my only one post.

what is considered appropriate behavior for most humans some of the time. — Aleph Numbers

who is doing the considering? The same people that act the way they consider appropriate behaviour? Or in fact there are people who act against their own best judgment, and are considered to be behaving appropirately by at least one person outside that group?

The additonal qualifyer "some of the time" completely obliterates any usefully tangible meaning in this attempt at a definition of morality. Thanks for putting that in.

Socrates may have used the phrase as a metaphor. In today's vernacular, the inner voice in moral questions is your better judgment. Maybe our vernaculal use can be traced back to Socrates' outer voice that Plato plated or etched into history, and in particular, to the very utterance in the OP's example describing his inner voice Socrates expressed with his outer voice.

If Socrates was hearing voices actually or not, is not a question we can decide. He reportedly had no other diagnostic tools helpful to establish dementia praecox in his case.

The patient can be released, and followed up by Dr. Hyppocrates. And our opinion at this time is that Mr. Socrates is fit to stand trail. (What was he trailing?)

Hey, guys and gals, what do yout thing constitutes an act which is moral?

I am asking because there has been examples of what we call good and what we call bad. But there has no discerntion between good and right and between bad and wrong. If it's bad, it's wrong, and the right thing to do is to do something that is good for everyone.

Where is the moral compass? What can you say about something bad that is still moral? Something bad that is still moral, yet it contains no good that counter-effects the bad?

This is what I need to hear before I can seriously engage on a talk about morality. Morality exists, but we never touched upon what its hallmarks are. Please tell me what it is about morality that makes it different from everything else, and most prominently different from good and bad.

A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING. — Pfhorrest

I know. I was merely playing.

↪MSC Your phrasing would suggest that the face is a person. The partner is a “one”, but her face is a “thing”. — Pfhorrest

My genius friend Paul S. came up to me one day, and asked me, "Is the sum of a woman better than her whole?"

↪MSC Your phrasing would suggest that the face is a person. The partner is a “one”, but her face is a “thing”. — Pfhorrest

"One" as in the god-thread? Or one as in one person at a time? Single line, no pushing. While in the line.

Yeah, phones are tiny for reading or listening. I hope they will come up with a giant 55 inch phone that fits in my pocket.

. . . mathematicians, and philosophers don’t have to worry that they’ll be out of work soon — Tristan L

Well, philosophers have to worry about getting INTO work as soon as possible. Not many positions as resident philosopher at Walmart or General Ford.

Helping out your ratio while simultaneously pointing out that if you don't want to objectify your partner, "There is no one more erotic, nor beautiful than my partners face as she orgasms." Would be the better way to phrase this... If she happens to like being objectified (a known kink) then forget I said anything and carry on! — MSC

I think that's how object-oriented programming took initial shape. A bunch of sexually frustrated programmers who objectify sexual objects into objects to sub for partners in their abject lack of finding a suitable subject being a reject, etc etc etc, I'll leave it to you to fill out the rest.

If we need to define language, we need to use language. Nothing can define its own self. Conceptually everything can establish separation, but the separation and the similarities must be experientially or intellectually be part of the self, if the definer is a thinking machine.

- Can we define god?
- can we define mathematics, philosophy, science?
- can we define language?
- can we define thought?

All these are derivatives that could only get off the ground as social groupthinks because they were created using language; and they elude defition only because their mother is language, which is -- basically -- nothing. Language is to the intellect as paper is to the value of paper money, or as condoms are to love, or as laughtracks in American sitcoms are to humour.

While I do feel that I am not popular on this website, dismissed as — Jack Cummins

I think we all feel that way to a certain extent in a certain way. Because we get into arguments, and there is always an opposing opinion. That gives the effect of being unpopular. ("Mommy, mommy, all the boys want to fight me!!")

The elation felt in a sense of superiority should be praised?
— praxis

Not praised, but enjoyed. It's like praising someone else's orgasm. None of my business. But feeling my own is certainly worth it.
— god must be atheist — praxis

Given this sentiment, I imagine that your talent as a lover is unsung. — praxis

Interesting. You feel other people's orgasms, @praxis? You've got quite a talent there.

Wonderful question. Likewise, what are deductions to the meaning of life? — 3017amen

New deduction on your Income Tax return? You get some more money back if you successfully discover the meaning of life. (N.B. please look up the meaning of the word "deduction". I believe you wanted to say "deducing".)

You're suggesting a new category be created in addition to Philosophy of Religion -- with, I'll note, no hope of keeping them separate. That looks to me like an endorsement of this as a place to post theology. — Srap Tasmaner

I had participated on a forum a long time ago, where this was the case. People could participate in that forum only by special permission, and that forum section was unknown to the general users of the forum. I happened upon it by a glitch of the programming engine, all of a sudden I was in a sea of posts about how god this and how god that. It was quite and experience, I tell you. Yet, despite that forum section devoted to the highly religious, the religious still kept on arguing their world view on the rest of the open forum sections.

"Love the God, love thy neighbor as you love yourself" is essentially the foundation of all modern law and peaceful civilization. — Outlander

Sorry, I had to correct and improve your quote. You see, there are a number of us who share a globe with you, who don't believe in any gods, but still are peaceful, respect the law, and are morally sound.

Faux Christians or simply liars attempting to shroud themselves in a moral cloak of righteousness to pursue unknown and possibly opposite and inverse purposes is the real snake in the grass. — Outlander

Every Christian, absolutely every Christian, is decried for being a cheat or an untrue faithful by someone other who also calls himself or herself a Christian.

This is one of the fundamental problems of Christianity. A lack of uniform coherency of faith. A person whom I call as Christian because I am an atheist and he or she calls himself or herself a Christian, may be the AntiChrist in the eye of another who also calls himself or herself a Christian.

This is a bit strange, but hey.

. A troll might score well over 1, whereas someone with interesting, but complex, things to say might only score .5. or something. — Janus

I'd add: "One person's troll is another person's genius."

Hm. I get an equation named after me!? — Banno

A ratio named after you, definitely, and well deserved, too. An equation? You have to come up with one that is as original in concept and significant as the Banno Ratio.

The elation felt in a sense of superiority should be praised? — praxis

Not praised, but enjoyed. It's like praising someone else's orgasm. None of my business. But feeling my own is certainly worth it.

Would having a mentions/comments ratio of less than, say, 0.1, be grounds in itself for a ban? — Banno

This is not so easy to decide.

This is a forum fostering arguments. People who agree with a post normally leave it alone, or in a rare case, respond to it with a tone or content of approval. Case in point:

I read you excitedly whenever I see your name. I just don't respond most of the time because I find your posts very unobjectionable. — fdrake

The answer to the question is indeterminable, from the ratio alone, because a low ratio may mean disgust, or it may mean acknowledgment of the perception of a genius. Definitely supports the opinion in the OP that it does not generate lively thougts or discussions, but it may not be bereft of value to the community nevertheless.

Conversely, therefore, a high ratio of mention / comment may be generated by a high rate of disapproval, high rate of finding the post significant or interesting, whether agreeing or not with it, or else generated brain acrtivity. In these cases the opinion in the original post makes sense.

Also please note that people (Person A) may quote person B when replying to Person C. In this case B, whose "mention" number is increased, is only a reference in a response to Person C, who rightfully ought to have the "Mention" counter.

Relying on the mathematical value of the ratio alone is no indication of the posts' "value" as viewed by others. Granted, the OP never stated that. The ratio's significance as to a corresponding alleged increased interest because of its being stimulating may also be misleading. Throw in "god", "evolution", "abortion", "ethics" and you will find that people are much more militant to stand by their own opinions, than, say, when they talk about their favourite colours, sexual positions or vacation beaches. This is the only paragraph in this post that states a counter-argument to the original notion in the OP. People may put numerous responses when they are not stimulated to think, but are motivated to defend an already established and unchangeable opinion.

You are certainly more than welcome to argue your Atheism. — 3017amen

You are mistaken again, my friend. I am not arguing atheism. There is no need for that. I don't need to preach "beleive in no god". You believe in whatever you will.

What you mistake me for as arguing atheism, is pointing out the blindingly obvious self-contradictions, discrepancies, and in your case, hypocrisy in religious teachings. I would do that even if I believed in a god, or some gods. Many on this forum who believe in god do the same thing as I do.

You just like to simplify things to your maximum capacity of understanding the complexity of the world. EVERYONE ELSE does that, including myself, so don't take this personally, please.

It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you. — 3017amen

Maybe it's a battle for you, that's why you refer to debate as "battle". To me it means searching for the truth, and loving it when I found it. That process has nothing to do with battling, my friend.

I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level. — 3017amen

If your criteria is NOT being outnumbered, but feeling uncomfortable, then, pardon the truth, it is you who should pack up and get out. I feel totally comfortable here, arguing with theists and Christians. You are the one who is uncomfortable with my presence, that's the real reason you want me to leave.

So you stated two reasons why I should leave: I am outnumbered, and I feel uncomfortable.

In fact, you are also outnumbered, and you indeed feel uncomfortable whereas I don't.

So in all rights, if you decide to stop being a hypocrite, you will pack up your things and go.

Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not... — 3017amen

This is a statement of belief. Reasonably speaking, neither of us knows whether Christianity is totally here to stay or it will dwindle to count people who are outnumbered by non-Christians. You can't state an empirical opinion as fact.

Your argument, is that Atheists should go home because they are outnumbered.

So are blondes, you know.

And blue-eyed people.

And Black people and people who speak little English.

Rich people are waaaaay outnumbered.

Virtuous people are outnumbered.

Baptists are outnumbered.

Ministers, preachers, and bell-ringers, choir leaders, and ladies who prepare coffee in the basement for the congregation to enjoy after service are also each outnumbered.

So if you follow your own reasoning correctly, maybe all these people should go somewhere else, since the criteria to go is getting outnumbered.

"... And the lion will lie with the kid..."

Eventually all people and animals become herbavores, it seems. We might still fight for water and shrubbery, but there will be enough shrubberers (who sell shrubbery) for a while to keep up well supplied with shrubbery.

As the population of the world grows, the shurbbery prices will be driven up, which will mean a colossal economic collapse at one point, that will dwarve the Great Depression in monumental dimensions.

I believe @Gus Lamarch used it, I just quoted him. Please ask him instead of me, seeing it is his expression, not mine.

The enormous scale of the Universe cannot be compared. We like to pretend that we can achieve this greatness of it. — Gus Lamarch

Aha. Okay.

In all seriousness, I'm really confused about why an atheist would reside in or feel comfortable in and place like America. Wouldn't they be better served in a country that didn't care about or value the existence of God/Christianity and/or a country that didn't value the concept of God? — 3017amen

You're right about that. I surmise you'd opine, but I don't attribute the following to you, I only want to say that in my opinion you could say this: Atheists are better suited to the comfort of Hellfire, where they can freely mingle with their kindred spirits.

But wait! There is more!

Why did the first Europeans from Christian countries come to America? Would they not be more comfortable in their own countries, instead of trying to make a life in a continent full of heathens, who worshipped idols?

If you can answer that, you can answer why an atheist would come to America.

I was referring to humanity's stereotyped concept of projecting itself into the future and controlling the galaxy, bringing democracy to other species and being technologically highly evolved. The most plausible view today is that the entire contemporary society will collapse in the next 100 or 150 years and we will enter a new dark age. But you never know what the future can bring us; it can be much worse. — Gus Lamarch

Thanks. I agree on every point. How does that compare to the monumental dimensions of the Universe, though?

There is no promise, that a battery change wouldn't change your being. It is a large part of yourself as you may imagine. — Yozhura

No, sir, the battery won't change you. It is simply a power supply. What will change you is that you lose everything at the time of death; and the new you, that is, the body that the new battery brings to life, will have different experiences from the body you first had.

I don't know if you can see that. If not, I can explain.

At the monumental dimension of the Universe - whatever it is - we are nothing. — Gus Lamarch

Interesting. I always thought that at the monumental dimensions of the Universe, any finite object is nothing. But apparently it's just us? Others are not nothing, compared to the monumental dimensions of the Universe? Would be interesting to hear your point of view on that.

ou need someone else to change your battery, that is the reason we should always try to work together. By working together, you're increasing the chances of someone, whom you've benefited, to be there to change your battery for you, when the time is nigh. — Yozhura

Rght. But when you battery stops, do you get the same identity back when the new battery gets put in? Does your system not go back to factory condition?

It does not necessarily have to go back to that, but according to the metaphor the battery sustains life. Once life stops in you, it can't be restarted. Not in the case of humans, anyway. So... your body may be resurrected, but it will be a different person, and your memories, personality characteristics, abilities, etc. all might be different, not to mention that you won't have the same conscience.