Conscientious Alternative to Mormonism

[_mikwut]

MCB,

I am not Mormon.

mikwut

[_MCB]

MCB,

I am not Mormon.

mikwut

That is not an inherent part of the issue under discussion. The issue is whether there is an objectively defined code of ethics without religious beliefs. And I believe that some people who claim to be agnostic can do quite well.

However, I do get confused about who is and who isn't at times.

[_sock puppet]

Sock,

Because individuals have intrinsic value, period.

Just because you say so?

For me, yes. Certainly not because somebody else tries to convince me it is what a mythical, all powerful being wants.

And additionally as to torturing babies for pleasure, suffering torture as a 'societal' cost always outweighs the societal 'benefit' of the pleasure of another, particularly one whose pleasure depends on someone's suffering.

I am not asking about laws or societal 'benefits' however you define value for that, I am questioning individual duty to be moral.

You look outside yourself to a 'god' for morality, I look outside myself to society and societal dynamics for morality. Your presumptive arrogance is again evident in your diss'ing my external source but assuming your own external source is beyond reproach.

A god is not necessary for morality.

The issue is what morality without him?

mikwut

All morality is without a mythical being. You may choose for yourself to ascribe it to some external source, but you choose your own code of conduct.

[_KevinSim]

How about simply living life?

How about doing good simply because you want to do so? Rather than hoping some fictitious being loves you more for doing good?

I think simply living life, and doing good simply "because you want to do so" are great ideas.

Life is a one time roller coaster ride. Stop looking down and dwelling on what the end of the ride will be like and what the exit experience will entail.

Lift up your head, feel the warm sun on your face, the cool wind in your hair.

Lifting "up your head," feeling "the warm sun on your face, the cool wind in your hair" are also great ideas.

But "dwelling on what the end of the ride will be like and what the exit experience will entail" has nothing to do with the issues I'm concerned with. People seem to think that God's whole role is to handle the end of our ride, and "what the exit experience will entail." That seems like an extremely limited view of God's role.

Simply living life, doing good because one wants to, lifting up one's head, feeling the warm sun on one's face, the cool wind in one's hair are all good things to do for the short term. What about the long term? Do we owe anything to future generations of humanity, whether or not our descendants are among those future generations?

I think the problem is very much a limited view of God's role. For me God is that being (or completely united group of beings) that knows how to preserve some good things into the eternities, and is acting (with or without us) to preserve some of those good things into the eternities.

It'd be nice if part of what God did was promise some of us a pleasant afterlife, but in my opinion that's not an essential part of God's role.

So I guess the question is, is there a forever preserver like the one I described there? Is there someone who knows how to preserve forever some good things, and who is actively preserving forever some good things? If there is, then I think people with consciences should start working for that forever preserver, should join in in the cause of preserving some good things, in the interest of the long-term welfare of the human race.

On the other hand, if there isn't such a forever preserver, does that relieve conscientious people from the responsibility of working toward meeting the needs of future generations? Or does the fact that nobody is working toward meeting those needs make it even more important that we take a whack at them?

[_KevinSim]

The conscientious alternative to Mormonism being true is Mormonism being false. Once one realises that, living life becomes less about assuaging internal guilt and more about living a Christlike life.

Why should conscientious people live a Christlike life?

Personally, I think living a Christlike life is also a great idea, but that's because I'm LDS. If I were to take the conscientious alternative you suggested, and conclude that Mormonism is false, then why would my conscience motivate me to live a Christlike life?

[_KevinSim]

Save a few who are classified as psychopathic, it's hard to imagine a person without a conscience. What do the 6,000,000,000 minus 14,000,000 do? How have they gotten by without a prophet dictating an ethical code by which to live?

Answer that question, and you will have your answer.

It's one thing to think one is doing what one's conscience requires, and quite another thing to actually be doing what one's conscience requires.

[_Themis]

It is absurd to claim it works out the same - it is two completely different ontological categories.

They (moral truths or illusions) are reality based, either through the process of evolution or by a creator.

My issue raised is that if they are merely (I mean by that 'only' and not instead of - they are products of evolution) the products of the process of evolution why are we or I duty bound to follow the prescripts of morality?

Well for one different groups can have different moralities. You said it yourself as well that both evolution or a creator will still give us people who feel duty bound to certain moralities that people seem to agree with. The only difference I see is that one has it coming from a creator and is somehow absolute or from evolutionary processes. It seems from the Christian God POV it is the light of Christ idea, but it still works out to the same, although many do have differences about what is moral or immoral. I wonder if that means the evolutionary process is the more likely.

[_Themis]

Why should conscientious people live a Christlike life?

Personally, I think living a Christlike life is also a great idea, but that's because I'm LDS. If I were to take the conscientious alternative you suggested, and conclude that Mormonism is false, then why would my conscience motivate me to live a Christlike life?

The ideas of Christlike life are not solely Christian, and don't need religion, LDS or other, to live that way. We do so for many other reasons. I think MCB's earlier post may be the best one in this thread.

[_Drifting]

Why should conscientious people live a Christlike life?

Personally, I think living a Christlike life is also a great idea, but that's because I'm LDS. If I were to take the conscientious alternative you suggested, and conclude that Mormonism is false, then why would my conscience motivate me to live a Christlike life?

The ideas of Christlike life are not solely Christian, and don't need religion, LDS or other, to live that way. We do so for many other reasons. I think MCB's earlier post may be the best one in this thread.

Kevin, I know it is very hard for Mormons to accept that there are far more people out there living Christlike lives without the influence of Christain religion than those with it. But it is a fact. The fornicating, drug taker who volunteers down the homeless shelter three nights a week is in better standing with God than most Mormons doing the funny handshakes down the temple once or twice a month.

[Guest]

Hello sock,

You look outside yourself to a 'god' for morality, I look outside myself to society and societal dynamics for morality.

I claim God can provide a creation and by his nature provide for the nature of morality that goes deeper and beyond a social framework created by humans. When you say "I look outside myself to society and societal dynamics for morality" that's fine, but don't twist language to also claim that that somehow provides a brute intrinsic value to persons, it doesn't. Intrinsic means belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing. You claim by your statement above that society provides whatever value you are following and it is simply constructed by society. Society has provided in history manifold different value systems and constructions so we know that the societal frameworks aren't intrinsic to persons. You also don't understand what most believers, by that I mean mature believers (not the carrot and stick straw men you utilized previously) mean by God. If you think it correlates 1 - 1 with society your just misinformed.

Your presumptive arrogance is again evident in your diss'ing my external source but assuming your own external source is beyond reproach.

What arrogance, that is just plain silly. And why care anyway. God by definition is beyond reproach that is descriptive not arrogant. I am not 'diss'ing' your external source I making sure that it is categorized appropriately. You are the one failing to provide proper description. Being properly descriptive isn't the same thing as 'diss'ing'.

My original post quoted Nietzche in describing unbelievers just like you as those who take the Christian morals and pretend like there isn't the least inconsistency, “Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities” and that "There are no moral facts." Throughout our conversation you seem to be proving that correct at least for you - you just don't come right out and say it for some reason we have to squeeze it out of you and parse definitions. Society creates morals for you, fair enough, so they aren't facts they are societal constructions. What part of my initial post is it your finding fault with? The societal construction is a fact, but the moral duty is not - it is no different than fashion or politics, or the Mormon church for that matter - created by men and foisted on you, and you decide to follow it. But you aren't duty bound ontologically, metaphysically, or theologically or anything - you just go with the flow of society. It is at least worth pointing out that irony exists that the false reality of the Mormon church is so easily stated and recognized but the thoughtful reflection doesn't further itself to morals which aren't just said to be 'realities which are no realities'.

Let me also point out, this is a quote from my original post, "The author of the OP can surely correct me but by the second quote I understand one who accepts the dictates of conscience as not mere illusion and social creation" - You haven't disagreed with me, I really think you are just reading things into my posts that aren't there.

mikwut