Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[Alchemist]

I would say that mankind is born neither moral or immoral, but rather amoral. You are right that the capacity for both good and evil is there, but it is only through growing and learning that a child is exposed to morals, and learns what is right and wrong.

Another successful circular argument.

Child is born, grows and learns what is right and wrong but is amoral.

Born Child grows and learns morals.

Born amoral learns morals, grows good and evil.

Beautiful!

[ozymandias]

Another successful circular argument.

Child is born, grows and learns what is right and wrong but is amoral.

Free English lesson of the day: what you just said is gibberish. Amoral means, literally 'Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." If it has learned right and wrong, it is no longer amoral.

Born Child grows and learns morals.

Thanks for repeating exactly what was already stated by several other people.

Born amoral learns morals, grows good and evil.

I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean. I recognize the words, but it appears that you just selected them out of a hat, and placed them in your post in a random order. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is no coherent way to rearrange them that is *not* in fact, gibberish.

Beautiful!

Almost poetry, really.

[ScimitarXEdge]

lol Alchemist is getting humiliated by an infidel, I'm getting some snacks and watching the brutal pummeling, it's nice to not be the one obliterating Alchemist for change.

[Alchemist]

Free English lesson of the day: what you just said is gibberish. Amoral means, literally 'Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." If it has learned right and wrong, it is no longer amoral.

Thanks for repeating exactly what was already stated by several other people.



I can't even guess what this is supposed to mean. I recognize the words, but it appears that you just selected them out of a hat, and placed them in your post in a random order. In fact, I am pretty sure that there is no coherent way to rearrange them that is *not* in fact, gibberish.

Almost poetry, really.

What I was trying to tell you was that your original statement it self was gibberish, dear sir.


A child is born without care for morals, but then willfully learns what is right and what is wrong?

Isn't that circular?

Obviously a baby doesn't have the ability to think, but how can it know what is right or wrong, unless it has an innate sense of rightness or wrongness. Otherwise culture dictates what is right and what is wrong, and that too would be relative, and therefore, what is right for one, wrong for another, and all sense of morality would merely mean is "preference"...so really there either is such a thing as a right and wrong, or there isn't.

So really, if anyone pulled an argument out of a hat, it was you.

(Your cheerleader is affecting your judgement by sere

[ozymandias]

What I was trying to tell you was that your original statement it self was gibberish, dear sir.


A child is born without care for morals, but then willfully learns what is right and what is wrong?

Isn't that circular?

No one said they willfully learn -- they are taught. Even using your flawed description, how would that be circular? Everyone learns as they grow up -- that's part of growing up. How is 'learning' circular?

Obviously a baby doesn't have the ability to think, but how can it know what is right or wrong, unless it has an innate sense of rightness or wrongness.

The baby doesn't. That's the point.

Otherwise culture dictates what is right and what is wrong, and that too would be relative, and therefore, what is right for one, wrong for another, and all sense of morality would merely mean is "preference"...so really there either is such a thing as a right and wrong, or there isn't.

Correct. Morals are relative. Some people find it moral to suicide bomb. Others don't. Some find it moral to repress the rights of women. Some don't. Pretty simple, really.

So really, if anyone pulled an argument out of a hat, it was you.

Care to show me which argument came 'out of a hat' -- that was not *your argument*?

(Your cheerleader is affecting your judgement by sere

[Alchemist]

So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

[Soldat_Amir]

Let me know when I start, and I will try to stop.



What am I doing that is intolerant? Offering my opinion? Answering questions? Asking you to abide by the rules of this forum?

Or is it simply that I have an opinion different than yours?



You cannot use that as justification in an argument with a non-believer, though. You need to use something that is either agreed upon by both parties as true, or something that can be independently verified. I don't believe the Koran is anything other than a book, so claiming something is proven by the Koran carries no merit to me. Not only that, but anything that is true in the Koran would, by definition, be provable without the Koran.

She is making claims about all babies being born believers, and science shows her that she is wrong -- and it appears that even using the Koran, she is unable to prove her point, so let's move on.



A) Babies don't do *ANYTHING* in the womb, other than twitch around and wait for birth

B) Young infants are not much better -- they eat, sleep, and poop. That's about it.

C) Lack of sin does not prove belief. In order for a baby to believe in a god, they must first know about that god.



This may be true -- but does nothing to prove the child believed in anything prior to that.



Not at all. The kid not knowing about deities is the most logical thing to say.



That's not proof of anything. Your opinion is not *proof*. Do you not understand that idea? Especially when it appears your opinion is based on a poor understanding of the word 'belief'. Belief is not a state of sinlessness, it is a state of accepting something as true, which implies you know the facts, *AND* do not reject them.

Its very simple a child will become the result of its upbringing.

If a child from a Muslim country becomes an Orphan lets say in Palestine, and a European couple adopt him/her and they happen to be Christian, that child will be raised as a Christian regardless of its real parents religion.

No child is born a Muslim,Jew or Christian. The child develops its identity through its enviorment and upbringing.

Its a wrong to say a child is born a Muslim,Jew or Christian, there is a chance that child may become something else in the future, or not even believe in god as a whole.

The enviroment and culture contributes most towards the childs upbringing but that has nothing to do with the child being in his/her mothers womb.

When the child is in the Mothers womb, he/she is not exposed to anything outside, even after birth, there eyes open after some time, and find it difficult to communicate, how would they know if they are a Muslim, Jew or Christian.

The Quran is not logical fact. I do not intend to offend members here, but its a collection of stories,events and mythology taken from other past Ambrahmic faiths i.e Christianity,Judaism and Greek Mythology.

The Quran, has Arabised biblical prophets and one can see by the names...Ambraham/Ibrahim, Jesus/Musa etc.

Again I do not intend to offend members here, but talking jinns in form of snakes, angels that curse women at night, a flying man-mule(Baraq) and talking trees are not logical nor scienctific facts.

Its very dangerous to claim the Quran is fact especially when its in regards to science, as science has proven many times the fallacy of Christianity i.e men living in a fishes belly, Noah taking all the animals in the world onto one boat(Illogical Logistics) and Jesus being born to a Virgin mother(highly unlikely).

Religion should be respected on the context of its positive contribution towards family values etc however, Religion needs to be confined to the individual, not be broadcasted in any political matter.

Thanks

Again I do not intend to offend.

[Soldat_Amir]

So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

From birth no, a child is taught right from wrong, by observing its enviroment and how others react to situations.

If a boy is raised in Norway and is taught that fighting back will land you in prison, that boy would consider fighting back as wrong, while a boy in Palestine, will be taught, that fighting back is right.

The only thing a baby knows is to suckle its mothers nipple as it knows food will come out of it. The morals come later during their upbringing.

However, Morals change with time, for instance, women who voted were deemed immoral, now its a common practice, a child born with a disability such as downs syndrome was seen as immoral and corrupted, now its a moral duty to help such people with difficulities.

[graveyardofempires]

This Amir is trying to be offensive against muslims again.

should the staff not be doing their job?

[Tjanaparh]

What a child surely has is the capacity to believe! A child believes in an adults words as he is free of the ideas of lie.
To lie a child learns from the others ony later. That is why false education is the biggest crime!

[ozymandias]

So answer me this ...

Do humans have an innate sense of rightness or wrongness?

Clearly not, at least not in the sense of higher morals.

[ozymandias]

This Amir is trying to be offensive against muslims again.

should the staff not be doing their job?

You cannot say he is trying to be offensive, when all he has done is expressed an opinion different than yours. He very carefully stated his case in a very mild way in an effort not to offend.

[Shayesta]

Please refrain from putting up offensive comments, guys. Manena.

[ozymandias]

Anyone mind if I turn the tables for a second? What are people's opinions on murdering apostates? This article recently showed up on one of my RSS feeds:
Link

[goblin]

are you racist?