What is "more moral"?

immoral to WHO exactly?

I think science has revealed that the whole concept of morality is BS. We only really care about ourselves. There is only social and anti-social behaviors.

If you made the goal less likely to commit criminal acts and acts harmful to others, perhaps science could help develop technology, social structures, teaching methods, drugs and psychiatry to further this goal. But education alone does nothing unless it is put into action based on scientific facts.

Science -- specifically psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology -- can teach us how and why systems of morality exist, what morality is, and how our brains make moral decisions.  With this information, we can more accurately assess whether or not our "gut feelings" about the morality of a particular action are likely to coincide with the probable consequences of the action.  In other words, we are better qualified to separate our gut feelings from what is "really" the right thing to do.

Without understanding the scientific reality of morality, we are pretty much left in limbo.  Do the ends justify the means?  Is it ok to hurt someone if it helps later?  Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?  While there are no absolute answers to any of these questions, we can at least look at them within the context of human nature, instead of relying on artificial platitudes and blind philosophical attempts to create moral certitude.

I believe it's made me more moral.  As a simple example, I was bigoted against gays before I learned science.  When I learned that there is actually no reason to be bigoted against gays, I made the conscious decision to stop being so, and even though it took several years to deprogram myself, I can say honestly that I have pretty much completely accomplished the task.  So, yes.  I'm more moral than I used to be, and science education is directly responsible.

  I think that is an over-simplification CC.  I think the effects of simply being exposed to a different culture and/ or gaining knowledge about that culture are irrelevant regarding whether bigotry is a continued byproduct.  In certain instances the more familiar one becomes with a dissimilar group the more reasons are found to actually intensify that aversion.

  I am not suggesting that my perception of human nature necessarily invalidate your position, I am suggesting that positive effects of increased exposure is in no way a foregone conclusion and that sometimes the opposite effect is achieved.

I suppose we need to define morals to some extent and for the sake of it let's go with Dan Barker's "morality means not causing unnecessary harm".

So - does a knowledge of science help us to avoid causing unnecessary harm? Of course it does.

Consider that genetics allows us to prove that the differences between races are miniscule, that we are all direct descendants of a small group of forebears and a single concestor. 

The fact we are all in fact descended from the earliest single celled creatures and all travelers on spaceship Earth is an intensely bonding reality. 

There's there's repair of the ozone hole, the banning of leaded petrol, efforts to protect endangered species, the unraveling of diseases, feeding the starving, providing clean water and whatever

else scientific endeavour allows us to achieve in the way of avoiding harm.

So can science make a moral person more moral - ergo more caring, more tolerant, more open minded, more understanding? Can it arm them to do greater good?

It's a bit of a moot point, I think.

If you have a better and cleaner definition of the functionality of human morality that does not run along the lines "avoiding doing others harm in a social context" then let's hear it.

Morality is not meant to dive off into determining what harm is or why harm is bad. Nor should it determine who gets to define 'what is necessary'. That would be a doctrine.

As for killing people who pose a direct threat, that's something completely different.

The fact is, morality is personal and cultural. It is a characteristic of human social behaviour. There was morality before your lot invented god and it will be here after your god is long forgotten. 

As for us confirming the bible, given your one-eyed position eXni, some schmuck could blow you a kiss on the subway and it would "confirm the bible".

It's beautiful in a twisted way how every time he asserts that he confirms his god is false.

1 - To determine what is morally right or wrong, we must consult the Word of God and see what He expects from us in those areas.

2 - You can't use the word harm with any intent to explain something without defining the term...

3 - Oh is it? What if someone mistakes you as a direct threat based on the way you look, IE: Black skin, etc.

4 - You only say that, you don't actually believe that... I think we would agree that raping children for fun is universally wrong, and if not, what an indictment of your character.

To everyone: I am only going to respond to questions and rebuttals of my statements, not opinions or ad homs.

This, pretty much.  The term morality is too ambiguous.  Parts of traditional morality are even harmed by science, like sex morality.

However, if you are just trying to ask whether or not science can make a society a better place (and define 'better') then yes, it can.

"1: Your point is laughable. You are claiming the source of all human morality ever is the christian bible? I will not debate your point any further."

Reply: You will not because you cannot. There is no morality outside of the standard that God has set in place.

“2: You can't use the word god with any intent to explain something without defining the term. And while you're at it, define spirit, too.”

Reply: The Word of God is the very words of God himself, specifically His revelation as found in the 66 books called the Bible. Spirit is a personal term, please be more specific. For instance, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of a dead man are vastly different.

“3: Harming others is harming others. It doesn't consider issues of mistaken identity. A definition of morality does not take into account extenuating circumstances. That would be the role of a magistrate or a jury of peers.”

Reply: Why is harm bad?

“4. Morality is cultural despite the fact it is bound by general social mores that are based on looking after yourself, your family, your people and by extension, all people. “

Reply: I believe I've shown this to be false. The moral culture of Nazi Germany and the death camps that were a part of it were morally wrong, even for them and if you disagree, I’ll let that speak for itself.

“Once morality ignored the environment. Once morality ignored indigenous people and counted them as savages and brutes. Once children could be beaten furiously for their own good. Once a people could be enslaved. “

Reply: Untrue. Sinful men disregarded the standard of morality, and these things were a result.

"Once innocent women in their tens of thousands were burned at the stake for witchcraft. That was in the 1600s, eXni. Who presided over the burnings? The priests. Consider that for a moment. Burned at the stake - for nothing."

Reply: You shouldn’t even look at casualties from atheists because they outnumber Christians 1,000 to one, at least. Consider Stalin, Mao, Pol Pott, Castro, etc. The Bible says not to kill so when the priest burned someone at the stake they were in direct conflict with God's commands... when the atheist dictators set up death camps there is no moral standard to violate, so they aren't going against anything except the opinions of the men, women, and children being slaughtered...

As far as I know you are about 9,850 people and 300 years off with your witch burning figures unless there is a massive list of witch-burnings that I missed, which I admit is certainly possible. I agree that if it was only 30, it would have been 30 too many. Let me know.

"In some societies women are murdered for kissing a man out of wedlock. Why don't you spend some time explaining to me the cultural and historical variations of the word morality that do not include the morality impressed on you by your upbringing in a blessed and  enlightened nation, in a blessed and enlightened age."

Reply: Morality is not subject to culture or history, it’s subject to God.

Finally eXni - why is it that time after time, when christians discuss morality, they don't bring up bad driving or giving the wrong change, or not visiting an aging parent in the nursing home - the sorts of wrongs that fill the typical human catalogue. No, you christians focus on the sick stuff.  What is it with the christian fixation with murder, deviant sex and rape? Your repellent conclusion to point 4 should have been left in the mucky confines of your own head.

Reply: With all due respect, it's hard to get anyone to admit the standards of morality until we go as far as rape and murder. We live in an incredibly relativistic world. The most recent atheist I spoke with in public even confessed that if she was raped we should not prosecute the man who did it... she would disagree with his actions, but because he wasn't objectively wrong he should not be punished... and another said we should reform the legal system to avoid allocating blame to people at all…

 You can keep that repellent conclusion in the worldview of atheism because thank God it's not compatible with His expectations...
 

Exactly.  I mentioned this earlier, but he never addressed it.  When all you have to sort truth from fiction is your own interpretation of a single, non externally verified source, how in the world can you navigate reality?  And what could possibly make your claims any better than the rest of humanity that holds opposite beliefs for the same reason?

I don't see how a Christian can say the Muslims are all wrong, or the Mormons, or the Jews, or anyone.  They all say the exact same thing when defending their faith and the only people who believe their holy books are the people who already drank the Kool-aid.  The whole thing is incredibly circular.

Then you point this out and he says logic is circular too, which is disingenuous, or at least ignorant.  It is like he relies on logic and rational thought right up to the point where it doesn't confirm his bias, then he happily chucks it aside and embraces madness and superstition as a solution without any thought toward the consequences.

Nup.

P1. If you would not desire to have someone visit A upon you then A is "bad".

P1a. definition of bad = having undesirable qualities.

P2. One should not do that which is bad (non-contradiction) ie ~(bad and ~bad)

Conclusion: The "golden rule" is a tautology, the most rudimentary level of logical consistency is quite sufficient to determine morality. 

I don't notice anything missing. But then I go through so many topics I might remember it wrong.

Did I say fuck?

There is no morality within Christianity, merely demands that we follow prescriptive laws, with extreme carrot-ant-stick promises to reinforce the message. That isn't even as fair and just as modern legal systems, which have weighing of evidence, formal appeal systems, and at least nominally proportionate punishment.

There is also a serious problem with tying ethical systems to old beliefs, since even if those ethical systems have merit, they are likely to be discredited by association when the myths, such as Genesis, are shown to have no ground in reality.

Oh man, Bob's going to walk all over that one. Where the hell is my popcorn...

*yawn*

Absolute morality is not necessary for such abstract concepts nor is it even necessarily sufficient. The Bible is a compilation of religious myths that contradicts observable reality. There is no evidence for the existence "souls," and it is nonsensical considering our knowledge of neuroscience.