Can someone create an objective moral code apart from God?

[severntofall]

exactly why do you find them to be proof of nothing, do you know of something physical which is self creating?

and i would say that there simplicity is indicative of their truth.

Taking you predisposition to believe in a god out of the equation for a second, do you know of anything that isn’t physical?

As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, one of two things happens to be the case: A) The universe exists in and of itself or B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some other dimension that has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe. Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible; however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have happened; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative. On the other hand, as an agnostic I do neither. I confess that I don’t know and acknowledge that our universe could conceivably have a creator; however, it is worth noting that even if this creator exists he/she/it is almost certainly not the absurdly ridiculous god of the bible.

 

[selylidne]

(I didn’t read the whole thread. Apologies for redundancy.)

Of course one can create an objective moral code that does not explicitly require God. As Catholics, we shouldn’t be surprised at that, because the Church teaches it. We call it the “natural law”, which more or less says that the world is designed in such a way that includes morality, and we can figure out moral guidelines by examining ourselves and the world. The only connection to God is that God is the one who designed us and the world to be the way we are.

 

[severntofall]

There are clues that point toward theism. For instance; All healthy minded people experience a capacity for guilt, which is activated when we are given reason to believe that something about our behavior is immoral. Though it is true that one can be deceived about right and wrong, we all have a basic understanding of it. We universally agree and take for granted that there is such a thing as right, wrong, honor and virtue. Thus the mere fact that we have a moral conscience would suggest that there is such a thing as an objective wrong despite a universal disagreement about what that might be. It seems a rather bizzare coincidence that among the other senses we have a sense of guilt which, like the others, coincides with an objective reality, more specifically with that aspect of reality concerning our “free choices”. It seems to me that we have a “sixth sense”. Its called a “moral conscience”.

The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today. Of course, not all of our “urges” conform to the accepted Christian notion of morality. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins (or however many there are now), they each stems from our innate tendency to “sin”; our internal tendency to fall short of what your god demands of us.
MindOverMatter;4754518:

Guilt and ones belief that our sense of moral law infers and objective truth about human behavior has stopped many great evils so that you can enjoy an environment in which people infer intrinsic value on people. An environment that you take for granted.

To the uneducated, such an inference may seem the case, but a modest understanding of the truths of evolution quickly and easily provide an alternative the theist’s favorite explanation pro panton: “god did it”.

The fact is, most of the freedoms we enjoy is based on a belief in transcendental ethics. If people avoid wrong, they avoid it because they believe that their behavior is truly wrong and thus they cannot stand to be wrong. The atheist is the same, accept they hold these ethical beliefs irrationally.

There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

When they are forced to see the irrationality of it, rather then accept the inference of Gods existence, they choose to disbelieve in moral truth altogether. Now imagine a world where people no longer infer those values on people; such is the danger of promoting naturalism;

This is a completely different argument all together. Now, I’ve already briefly explained just how it is that morality could and did develop via Darwinian methods, but now you’re arguing that there are frightful consequences to “a world where people no longer infer those values on people”. Perhaps, but as you’ve already asserted these values are intrinsic and God given; so how could such a thing actually occur if your theory is correct.

and even more foolish is such an endeavor when we have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view.

We have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view in much the same manner as we have no evidence as to the existence of the sun. In truth, what we have no evidence of is the existence of a god. Now, a god may very well exist, but I see no evidence of that fact.

I find it quite disturbing that people would want to promote it. Perhaps they believe naturalism provides certain freedoms that they would not have in a strictly moral climate?

No, we promote naturalism for two reasons: A) it is in fact the truth and accepting that fact just makes sense; B) we’ve seen the “benefits” of religion and quite frankly we wish to have nothing more to do with it. We’ve seen the Jihads and crusades, the witch burnings and the hatred of knowledge that comes with a belief in a god and we’ve had enough. We believe (and evidence seems to confirm this) that a superior morality (i.e. a morality in which life is actually respected and treated with compassion) comes in the absence of a god. Mankind’s greatest hope lies not in our superstitions, but in science and knowledge.Again, the claim that evolution explains nothing is a claim made in ignorance. Evolution can and has explained everything that you have just suggested it does not; you just have to be willing to open your mind to the truth.

 

[buffalo]

The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today. Of course, not all of our “urges” conform to the accepted Christian notion of morality. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins (or however many there are now), they each stems from our innate tendency to “sin”; our internal tendency to fall short of what your god demands of us.

To the uneducated, such an inference may seem the case, but a modest understanding of the truths of evolution quickly and easily provide an alternative the theist’s favorite explanation pro panton: “god did it”.

There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

This is a completely different argument all together. Now, I’ve already briefly explained just how it is that morality could and did develop via Darwinian methods, but now you’re arguing that there are frightful consequences to “a world where people no longer infer those values on people”. Perhaps, but as you’ve already asserted these values are intrinsic and God given; so how could such a thing actually occur if your theory is correct.

We have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view in much the same manner as we have no evidence as to the existence of the sun. In truth, what we have no evidence of is the existence of a god. Now, a god may very well exist, but I see no evidence of that fact.

No, we promote naturalism for two reasons: A) it is in fact the truth and accepting that fact just makes sense; B) we’ve seen the “benefits” of religion and quite frankly we wish to have nothing more to do with it. We’ve seen the Jihads and crusades, the witch burnings and the hatred of knowledge that comes with a belief in a god and we’ve had enough. We believe (and evidence seems to confirm this) that a superior morality (i.e. a morality in which life is actually respected and treated with compassion) comes in the absence of a god. Mankind’s greatest hope lies not in our superstitions, but in science and knowledge.Again, the claim that evolution explains nothing is a claim made in ignorance. Evolution can and has explained everything that you have just suggested it does not; you just have to be willing to open your mind to the truth.

Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

 

[severntofall]

Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

You know, that’s a great question, not stupid or pointless at all. Thanks for asking it. I don’t know, the answer, cause Lord knows, we atheists just loves killin other atheists.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Taking you predisposition to believe in a god out of the equation for a second,

im not sure what you mean here?

do you know of anything that isn’t physical?

why yes i do, the first cause.

as nothing physical can cause itself, that means that the first cause **must necessarily **be non-physical.

as such, the existence of the physical is the proof of the non-physical.

As far as the origin of the universe is concerned, one of two things happens to be the case: A) The universe exists in and of itself or

everything requires a cause. unless you know of some reason that the universe should be different, it does too.

B) there exists or existed a non-physical entity that resides in some other dimension that has or had both the ability and desire to create our universe.

why do you feel the only other possibility is accurately described as a non-physical being in another dimension?

1. dimension is a quality of physicality
2. dimension is a quality of our universe.

so this other dimension in which your non-physical being resides, is self creating?

already you violate causality in your premise

Now, based upon our experiences and observations, both are completely impossible;

self causation is logically impossible, while a non-physical cause is the only possible first cause for the observable universe

however one of them had to have happened. If one denies one of these possibilities based upon the fact that it could not (to our knowledge) have happened; then they must affirm an equally impossible alternative.

self causation is impossible, true. but your alternative the “non-physical being” relies on its dimension to be self creating.

On the other hand, as an agnostic I do neither. I confess that I don’t know and acknowledge that our universe could conceivably have a creator; however,

the only logical possibility is the non-physical cause. even your idea of the cosmological options, posits self creation, stated differently, on both counts.

it is worth noting that even if this creator exists he/she/it is almost certainly not the absurdly ridiculous god of the bible.

i am interested in your reasoning for this assertion. why do you think that?

 

[flaming_hito]

Of course we can have an objective moral code without God. Just look at the Bible. I’d like to think that no one here thinks menstruating women are cursed, has slaves, marries their brother’s widow (if you’re male), etc.

We view the Bible like we view everything else - through the objective moral code we’ve amassed independent from religion over the centuries. The Bible means something different now than it did 1000 years ago, because we’re no longer racist and sexist (I hope).

 

[severntofall]

im not sure what you mean here?

I mean, that if you don’t start with the assumption that a god exists, can you think of anything that is not physical.

why yes i do, the first cause.

as nothing physical can cause itself, that means that the first cause **must necessarily **be non-physical.

as such, the existence of the physical is the proof of the non-physical.

There is at least one exception to your claim that nothing physical can cause itself; that of course being the universe itself. True our experiences (apart from this one example) indicate that nothing physical can cause itself (apart from the universe), but our experiences also indicate that everything that does exist is physical. Based upon our experiences, the existence of a non-physical being is no less improbable than a universe that has just always existed. For the record, I’m not saying that you’re wrong; I’m merely saying that your solution to the question “why do we exist” is just as impossible than that of the atheists.

everything requires a cause. unless you know of some reason that the universe should be different, it does too.

Ultimately, something exists without a cause, be that god or the universe. It is no more absurd to believe that the universe might exist without a cause, than it is to believe that a being (your god) could exist without a cause.

why do you feel the only other possibility is accurately described as a non-physical being in another dimension?

1. dimension is a quality of physicality
2. dimension is a quality of our universe.

so this other dimension in which your non-physical being resides, is self creating?

already you violate causality in your premise

First of all, by “some other dimension”, I meant to imply a reality separate from ours. I’m not sure that there is actually a word for that. Since a being responsible for the creation of our universe could not at the same time be from our universe, it would have to exist in a reality separate from our own; that is what I was attempting the describe with the word dimension. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but at the same time I’m not sure which word would have worked better. Ultimately, this first cause of yours would owe it’s existence to itself which, to all of our experiences, is as impossible as a universe doing the same.

self causation is logically impossible, while a non-physical cause is the only possible first cause for the observable universe

Self causation is no more impossible than is a non-physical existence. Clearly one of these two impossibilities must be true.

the only logical possibility is the non-physical cause. even your idea of the cosmological options, posits self creation, stated differently, on both counts.

I agree, that was my point.

i am interested in your reasoning for this assertion. why do you think that?

It’s inconceivable to me that a being with the wisdom and power to create an entire universe could at the same time being the hate and rage filled, genocidal, hell-casting, jealous freak the bible describes him as. Seriously, out of respect for god (if it exists) I would never think so poorly of it to believe that the bible paints an accurate picture of it’s character.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today. Of course, not all of our “urges” conform to the accepted Christian notion of morality. It’s a known fact that most humans (particularly males of our species) routinely experience lustful urges to engage in carnal acts with the immediate objects of our desires, and these urges give no consideration to the “morality” of their existence or to whether or not the object of our desires is our spouse. Christian theologians have acknowledged early on our “evil” and innate lusts. In fact, look at all of the seven deadly sins (or however many there are now), they each stems from our innate tendency to “sin”; our internal tendency to fall short of what your god demands of us.

Social Darwinian fallacy

For the sake of those who are easy to deceive, i must point out this fact. Nothing in this quote explains why we have “guilt”. It merely asserts that by having guilt, this allows us to comprehend objective moral values. (Nobody has argued against this). The author of this quote then goes on to couple the existence of guilt with the theory of evolution. But the theory of evolution only explains why certain behaviors and qualities survive “natural selection”. It does not explain why they exist.
Severntofall says that we have guilt ultimately “because” of the evolutionary process. But if you have an understanding of evolution and*** logic***, one would know that evolution is just a ***process ***through which pre-existing elements and potentialities are recognized and organized by various factors. Various qualities, capacities and potentialities are “activated” when certain complex 3-dimensional patterns in space-time are achieved; and the evolutionary process is merely the organizing principle of that achievement. However; it is not the "ultimate creator" of any emergent property, potentiality or quality that we find in the universe; and before we can explain why those qualities ultimately exist, we must first understand that we can only find such an explanation in the ultimate cause of all physical reality as a “dimensional whole”. Thus, evolution it is not an explanation of why people feel guilty when they do wrong.

The naturalist commits a fallacy when he say that such and such exists because it is useful. But by doing this the naturalist infers purpose in the universe, which is contradictory to his or her position.

You obviously have not comprehended one word that i have said, because you to busy trying to free yourself from your responsibility to God.

 

[kesa82]

The existence of a moral conscience can be and has been explained in completely evolutionist terms. Obviously, if we were each sociopaths (i.e. unrestrained in our willingness to inflict harm and death upon our fellow humans) that would undeniably have a tremendous and negative impact upon our survivability as a species. The fact that 90% of us have an innate urge not to inflict harm upon our neighbors can not only be explained in Darwinian terms, but can best be explained in Darwinian terms. Certainly you can admit that a species that co-exists peacefully and works collaboratively has a better chance of survival than a species that preys upon itself. Guilt would be just one of the mechanisms through which this reality is accomplished. A willingness to act for the betterment for one’s entire culture or species cannot help but to have improved our chances of surviving, and these facts remain relevant even today.

Granted, I am not a ph.d in psychology, but this seems to completely contradict my observed experience. As I said before, one is as likely to meet a sociopath in the halls of power as in a prison. ( yes, I have had occasion to socialize with emminent persons, AND I have been in prison. )
Sociopaths do NOT all become serial killers, rapists, kleptomaniacs or drug addicts. ( psychologists don’t say that? Perhaps because psychologists aren’t paid to render judgements of the people who sighn their paychecks? ) At least some are high-functioning and quite adaptive. I.e. they are not complete fools. Conscience is not necessary to success and/or survivability IN THIS LIFE. But then, according to evolutionary biology, what is survivability? Show me the one species which, according to evolutionary biology, has a LONG TERM prospect of survival greater than ZERO?

 

[kesa82]

Let me try to simplify things. If conscience is a survival adaptation for this life, then why do so many bad people wind up on Wall Street and Lake Shore Drive, and why do so many good people wind up on skid row or dead ( and childless ) of self-emolation on battlefields?

 

[MindOverMatter]

T
“god did it”.

Any non-prejudiced person who bothers to study evolutionary theory in a standard unbiased objective text book, rather then hear it dictated to them by popular naturalists, will quickly realize the fallacy of your position. Evolution does not provide an alternative to God.

There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

I never said that is was. I said that it is irrational to bring people in to a world that is meaningless purposeless and is full of potential suffering, evil and the fear of an inevitable and permanent death. Child birth in a world without God, is the most selfish act that one could commit. The sterilization of the human race is the most merciful act.

This is a completely different argument all together. Now, I’ve already briefly explained just how it is that morality could and did develop via Darwinian methods,

No you did not. You just made assertions, that only somebody who is not educated will be fooled by.

but now you’re arguing that there are frightful consequences to “a world where people no longer infer those values on people”. Perhaps, but as you’ve already asserted these values are intrinsic and God given; so how could such a thing actually occur if your theory is correct.

If God does not exist, then nothing is God given or necessarily intrinsic. Everything is permissible. Once people take seriously the notion that morality is a lie; there will be very little to challenge moral descent. While it is true that environment can encourage moral behavior; most people avoid wrong because they really think that it is wrong; they think its true.

We have no evidence to support a naturalistic world view in much the same manner as we have no evidence as to the existence of the sun.

We have scientific evidence that the sun exists (Unless you plan to challenge the scientific establishment on that fact?). We have no evidence that physical reality is the only reality that exists. It is impossible to know that even if it is true. Naturalism is just a popular belief, desired by those who want to re-create the world in there own image.

In truth, what we have no evidence of is the existence of a god.

We have no empirical evidence, because that is impossible. But we do have logical proofs and probability inferences of Gods existence.

Now, a god may very well exist, but I see no evidence of that fact.

You see no empirical evidence of God, much like everyone else. You simply choose to ignore the other kinds of evidence, because you do not want God to exist.

No, we promote naturalism for two reasons: A) it is in fact the truth and accepting that fact just makes sense.

That is a lie. You accept naturalism because it pleases you to believe in it.

B) we’ve seen the “benefits” of religion and quite frankly we wish to have nothing more to do with it.

You do not see the beauty of God that i see. In fact you refuse to see it, because it does not serve your self invented purpose.

We believe (and evidence seems to confirm this) that a superior morality (i.e. a morality in which life is actually respected and treated with compassion) comes in the absence of a god.

There is no proof of this what-so-ever; this is just what you would like to believe.

We’ve seen the Jihads and crusades, the witch burnings and the hatred of knowledge that comes with a belief in a god and we’ve had enough.

And as for religion being evil; this is just a popular fallacy that does not take in to account that human beings regardless of there affiliations commit evils, and sometimes great ones. The have not shown why the faith its self is evil.

Mankind’s greatest hope lies not in our superstitions, but in science and knowledge.

This is just a belief; a superstition. You have not proven to any degree that God is just a superstition. Neither have you shown why the knowledge of science will make people choose good rather then evil. You cling to science because you think that it relieves you of your responsibility to God.

Again, the claim that evolution explains nothing is a claim made in ignorance.

The claim that evolution explains everything is a claim made in ignorance.

Evolution can and has explained everything that you have just suggested it does not; you just have to be willing to open your mind to the truth.

You have just made so many assertions, that i doubt you even know the arguments put forward for your position. What evidence do you have that supports this claim?

It is you who is not willing to open up you mind to the fallacy of your position. You are just parroting your favorite atheists.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

look at what actually happens when soceities are given the oppurtunity to practice a morality seperate from G-d, you get the holocaust, mengeles’ experiments, stalins collectivisation, Maos’ cultural revolution. pol pots killing fields. etc. these societies alone have had more than a 100 million deaths in the last century.

there is no actual morality seperate from G-d, because man, no matter culture, language, or ethnicity, can and will justify anything

though i keep hearing atheists talk about some morality apart from G-d, when it is applied in the real world, you get genocide.

all you have to do is look at recent history to see the evidence.

And look what happens when they are ruled by Christian ethics http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/sick/sick_3.gif​

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is at least one exception to your claim that nothing physical can cause itself; that of course being the universe itself.

now your saying that the universe can cause itself again, which violates causality.

unless you are saying that there is some mechanism by which something physical can cause itself i fail to see how the universe is special in that regard

True our experiences (apart from this one example) indicate that nothing physical can cause itself (apart from the universe), but our experiences also indicate that everything that does exist is physical

your confusing the phenomenon that we are capable of sensing, with what exists. under this idea radiation doesn’t exist because we cant directly sense it. yet we know from logical inference from other phenomenon that it does exist.

Based upon our experiences, the existence of a non-physical being is no less improbable than a universe that has just always existed.

an eternal universe violates all we know of physics and cosmology, i.e the big bang, heat death, etc.

I’m merely saying that your solution to the question “why do we exist” is just as impossible than that of the atheists.

as of yet the core of your arguments have been that something physical can create itself. this time you simply attempt to exclude the universe.

Ultimately, something exists without a cause

really? anything physical, including the universe ( as it is physical), needs a cause.

that leaves only the non-physical as a possible first cause

be that god or the universe

.

from scientific observation we know that it cannot be the universe.

from thomistic proof, (nothing physical can cause itself) we can be assured that only a non-physical cause can qualify as the first cause

It is no more absurd to believe that the universe might exist without a cause, than it is to believe that a being (your god) could exist without a cause.

as the universe is physical, it is as absurd to say that the universe caused itself, as to say a rock caused itself.

a non-physical being is not in the chain of physical or temporal causality. if it were, then acting as a physical object it would be incapable of self creation.

that argument simply assumes the same qualities of substance to a non-physical first cause as is to physical things themselves.

if the first cause had those qualities, it could not be a first cause.
nothing physical can cause itself.

further, time begins at the big bang. prior to that causality is meaningless.

First of all, by “some other dimension”, I meant to imply a reality separate from ours. Since a being responsible for the creation of our universe could not at the same time be from our universe,

1. the act of creation is seperate from the beginning of physical laws and time by roughly 1x10(-35) seconds.
2. time is only applicable within the physical confines of our universe, as it began after creation.

i like to think of it like a fish looking up at the surface of a pond, someone dabbles his finger against the pond and the fish sees only the ripples not the finger.

the finger is not part of the pond.

it would have to exist in a reality separate from our own; that is what I was attempting the describe with the word dimension.

why do you keep assigning the non physical first cause with the properties of matter derived from the physical laws of this universe?

why does the non-physical first cause need a ‘place’ to exist?
its not physical, it has no height,depth, or width. those are concepts that keep assigning physical qualities to what must necessarily be non-physical.

Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but at the same time I’m not sure which word would have worked better. Ultimately, this first cause of yours would owe it’s existence to itself which, to all of our experiences, is as impossible as a universe doing the same.

more assigning of physicality to what logically be non-physical.

Self causation is no more impossible than is a non-physical existence. Clearly one of these two impossibilities must be true.

self causation is impossible in the physical universe. non-physical existence is a logical inference from the law of causality and the existence of the observable physical universe.

much the same way we can infer the existence of any number of unsensable phenomenon from sensable observations.

nothing physical can cause itself, leaving only the non-physical as first cause. it can be no other way.

It’s inconceivable to me that a being with the wisdom and power to create an entire universe could at the same time being the hate and rage filled, genocidal, hell-casting, jealous freak the bible describes him as. Seriously, out of respect for god (if it exists) I would never think so poorly of it to believe that the bible paints an accurate picture of it’s character.

this is the true root of most atheist belief, you insist on holding G-d to what you believe is moral. yet you cant change the color of one hair on your head, nor can you ever know or understand even the barest wisp of all there is to know.

yet, because you do not understand the purposes and reasons of G-d you think He must not be.

the bible uses the analogy of the sheep and shepherd for a reason

does a sheep understand being sheared, vaccinated, tagged or culled?

no, it doesn’t understand anything but the pain involved.

does it understand that the Shepherd has his own purposes? no

how can the sheep turn to the shepherd and expect the Shepherd to behave in a manner more pleasing to the sheep?

so until you know all that G-d knows, maybe you should withhold your opinion.

after all the Shepherd doesn’t ask the sheep for advice.

 

[kesa82]

And look what happens when they are ruled by Christian ethics http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/sick/sick_3.gif​

Umm, 1-20th the genocide??? I-200th less micromanagement of our individual and collective lives?

I suppose you’ll say though that peeing into a cup isn’t a blatant assualt on human dignity, that a polygraph doesn’t amount to psychic rape.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I suppose you’ll say though that peeing into a cup isn’t a blatant assualt on human dignity, that a polygraph doesn’t amount to psychic rape.

If i took a dump in somebody coffee and made them watch. Would that be immoral?
I was just wondering.

 

[Nepenthe]

If you forced them to, of course it would be immoral!

Now, if you asked, and they said ‘Hee, sure, go ahead!’, nope. To my mind, it’d be a waste of coffee, but hey, I like sugar and milk in my coffee, and if someone really likes cafe avec le poo…welp, to each their own.

After all, coffee beans that have gone through the digestive system of a certain other mammal are very expensive and considered a delicacy by many - so…

 

[MindOverMatter]

There’s nothing irrational about the knowledge that one’s greatest hope to live a happy and peaceful life is to live in a happy and peaceful world.

Sorry i miss quoted this before.

After reading some of your posts, It seems to me that you have accepted that moral values are not real, but you are willing to promote the fallacy of values, in order to feel comfortable. In other words you are willing to promote lies such as the idea that killing and raping is wrong. Am i correct?

In other words, you are happy to live in a fantasy if it serves your interests. Your happy to dogmatically condemn others for behavior you do not agree with. Not because of logic; but because of feelings. What gives you the right then to ridicule those who do believe in moral truth? Since you are quite happy to manufacture belief systems that have nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with emotion and fear; you are no more rational then somebody who has blind faith. At least somebody with blind faith is willing to say that your existence has objective value.

If God does not exist, then it is irrational if you believe that moral values are rooted in truth; this is the topical point of this thread.

Id rather you lived in a world where a good God, the God that Christians believe in, exists. Because its only in that world where you will ultimately find personal fulfillment.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you forced them to, of course it would be immoral!.

Why?

If its pleasing to me to hold my mother down and take a dump in my mothers mouth, why should i ought not do that?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Humorously, it is you who rejects the truth out of fear.

I don’t reject the truth. I reject the idea that naturalism is true. If there were irrefutable evidence that naturalism was true, then i would have to accept it, just like i accept the theory of evolution. If God was proven to be a fantasy, i would accept it, and i would probably, if i had the guts, commit suicide.

You’re world view has always known a god,

I was not always a theist. I used to be more interested in socialist revolution then i was in God. I found God boring and did not at the time realize the value of belief. I did not see it as important. There has been many intelligent atheists who have found it more reasonable to believe in God, then in naturalism. I believe in God out of a principle of being and out of respect for my being a person. God greatly improves the value of my existence which allows me to view my self and life in general in a positive manner. I would never teach anyone that life had no objective value meaning or purpose. Because i know that i would not be doing that out of respect for truth or the value and dignity of people, but because it served my selfish agenda. Nothing positive can come from a belief in naturalism and neither is it necessarily true. So why believe it and teach it? Naturalism is simply an opportunity to escape God and be God. I care about people; and so I would rather teach people about the most positive thing that could ever happen to them, and that is Jesus Christ.

and you will cling to that belief (no matter how unsupported by the facts) until your dying days.

Of coarse i would!!! My belief in God is ultimately a principle of being. Who in there right mind would choose to live in a world that has no purpose, value, meaning, moral law or reason for existing. Who would choose to live with the fear of ceasing to exist and the potential horrors that might afflict any one of us at any moment.
who will be there for you?

Only somebody who wants to be God, would want to live in this world. Only somebody who gets pleasure from exploiting existence would want to live in this world. Only somebody that has deluded themselves and ignores the true and harsh reality of existing, would want to live in a world with out God. What keeps most people in this world is the fear of dying and children.

Most human beings put up with existence because they have to, not because they want to. Some seek the glory of God, and some seek glory in there own ego.

I believe that you either have to be deluded, insane or as shallow as a puddle in your expectations of being, in order to be happy in a pointless universe. And you would have to be evil to want to bring children into this world to share your fate.

You have put your faith and hopes in humans. But for me, it is evident, that a world without God is a living tragedy.
For allot of people, God is not something you reason to (though i believe there are many good reasons for believing in God).
But rather; God is something you “presuppose” if you want to make life worth living.