hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[Valke2]

OK. You’re not up to the challenge. That’s cool.

Claim “different paradigms” as your exit strategy. That’s a beautiful “out”. Oft used to great effectiveness by atheists. More interested in not wasting your time with discussion. I understand perfectly.

Thanks for the time you could spare.

Almost no teaching of Christianity could be viewed as “universal law”. Certainly the Golden Rule is not a universal law and does not come naturally to man.

Turn the other cheek is not a universal law?

Accepting Jesus in order to gain salvation is not a universal law.

 

[justinthemartyr]

so is murdering a human being wrong?

and why?

 

[Kaninchen]

so is murdering a human being wrong?

and why?

Why do monkeys tend to avoid killing members of their own species?

It’s a bad evolutionary strategy, it disrupts the social cohesion necessary to group survival.

We just write our version up as ‘morality’.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Almost no teaching of Christianity could be viewed as “universal law”. Certainly the Golden Rule is not a universal law and does not come naturally to man.

Turn the other cheek is not a universal law?

Accepting Jesus in order to gain salvation is not a universal law.

The Golden Rule only comes naturally to man if man can get his ego out of the way. But it is a universal law in that it is the best way for ordered (properly best) relationships between men to be established and maintained.

By “universal law” I don’t mean instantly self enforcing “laws” like the “law of gravity” or the various laws of thermodynamics.

Universal laws of BEHAVIOR (moral righteousness) are those which provide men with the best relationships with his fellows (and enemies) and God that are possible.

Accepting that the “all loving one” wants us to be free of self loathing for our actions at our death (and during life if possible) such that we don’t choose to punish ourselves “eternally” during that period between “normal life” and “nothingness” is a universal longing of the human person.

A person who is utterly unaware of the cultural “trappings” of Christianity and who has “gotten out of their own way” such that they can hear the (still small voice) of their conscience as informed by natural law will put whatever “words” he can to the above “longing”.

That is salvation of those who don’t know of the Church.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinthemartyr
so is murdering a human being wrong?

and why?

Why do monkeys tend to avoid killing members of their own species?

It’s a bad evolutionary strategy, it disrupts the social cohesion necessary to group survival.

We just write our version up as ‘morality’.

And you don’t think that the other non-human but “advanced” creatures don’t have access to a sense of natural law (a conscience of sorts)?

We call it “morality”, and the monkey calls it nothing at all because they aren’t equiped to “call” anything anything.

But that doesn’t negate that morality exists, and is nothing but a “social lubricant”. How do you suppose monkeys know to not kill each other “senselessly”?

Does each monkey kill one of it’s troop and then gets taught a lesson not to do that by the rest of the troop? No. They KNOW without experiencing actually being a “senseless killer” that it’s BAD to be a senseless killer.

The atheist sees the monkey knowing that as “hardwired tendency evolutionarily choosen for because monkeys need to have social cohesion”.

The Christian asks why it is important that monkey society be cohesive at all?

God created monkeys to be social. We share socialness with monkeys. We know why it’s important for us to be “correctly social”. We are therefore encouraged to be “correctly social” by having another of God’s critters show us that correct socialness is important.

God is telling us, through the monkeys, “Even these lesser ones realize what I tell them to do they should do. Why do you do otherwise?”

 

[Nancyannheath]

Such a STRONG point, and I now have something to make the one Jewish aethiest friend I have finally THINK!

I prayed for words to share with this person to soften their heart and make them at least ponder the possibility that God created even them, and to give them some food for thought. Thanks for your view on Hitler…

 

[Kaninchen]

And you don’t think that the other non-human but “advanced” creatures don’t have access to a sense of natural law (a conscience of sorts) . . . etc, etc, etc

This thread is about whether it’s necessary for there to be a God/belief in God in order to make ‘moral’ judgments - God as a source for moral discernment.

I’m arguing that it’s possible to have an explanation of moral judgments/origin of moral judgments without recourse to a particular belief in a particular kind of God, where ‘morality’ is a projection of the kinds of successful evolutionary strategies that exist even within our fellow primates - less clever monkeys than ourselves.

That you disagree with that I quite understand, that you disagree with an evolutionary perspective, I quite understand. I’m just saying that it’s possible to deduce ‘morality’ from within an evolutionary perspective, whether you agree or don’t agree with an evolutionary perspective.

 

[ralphinal]

This thread is about whether it’s necessary for there to be a God/belief in God in order to make ‘moral’ judgments - God as a source for moral discernment.

I’m arguing that it’s possible to have an explanation of moral judgments/origin of moral judgments without recourse to a particular belief in a particular kind of God, where ‘morality’ is a projection of the kinds of successful evolutionary strategies that exist even within our fellow primates - less clever monkeys than ourselves.

That you disagree with that I quite understand, that you disagree with an evolutionary perspective, I quite understand. I’m just saying that it’s possible to deduce ‘morality’ from within an evolutionary perspective, whether you agree or don’t agree with an evolutionary perspective.

You may not beleive it, but I agree that you can argue a moral code without theology. In fact, it is not hard to do if you work from a benifit of society frame of reference. My other question is if eugenics can be condemned or confirmed from an atheistic point of view? After all, if it is about “most beneficial probablilities for the survival of the genetic code” should we not be hard wired for it?

 

[notself]

Almost no teaching of Christianity could be viewed as “universal law”. Certainly the Golden Rule is not a universal law and does not come naturally to man.

Turn the other cheek is not a universal law?

Accepting Jesus in order to gain salvation is not a universal law.

The Golden Rule is an almost universal recommendation. Almost all cultures have a version of it and if the hypothesis of an altruism gene is accurate, then it is also hard wired into our brains.

 

[Kaninchen]

You may not beleive it, but I agree that you can argue a moral code without theology. In fact, it is not easy to do if you work from a benifit of society frame of reference. My other question is if eugenics can be condemned or confirmed from an atheistic point of view? After all, if it is about “most beneficial probablilities for the survival of the genetic code” should we not be hard wired for it?

Let’s not forget that ‘eugenics’ is a cultural concept not an evolutionary concept - it’s more than very debatable whether it could possibly be a viable survival tool.

I’ve been arguing ‘origins’, whether it is possible to deduce behaviors from (built-in) evolutionary ‘strategies’ - I’ve also argued that cultural/social concepts like ‘morality’ are then like the other great human artifact, language - once ‘up and running’ they take on a life of their own - so many generations from ‘Ugh’ to Shakespeare and the KJV (I mention it for its linguistic achievement).

Whether ‘eugenics’ is a ‘bad’ thing or a ‘good’ thing really would depend on the ‘language’ (as metaphor for 'morality) the individual is living in (some societies have had it - Spartan children left exposed etc - and others haven’t). Recent experience suggests that it’s been disastrous so, at the very least, an atheist would be able to say “look, it’s had a socially/scientifically bad effect, therefore it’s bad.”

 

[ralphinal]

Let’s not forget that ‘eugenics’ is a cultural concept not an evolutionary concept - it’s more than very debatable whether it could possibly be a viable survival tool.

I’ve been arguing ‘origins’, whether it is possible to deduce behaviors from (built-in) evolutionary ‘strategies’ - I’ve also argued that cultural/social concepts like ‘morality’ are then like the other great human artifact, language - once ‘up and running’ they take on a life of their own - so many generations from ‘Ugh’ to Shakespeare and the KJV (I mention it for its linguistic achievement).

Whether ‘eugenics’ is a ‘bad’ thing or a ‘good’ thing really would depend on the ‘language’ (as metaphor for 'morality) the individual is living in (some societies have had it - Spartan children left exposed etc - and others haven’t). Recent experience suggests that it’s been disastrous so, at the very least, an atheist would be able to say “look, it’s had a socially/scientifically bad effect, therefore it’s bad.”

Acceptable to me anyway. So what keeps someone from thinking up a way that it would work? Say mercy killings?

 

[Valke2]

The Golden Rule is an almost universal recommendation. Almost all cultures have a version of it and if the hypothesis of an altruism gene is accurate, then it is also hard wired into our brains.

The fact that almost all cultures have a Golden Rule doesn’t make it a universal law (even if all cultures had it). One would have to naturally be inclined to acknowledge and obey a universal law.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

This thread is about whether it’s necessary for there to be a God/belief in God in order to make ‘moral’ judgments - God as a source for moral discernment.

If you simply state that “there is no God” while observing the obvious fact that there ARE people who make moral judgements, who even if they THINK they are getting their morals from God while in fact they CAN’T be as there is no God, then it’s OBVIOUS that God is not necessary for people to make moral judgements. You can then credit “morality” to anything you like, such as “evolution”, and be quite reasonable.

My contention is that even those who disbelieve in God, even atheistic monkeys (should such a being exist!), use the “mechanism” given us by God (conscience, at least) to discern what is moral.

We both believe that there IS a “mechanism” by which we judge morality. Yours simply isn’t a “thing” that extends into the past as far as mine is.

Your “creator” of “conscience” is materialistic determined (chemico-mechanical mechanism [some version of Darwinism]).

My creator created your “creator”, and is what informs your “creator”. The source therefore of “moral judgement” may use your “creator” as a functionary, but the actual source is my creator.

I’m arguing that it’s possible to have an explanation of moral judgments/origin of moral judgments without recourse to a particular belief in a particular kind of God, where ‘morality’ is a projection of the kinds of successful evolutionary strategies that exist even within our fellow primates - less clever monkeys than ourselves.

You are correct. But only the morals developed using the proper source of morality develop proper (correct) morals.

The monkeys developed a proper moral (to not senselessly kill) because it came from the proper source of all morals.

One can develop a “moral” that child sacrifice is a good, but that moral, even if in the short term is an “evolutionary advantage” (makes the neighboring tribes very wary of you!), will eventually prove itself to be an evil moral, because it is not from God.

There are NO developed morals which do what morals are supposed to do (make society better) which come from other than God, either by conscience (well formed) or revelation.

That’s a bold statement, but if anyone can show me where that is wrong, I’ll be glad to listen.

That you disagree with that I quite understand, that you disagree with an evolutionary perspective, I quite understand. I’m just saying that it’s possible to deduce ‘morality’ from within an evolutionary perspective, whether you agree or don’t agree with an evolutionary perspective.

I agree that evolution does select for “that which works”, and that morals are selected because they “work”. But the reason that they work is because only they CAN WORK because they are implicit in the “environment” within which they work.

You don’t HAVE to call the “environment within which working morals work” the creation of God the Creator, but if you simply say that that environment came from “I don’t know where”, you are simply dodging the question of the actual SOURCE of the morals that DO work within that environment.

Is belief in God needed to make (correct) moral judgements? No. But what makes them correct is whether they are from God. You needn’t believe in God to use the air He provides to breathe, either.

 

[Kaninchen]

The fact that almost all cultures have a Golden Rule doesn’t make it a universal law (even if all cultures had it). One would have to naturally be inclined to acknowledge and obey a universal law.

One could certainly argue that many of these supposed ‘universal laws’ are notable mainly by the failure of humans in all societies to live up to them - that universal human behavior lies in the failure rather than the discerned ‘law’ and that the ‘laws’ should therefore be deduced from the failures!

 

[Valke2]

I have complete faith that God is. 6 years or so ago I had complete faith that He wasn’t. Either way, I understood the value of human life. There can be a hard wired or ultimate moral truth without it being attributed to an ominipotent being. Rather, it can simply be how the universe works.

 

[Valke2]

btw, monkey’s have been known to kill each other.

 

[Kaninchen]

CalmDownWisWins

That’s all very well said and could possibly be true but your explanations wouldn’t work as an argument with anybody who didn’t accept at least some of your premises.

The thing is that I think that the “No God, No Morality” argument is one of the worst arguments for the existence of God around - everything you said presumes the existence of a God, it doesn’t establish the existence of a God.

 

[Kaninchen]

btw, monkey’s have been known to kill each other.

That’s why I said ‘tend’.

 

[ralphinal]

I have complete faith that God is. 6 years or so ago I had complete faith that He wasn’t. Either way, I understood the value of human life. There can be a hard wired or ultimate moral truth without it being attributed to an ominipotent being. Rather, it can simply be how the universe works.

To me, Valke, this hits on one charge that we that believe have with athiests (and vice-versa). If it is hard wired or whatever, the sanctity of human life seems like a universal truth. It is why most, if not all cultures, see murder as wrong and, up until recently, abortion as wrong. We can call agree on this. Many athiests tell us that there is no universal truth and what is right for you may not be right for everyone. Bull!! If you say that there is no Truth, then why should human life matter? If there is no other evidence, this is universal truth.

 

[Valke2]

To me, Valke, this hits on one charge that we that believe have with athiests (and vice-versa). If it is hard wired or whatever, the sanctity of human life seems like a universal truth. It is why most, if not all cultures, see murder as wrong and, up until recently, abortion as wrong. We can call agree on this. Many athiests tell us that there is no universal truth and what is right for you may not be right for everyone. Bull!! If you say that there is no Truth, then why should human life matter? If there is no other evidence, this is universal truth.

I agree that there is an ultimate moral authority. I’m not sure how well we understand it. If the universal truth were to turn out to be that this is the only life we get, that there is nothing beyond the grave, I think that we could still conclude that life matters. What could have more value that the finite gift of existence, no matter how we obtain the gift?