Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Empathy comes from survival. Every species is hardwired to reproduce. Killing your own is like killing your species. Luckily animals do not believe in a god, they do not sacrifice their children in the hope that the gods will grant them whatever they wished for. In this view I believe that humans are insane; unlike any other animal they will sacrifice their children if they believe God commanded them to do so (ie when they are sure they are right).
Abraham is a fine example of this of this unnatural behaviour.
Quote:
When you take into account objective moral values, the plausibility of the universe being created (from nothing, nothing comes--thefore, something created it), the super fine-tuning of the universe and the resurrection of Jesus Christ (95% of New Testament scholars agree the resurrection happened), among other things, is much more plausible than anything that atheism has to offer.
Of course temple scholars believe this, they are theists after all. They would be insane to conclude that parts of their religion could be crazy. It doesn't matter if 95% of the worlpopulation believes that a cirkel has 4 corners, they'd still be wrong.
Quote:
Morality is NOT just an aid to survival and reproduction. If life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint.
You are only thinking small (as in individually). For the survival of the species it requires the survival of a small group for the continuation of the species.
Empathy comes from survival. Every species is hardwired to reproduce. Killing your own is like killing your species. Luckily animals do not believe in a god, they do not sacrifice their children in the hope that the gods will grant them whatever they wished for. In this view I believe that humans are insane; unlike any other animal they will sacrifice their children if they believe God commanded them to do so (ie when they are sure they are right).
Abraham is a fine example of this of this unnatural behaviour.
Of course temple scholars believe this, they are theists after all. They would be insane to conclude that parts of their religion could be crazy. It doesn't matter if 95% of the worlpopulation believes that a cirkel has 4 corners, they'd still be wrong.
You are only thinking small (as in individually). For the survival of the species it requires the survival of a small group for the continuation of the species.
In the animal kingdom, it's perfectly normal and very common for animals to eat their own children. But on a more serious note...
As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among humans a sort of “herd morality” which functions in our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. I AM NOT SAYING that we must believe in God in order to live moral lives. Atheists and theists do live moral lives, that's a fact, but some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. As I said before, if life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted. Examples of this in action? Communists torturers in Soviet prisons:
"The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners." ~ Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured, p. 34.
Acts of self sacrifice become particularly unnecessary on a naturalistic world view. Why should you sacrifice your self interest and especially your life for the sake of someone else? There can be no good reason for adopting such a self-negating course of action on the aetheistic world view. A mother rushing into a burning house to rescue her children or a soldier throwing his body over a hand grenade to save his comrades does nothing more significant or praiseworthy, morally speaking, than a fighter ant which sacrifices itself for the sake of the ant hill.
If God exists, there is a sound foundation for morality. For example, if we do think that objective moral values exist, then we shall be led logically to the conclusion that God exists. And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist?
In response to your comment that all New Testament scholars are theists--you could not be further from the truth! The New Testament scholars consist of liberals, skeptics, aetheists, and experts from other religions (see: "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?" It was published in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Vol. 3, 2005). ). The idea is to build a case without having to argue from the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, it would be foolish to expect unbelievers to accept the Bible as inspired and inerrant. It should be noted that the Bible is a collection of historical documents. Thus, it can be examined and scrutinized just as any other historical document.
Though nearly 2000 years have passed, not a single naturalistic explanation has been given that can account for resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In the animal kingdom, it's perfectly normal and very common for animals to eat their own children.
If that were true all animals had to be extinct. Crocodiles, hippos, bears and some other animals only eat children when they encounter them to eliminate competition. Unlike humanity they do not hunt them down.
We humans are far worse we specifically hunt down entire groups and eliminate them.
Quote:
But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.
Humans on the other hand perform genocides which is steered by ideology, which means that we hunt specific groups and eliminate the entire group. Other animals are not that stupid, they only kill animals that eat the same food and they are not determined to kill all of them.
Wherever humans are they will kill all animals that eat the same food or use the same land they do. Ultimately this stupidity will push humanity over the brink of extinction.
We humans also purposely create child-soldiers. Many child-soldiers suffer from the Stockholm-syndrome, because these children have to choose between becoming like their tormentors or end up as a corpse. So they have been conditioned to 'love' (worship) their tormentor in turn for survival.
Quote:
Thus, it can be examined and scrutinized just as any other historical document.
Sure if you say so. And the research will be done objectively with no influence from other parties who have their own interest in the outcome of such research.
Like I said, if 95% of humanity believes that a circle has 4 corners it does not make it true.
In the animal kingdom, it's perfectly normal and very common for animals to eat their own children. But on a more serious note...
As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among humans a sort of “herd morality” which functions in our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. I AM NOT SAYING that we must believe in God in order to live moral lives. Atheists and theists do live moral lives, that's a fact, but some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. As I said before, if life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted. Examples of this in action? Communists torturers in Soviet prisons:
"The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners." ~ Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured, p. 34.
Acts of self sacrifice become particularly unnecessary on a naturalistic world view. Why should you sacrifice your self interest and especially your life for the sake of someone else? There can be no good reason for adopting such a self-negating course of action on the aetheistic world view. A mother rushing into a burning house to rescue her children or a soldier throwing his body over a hand grenade to save his comrades does nothing more significant or praiseworthy, morally speaking, than a fighter ant which sacrifices itself for the sake of the ant hill.
If God exists, there is a sound foundation for morality. For example, if we do think that objective moral values exist, then we shall be led logically to the conclusion that God exists. And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist?
In response to your comment that all New Testament scholars are theists--you could not be further from the truth! The New Testament scholars consist of liberals, skeptics, aetheists, and experts from other religions (see: "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?" It was published in The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (Vol. 3, 2005). ). The idea is to build a case without having to argue from the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, it would be foolish to expect unbelievers to accept the Bible as inspired and inerrant. It should be noted that the Bible is a collection of historical documents. Thus, it can be examined and scrutinized just as any other historical document.
Though nearly 2000 years have passed, not a single naturalistic explanation has been given that can account for resurrection of Jesus Christ.
From an Atheist point of view, but with all due respect, reading this prose there seems to be a strong element of desperation within it, it is as if we keep coming back to the unsavoury fact that it all hinges on belief, and the writer knows this deep down, along with believers everywhere this must be the greatest frustration, I wonder has this one aspect been the root of so much strife in the World?
But please don't make the assumption that all Atheists are immoral, true they are without God but also unlike Christians, they are without the Devil.
... if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. As I said before, if life ends at the grave, it makes no difference whether one lives as a Stalin or as a saint. If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted. Examples of this in action? Communists torturers in Soviet prisons:
"The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, ‘There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.’ I have heard one torturer even say, ‘I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.’ He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners." ~ Richard Wurmbrand, Tortured, p. 34.
I just made an excerpt of this post. Interesting to note that, when torture is mentioned, then in regards to communism.
Gitmo is not operated by communists. Nor are the secret prison networks within the realm of the CIA. I wonder what moral standards the personnel have?
How can a nation, which calls itself moral, apply torture?
But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. I AM NOT SAYING that we must believe in God in order to live moral lives. Atheists and theists do live moral lives, that's a fact, but some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. Moreover, if atheism is true, there is no moral accountability for one’s actions. Even if there were objective moral values and duties under naturalism, they are irrelevant because there is no moral accountability.
With all due respect, TexasNick, I have to humbly disagree...
I guess I am somewhat confused that you are stating, above, that one does not have to believe in a god in order to live moral lives...You seem to be implying, (unless I am misunderstanding your words) that mankind must have some sort of belief in a diety in order for objective moral standards to exist. Again, if I am not understanding you clearly, then my apologies...
That being said, I need to respond to what you mentioned regarding atheism and incest. This atheist has worked with incest survivors, and I can tell you that this atheist feels moral outrage each and every time she listens to each and every survivor's account of his or her life...
If what you are saying is true, then I am not sure just how it is that I can have moral accountability. -And I can assure you, I do! Most of us, as young children, learn to internalize our environments, and in so doing, we learn right from wrong. And it does start with empathy. We learn, (on a very deep level) how to put ourselves in another's shoes, so to speak. If we are raised in an unempathic environment, then we will be sorely lacking in being capable of doing so. Empathy is not limited by culture or religious ideology. I am fully capable of understanding the pain and hardship, AND injustices committed against those who are vastly, if not completely different from myself. Kohlberg addressed the acquisition of morals and morality process in young children. I think he makes alot of sense...
As well, I tend to think that many of the French existentialists addressed the issue of morality; many of whom were Christians. As such, they stated that it is not the task to deny the objective order, but rather, to point out the insufficiencies inherent in it. Had the objective order been enough, God need never to have made man. Man is subject(ive) and person. Thus, the objective must cede to the subjective personality of man...
Again, if I have misunderstood/misinterpreted your words, my apologies.
Take gentle care.
Last edited by june 7th; 10-24-2007 at 01:16 PM..
Reason: grammer
I just made an excerpt of this post. Interesting to note that, when torture is mentioned, then in regards to communism.
Gitmo is not operated by communists. Nor are the secret prison networks within the realm of the CIA. I wonder what moral standards the personnel have?
How can a nation, which calls itself moral, apply torture?
If I have read this post correctly I find it is insightful for it reminds me of a story told by a friend of mine.
My friend went to Cambridge and was pally with a well to do and very nice natured middle class chap. Some years after leaving Cambridge my friend found out that his pals father had made his money, and lots of it, by designing a terrible weapon, a weapon that has been used in war to burn people to death men women and children.
But when my friend went to Surrey to meet his pals parents he stayed over the weekend and he described how they had a quiet formal breakfast on Sunday morning, you know toast and Marmalade and tea and reading the Times after, with the Sun streaming through the window overlooking the very green lawn, it was so relaxing.
And they were such lovely people, very moral churchgoers.
Originally Posted by TexasNick If that were true all animals had to be extinct. Crocodiles, hippos, bears and some other animals only eat children when they encounter them to eliminate competition. Unlike humanity they do not hunt them down.
We humans are far worse we specifically hunt down entire groups and eliminate them.
Humans on the other hand perform genocides which is steered by ideology, which means that we hunt specific groups and eliminate the entire group. Other animals are not that stupid, they only kill animals that eat the same food and they are not determined to kill all of them.
Wherever humans are they will kill all animals that eat the same food or use the same land they do. Ultimately this stupidity will push humanity over the brink of extinction.
We humans also purposely create child-soldiers. Many child-soldiers suffer from the Stockholm-syndrome, because these children have to choose between becoming like their tormentors or end up as a corpse. So they have been conditioned to 'love' (worship) their tormentor in turn for survival.
Sure if you say so. And the research will be done objectively with no influence from other parties who have their own interest in the outcome of such research.
Like I said, if 95% of humanity believes that a circle has 4 corners it does not make it true.
But, why is this all wrong? Why do you say that we humans are far worse? Worse what? How do you know if it's bad? Where is the moral law? If there is no objective moral law under atheism, then why are you so concerned about humans killing humans? It should not matter. Tell me why it's wrong. Again, under the naturalistic law, it should make no difference whether one is a saint or a Stalin--they are both morally the same.
From an Atheist point of view, but with all due respect, reading this prose there seems to be a strong element of desperation within it, it is as if we keep coming back to the unsavoury fact that it all hinges on belief, and the writer knows this deep down, along with believers everywhere this must be the greatest frustration, I wonder has this one aspect been the root of so much strife in the World?
But please don't make the assumption that all Atheists are immoral, true they are without God but also unlike Christians, they are without the Devil.
As quoted in my posts, I explicitly say that one does not need to believe in God to be a moral and loving person.
Still, the question has not been answered by you or anyone: Under the naturalistic view, is it wrong to kill another human? Is it wrong to rape? Is it wrong to torture a child? If so, why?
What does the word "morals" mean in America?
The first thing that comes to mind is sex, in its various forms.
Ask people how they define morals, and most likely they will respond with opinions concerning sexual behavior.
In America, it seems that "morals" deals exclusively with sexual behavior.
I was wondering about other concepts, such as lying, cheating (not in the sexual sense), greed, bearing false witness, sanctimony, social and political smearing...do they come under the realm of "morals"?
My challenge is this; can you discuss morals WITHOUT mentioning anything about sexual behavior? (Examples of sexual behavior would be: abortion, porno, birth control, homosexuality, promiscuity, pre-marital sex, etc.)
With this challenge do you feel that rug has been pulled out from under your feet?
really good post. no the rug is fine. i know a lot bout lying cheating and stealing.
stephen s
san diego ca
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In this view I believe that humans are insane; unlike any other animal they will sacrifice their children if they believe God commanded them to do so (ie when they are sure they are right).
Of course temple scholars believe this, they are theists after all. They would be insane to conclude that parts of their religion could be crazy.
It doesn't matter if 95% of the worlpopulation believes that a cirkel has 4 corners, they'd still be wrong.
June's morality
