If you are a non- believer in, all that you do is being recorded in the heavens, why be moral when no one is looking?
If there are no records and no witness, why not do anything you want?
If no one sees you do it, then is it a deed not done?
If all of this is true, then why do we have a conscience, where did it come.
We are told in scriptures that our conscience is our natural way of doing God's will in the absence of his Law.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
If you're defying it, then it isn't really YOUR conscience, now is it?
It's the view Society thinks you should have, not your personal belief structure. If it IS your personal belief structure, then it seems to me like there must be a major tilt in the cost-benefits analysis that allows one to justify the action.
So no. We can't define that. Unless you care to elaborate in some way I can understand.
I feel that stealing is wrong, generally speaking.
I would make exceptions in certain cases, though.
I think it is morally justified to steal from a person that would use the funds for evil.
I think it is morally justified to 'rob from the rich and give to the poor' in some cases.
So when the little voice inside my head tells me something is bad, I stand back and ask myself where the voice is really coming from.
Is it from my own instincts?
Or is it the just years of conditioning reinforced by society?
I don't deliberately defy my own conscience.
Though I do admit sometimes I find out my values a little too late.
And then I learn from the situation.
I make ammends if I can.
Hindsight is 20-20, no?
"Survival of the fittest isn't diametrically opposed to conscience you dolt."
Settle down up there!
That's enough with the name calling, or I will send you for a time out.
Not quite, read the article I've attached on dogs in this thread. What is observed in nature is instinctive and not maintain by a conscience. First of all a Conscience in the abstract since requires developed frontal lobes for abstract thought. Societies of primates and feral packs of dogs are formed instinctively. They are endowed genetically with this behavior for survival.
And you go read the article I linked about robots evolving altruism after a few hundred generations, just like Biology, more specifically Hamilton’s rule, predicted.
Here, I'll link again
Also, could you please answer my question about how hypocritical it is for christianity to preach morality when its holy book is filled with hatred, cruelty, misogyny etc. Your attempt at an answer was more a non-answer really. Didn't address the issue at all.
It's an enigma to see bloodletting in the Bible of all places.
Seems profoundly disturbing.
I only gathered a rational after reading it cover to cover several times.
God will raise up a nation to punish another nation for their sins. Again and again this is expounded upon in the prophetic books. With Israel he simply cut to the chase and directly told them to battle for God. Generally any nation worshipping idols and throwing their children in to the fire for Molech and Baal was fair game.
Again, a non-answer.
Is there any method to the madness in the wholly babble?
To say everything will be alright later is admitting that things are bad right now. This later business in the religious books, is there a time frame or is it really just a control mechanism. Something to tell the sheeple when they have doubts.
And what do you think about robots developing altruism, just like biology predicted.
Ya know, once you're on the outside looking in it's easy to see just how bizarre that thinking is. I can't believe I used to buy such tripe.
You have been misinformed. Again.
Human "conscience" is just as instinctual in many instances. You can train humans to be behave in some particular "moral" way, just like you can train dogs. The major difference is that humans can verbally rationalize the behavior. We need language dominant frontal and temporal lobes for that.
There is heaps of scientifically obtained evidence that people have no real idea why they behave, think or prefer things the way they do. In fact, there are many disorders of memory, consciousness and awareness that make this point quite dramatically. People will flat out deny that they said or did things days or weeks in the past if these actions do not conform with what the person believes to be real at the time they are questioned. When shown videos of their actual responses they maintain that they are fake.
The brain is very easily fooled. That is why behavioral science comes up with material that is contrary to what the average person thinks to be "common sense". It is also why relying on someone's verbal report of their experiences and beliefs is a very, very bad way of determining the truth of anything. Objective proof is required to confirm their understanding of what happened to them or their beliefs about what they saw, heard or felt.
This, of course, is why "personal testimony" and the multi-level hearsay evidence of sacred texts is the about the most unreliable form of "evidence" possible, It is not admissible in courts of law and its biasing and distorting effects must be controlled and eliminated in scientific tests and experiments.
Please, Michael, go to the scientific source material instead of reading some deluded theist's misinterpretation of something they do not understand, do not want to understand or are unable to filter objectively.
You are totally right that Eye-Witness Testimony is extremely unreliable. As a test for anyone who doubts this...
Please wait for the following video to load completely then watch it and do exactly what it says.
The original video is even better. Here it is together with a commentary by one of my professional colleagues. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80606248/
When I use this video to make a point I like to stop the video after the end of the first section and ask the viewers: "How many passes did the black team make?"
It's the equivalent of asking a bigot how many times their "team" was undermined by the opposition's arguments.
It also illustrates the way that people mis-perceive what they sense due to bias filtered perception. It's called perceptual blindness. That is how "confirmation bias" works. If you are are primed to see something you will not only miss seeing the opposite, but you will miss the obvious.
It's the reason why theists who watch Christian-Muslim debates almost always think their side "won" - and completely fail to see that neither side "won" because the question being debated is irrelevant to the meta picture.
It goes a long to explaining why Michael continues to be convinced that he is "kicking arse" here.
There's a problem with your "how did it get there" question. Let's say science hasn't answered your question, though it has but just for the sake of discussion let's say it hasn't, the question remains "from whence god?" Why is it that someone not knowing everything in the universe there is to know, is a requirement of the atheist, while the christian has to show no proof of god? Well, I think the fact that I can't explain everything in the universe is proof of Zeus. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
The faithful would only have to show us god a single time (and by show I don't mean make a philosophical argument) and we would say "ah yes, so there is a god" and we would proceed to try and understand that. The atheist, on the other hand, must be able to ask every possible albeit silly question.
"The dilemma is that a conscience is diametrically oppose to the driver of evolution"
Only someone who did not understand how evolution works would buy this argument. Animals, included the human variety, whose optimum survival and well-being depends on the cohesion of a group of such animals, develop "morals" and social skills. It's natural.