Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 12, 2012 at 12:54am

Hey Angelo,

So then, please explain, why there is morality, and how someone can be moral  and set a objective standard, if God does not exist.

Define "morality" first. You can't.

- kk

Permalink Reply by James on January 12, 2012 at 9:34pm

So then, please explain, why there is morality, and how someone can be moral  and set a objective standard, if God does not exist.

Okay, first I must start out by mentioning that I can not meet your criteria in regards to an 'objective standard'. This is because objective morality is an illusion... it doesn't exist. By definition, objective morality is never changing. What's good is always good, and what's bad is always bad. We see this in our regular lives. Most anyone will tell you that killing another is wrong. Yet there are cases like war and self defense where this otherwise taboo act is deemed permissible. The same is true for the Bible. We are told not to kill, yet elsewhere killing is sanctioned will approval or ordered. The very fact that the god of the Bible can change what is good and what is bad to fit his needs actually shows that even that is a subjective morality.

But the issue at hand isn't if there is objective morality, and rather how morality can exist without the need for a lawgiver. There are a few issues that we can take into consideration.

Empathy: The ability to feel empathetic towards others plays a huge role. For example... I wouldn't want to be killed, so he probably wouldn't either. I wouldn't like it if someone stole from me, so she probably wouldn't like it either. It hurts if someone hits me and I don't like it, so hitting someone else will likely cause them pain and ill feeling as well. Now, people don't typically ask themselves these questions, but is processed subconsciously. This ability to put ourselves in anothers shoes, and consideration of their thoughts and feelings can easily drive what we now consider moral decision-making.

Group/social benefit: We are social creatures, and we live in groups. Because of this fact, we can bring about moral norms in order to improve and sustain the well being of the group, society, country, species... Generally, killing one another is bad for the safety and success of the group. Thus, it is deemed as something bad fro the group, immoral. Stealing from other group members can also lead to conflict or the survival of those individuals (if we're talking about food theft from early ancestors). Lying about a threat can waste valuable energy and resources, cause a panic where others may get hurt, etc. All things that hurt the well being and success potential of the collective. Since things that hurt that potential are to be avoided and doing so becomes the social norm, you have another pathway to morality.

Tit-for-Tat: This one is the selfish one. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Basically, do helpful things for others in hopes that they will return the favor. Share a scrap of food here, in expectance that it will be reciprocated when they have extra, or you are in need. While the initial act may be helpful to the recipient, even if the drive isn't selfless. In this way, it can lead to acts that would be considered moral, but not really the formation of morality.

Those are a few considerations one has to make when one is interested in seeing how morality arises without a deity deciding the rules. As I hope you can see, natural morality is very possible an is quite likely.

That said, I don't care what a person assigns as the source of their morality so long as they are practicing acceptable social morality. It is also nice when people realize that there no moral absolutes, just the limits that we as individuals and a group deem acceptable.

Cheers!

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 12, 2012 at 12:53am

Hey Angelo,

 

Dishonest misrepresentation won't make you right. As you well know, that is not why I said your "god" doesn't exist. The proofs are the reason for it, which you are still not responding to. Everyhing you have claimed about your "god" I have disproven. You have provided no response to those proofs.

 

And I am preapred to wait until hell freezes over for an answer.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 12, 2012 at 6:14am

Dishonest misrepresentation won't make you right.

I will not read, and not answer any post from now on, where i am called a liar, or dishonest, or whatever in that sense. And neither will i respond further to that person.  I want just to clarify as well, that i am just ONE person, its not a group posting here. 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 12, 2012 at 12:02pm

Hey Angelo,

I'm glad you brought this up. I've asked you to respond to proofs I advanced to you several times. Then you replied that I am using a completely different statement to argue that your "god" cannot exist. But you couldn't possibly not know by now how and why I am arguing that your "god" cannot exist.

Having said that, if I am mistaken I apologize, but it certainly has that appearance to me. Personally, I'd rather you continue reading and posting here. For my part, I have not claimed you are more than one person, I just noted the coincidence of the concatenation of the two names MIchael and Angelo. I don't care if you're 30 people, I'd be happy to discuss the existence of your "god" if you will respond to my posts honestly and fairly, and I will attempt to do the same.

Finally, I was not calling you a "liar" or even "dishonest". I said that your representation was dishonest and I worded it that way deliberately. It is subtle, but a big difference to me.

Hope you stick around, So, now that we have that cleared up I look forward to a response to those proofs, even if it is to just ask for clarity or more information.

And I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over for that answer.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Wintershade3001 on January 14, 2012 at 6:56am

Hey Angelo, if being called a liar or dishonest bothers you so much, then why don't you start being honest and truthful for a change?

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on January 14, 2012 at 10:57am

Or just go away - that would work too --                                                                                                                    pax vobiscum,                                                       archaeopteryx                                                                   in-His-own-image.com

Permalink Reply by cameron penney on January 11, 2012 at 2:39am

I have read the Bible. And it is filled with the things I mentioned earlier. The hypothetical God it self contradicts many of the things it teaches. To paraphrase, god said that anyone who accepts any god but him self is an abomination. Sounds like vanity to me. When someone tells me that Christianity promotes peace in the world, I have to laugh and assume that that person has never read the Bible and chooses to ignore the violent history of Christianity and most other religions as well. I am a realist. If I thought that the Bible were true, then I would have no choice but to think that Alice in Wonderland were true.
 

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 11, 2012 at 12:15am

Seriously, the Bible? Sit back and let me tell you about what the Qur'an say Muhammad did. I hope you get my point.

No, i don't get the point. Why do you want to compare the bible to quran ?

Finally, some honesty. Quick question then. If you already knew you wouldn't entertain any other claims, then why are you even here? To antagonize? Attention? Do tell.

Its not about generality, but about you. I just wanted to see my intuition confirmed. And it was confirmed.

Chance? Who was talking about blind chance... You know what, never mind. You already said you wouldn't listen to other ideas.

Well , you have brought up evolution into the game. Evolution was not a driving mechanism at that stage. That is a made up claim of yours without any support. 

 Even though I was trying to falsify the science, I actually found that it made more sense and that they could actually back it up.

I don't know why people want to compare all the time science with the bible, with religion, with faith. When in fact both are different things. 

But now things are more than good, things make even more sense, I feel liberated

What sense do things make without' God, and without eternal life ? You feel liberated ? ah, see....despite all your explanations, you just admit " you feel liberated ". That has something to do with feeling. Thats not reason, thats emotion.......

 I learned it's okay to ask questions, expand you horizons, broaden your mind, and learn everything you can.

Ah, and previously, as christian, you did not have this freedom ? 

But remember, you have constantly said a god is the only possibility. Now you say one alternative is a low probability. Your own words, so which is it? Even if the probability is low, it's still a possibility, thus GOD can't be the ONLY possibility. That's what we were talking about.

Its said that a probability of less than one to ten to the 50th power is equal the event will never occur. As said, it makes much more sense, when you seen a message written on a sand dune, to think somebody wrote it there, than to think the wind and the waves formed the message. 

Based of the bits we do know, the universe seems to be natural.

What exactly leads you to think so ? that is the crucial question......

As for before the big bang and abiogenesis, we may never know.

with a little reasoning we can however find the best explanations. Some people however prefere not to search, to find answer, rather of this, prefere willful ignorance.

http://www.gradresources.org/worldview_articles/evidence_for_god.shtml

Permalink Reply by Stutz on January 11, 2012 at 12:38am

The vast majority of people do prefer willful ignorance, and the vast majority are also religious. Most people who go on an honest journey of studying the evidence and arguments gravitate toward the opposite conclusion and away from religion, however.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 11, 2012 at 11:07pm

Most people who go on an honest journey of studying the evidence and arguments gravitate toward the opposite conclusion and away from religion, however.

And you know that how, exactly ?

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 11, 2012 at 12:42am

Hey Angelo,

I don't know why people want to compare all the time science with the bible, with religion, with faith. When in fact both are different things.

I agree; there is an unhealthy dose of personality and “Science” worship amongst atheists. However, the application of reason – which inevitably leads to things that look, feel and smell a lot like Science, such as the necessary and sufficient clause and empiricism – is the only faculty we have to evaluate the truth or falsity of a religious claim. While many atheists over-emphasize Science as a discipline in counter apologetics, it is still true that the faculty of reason – which Scientists happen to rely heavily on – is also the means by which we can know truth.

Its said that a probability of less than one to ten to the 50th power is equal the event will never occur.

You are repeating once again a flat-out incorrect statement that has already been disproven in previous posts and which you have not addressed. If my proof is wrong, it is incumbent upon you to show how. For the record, you have not.

 

- kk

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 62
• 63
• 64
• 65
• 66
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page