I actually believe in God

[Samwell Seed Well]

The thing is, you keep talking about about committing "evil" to bring about "good" as being "not ok." That is simply your opinion and your ideals. And seeing as your just a man, your words hold no weight. Yes, there is a great multitude of people who would agree with you. But there is also a great deal that would have no problem committing atrocities to further their cause. History has shown this. Who is right then? My argument is, without a higher power, there is no correct answer as it is simply opinion vs. opinion (But seeing as I do believe in a higher power, this question is easily answered).

Frankly, the only thing I'm having trouble understanding is your rape of english grammar.

to the bolded text

your text is a fallacy

but i cannot convince you of it,

yet it is true

 

[Padawanbater2]

What is right and wrong is decidedly a democratic process. The process holds weight because it works. Not only that, the ones that seem to be universally agreed upon, ie. murder, rape, theft, etc., have the whole weight of the judicial system behind them.

Deriving morality from an organized religions text is wrong because they were created by ancient man to control populations, not agreed upon in the same kind of democratic process as 21st century law.

 

[Greenkid777]

to the bolded text

your text is a fallacy

but i cannot convince you of it,

yet it is true

The reason why you can't convince me is because you never respond with a counter argument or try to form a logical thought. Perhaps you simply have trouble articulating yourself through text, or you simply have more trouble bringing your thought across. I mean no offense by this (and I am not attacking you passively aggressively), for all I know english is not your mother language. It is just hard for me to piece together your point in the way you structure your responses. It would aid me if you wrote in correct english, only because it is easier to understand. But it certainly doesn't help when it seems that your every response is "your wrong" or "that's not true" (simply put). Once again I ask you not what is right or wrong, but WHY it is right or wrong. Because if it is only something you "feel", then that is about as faulty a backing I can imagine. Everyone "feels" they are right.

 

[Beefbisquit]

What are these rational reasons not to be evil? Why shouldn't I take from those who have more in order to fill my own needs/desires? Why shouldn't I end the existence of another, especially if I feel that the other is impeding on my needs and desires? Why should I feel bad for destroying another group if it secures the advancement of me and my group? You cannot possibly believe that all could have every desire and need filled simultaneously. There will always be advancement of one at the expense of another, history and nature itself teaches this quite well.

(As a side note, I do not actually believe in the validity of these statements. I simply wish to know how you could avoid this conclusion in the absence of God.)

I already stated the biggest one. Being evil is objectively bad to those having the evil done to them. Any rational person with the ability to examine their actions who has any sense of empathy at all can see the reasoning behind this. The fact that you can't rationally come to the conclusion that murdering people and taking their belongings is bad without a 'sky daddy' promising rewards or dishing out punishments, is disheartening and makes me lose a little faith in humanity. If you wouldn't want it done to you, you shouldn't do it to someone else. Why are you playing dumb to the fact that humans have the ability to reason and reflect on their actions? It's the very nature of what makes humans special. We can contemplate things like art, poetry, music, calculus, astrophysics, etc., etc., so how is it people can be so blind to humans capacity for empathy and moral reasoning?

It makes no sense to me.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I have a question I'd like to ask you guys. This is something I'd thought a lot about, especially during bouts of spiritual dilemma.

Let's say for a second that there is no God (though I have no notion in my mind that this is true). If there is no God, then there is no such thing as morality. Yes you can say that there are wrongs (murder for example) that are generally shunned by modern civilizations. But if there is no higher power, than these are simply man made notions. If there is no God, then in a sense, right and wrong are whatever you personally believe. And adhering to any moral code set forth by others would be nerfing yourself.

Take this for example. One may believe that the murder of another for outright personal gain is wrong. But another may say that if said gain is used to take care of his and his own, then the positives (the furtherance of his and his own) outweigh the negatives (the decimation of another, in which the first has no personal connection or care). Others may say that this is immoral. But if there is no governing force in the universe, why wouldn't one commit such an act as long as consequences could effectively be avoided.

That is what I don't understand about the reasoning of many atheists I have come into contact with. They speak of equality for all, a brotherhood of man. But with an absence of God, these sound like nothing more than "feel goods." It would only make sense to facilitate gain at the expense of others, after all is that not what evolution is all about? The strong become stronger, and the weak perish?

Its been proven through studies that just thinking about science , and things related to it, results in moral behavior, more so than reading the bible.

You seem like a respectful and intelligent person so I'll treat you as such but if this was coming from some bible thumper who barely passed high school then I'd try my best to put that dumbass back in his place. This argument is absolutely ridiculous, its very hard to take it seriously. Its a very, very closed minded view to have that only through 'God' (Im assuming you mean the Christian God as well) is morality possible. I can go into a few directions with this discussion but you wouldnt take them seriously because your belief limits you from exploring the possibilities that are outside of Christianity. The monarchy that the Christian God sits on top of resembles the way of evil, early civilized humanity more than it does divinity. To say that there has to be a governing authority over the universe (Not just Earth) for morality to exist doesnt make sense at all.

Heres a picture that shows how morality, unity, and equality is possible without a vengeful governing authority watching over people.

 

[Beefbisquit]

But there is also a great deal that would have no problem committing atrocities to further their cause.

There are a great deal of theists who are only 'moral' (it's not really moral actions) just out of fear of the consequences that god supposedly hands down to . This isn't moral behavior either! Do you want to actually talk about how objective morality can exist without god, or would you like to go back and forth showing cases where atheists and theists MIGHT not be moral under certain circumstances?

Atheists don't run around murdering people, despite the lack of objective morality you claim we all have. Could it be that humans have the cognitive ability to determine whether or not their own actions are right or wrong? Oh wait, that's what the justice system is for! And if you care to venture further down this hole, you'll notice that 'god said it was the right thing to do' is not a defense in court.

In your response to Samwell, you state a Utilitarian argument [One may believe that the murder of another for outright personal gain is wrong. But another may say that if said gain is used to take care of his and his own, then the positives (the furtherance of his and his own) outweigh the negatives (the decimation of another, in which the first has no personal connection or care)] but that is not the default position of atheism. I, personally, prescribe to both the deontological view and the utilitarian view of ethics, as they both make strong points when discussing different scenarios. People have inalienable rights, which make some actions wrong regardless of how many people the action might save.

Would you like to see the one of the worlds most respected Christian theologians (and prescriber to the divine command theory) get absolutely schooled by a Ethics professor who happens to be a naturalist? I bet you do!

[video=youtube_share;SiJnCQuPiuo]http://youtu.be/SiJnCQuPiuo[/video]

 

[SirGreenThumb]

The idea behind it being wrong to murder has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with your own coded dna. Its the same thing as asking; how would you know not to jump off a 100ft cliff with sharp pointed rocks at the bottom? Exactly, you just know not to. Even if someone was raised with the idea that it was ok to kill people, their own personal dna would tell them otherwise. No two people are alike and no two people will think exactly the same way, but that has nothing to do with if there is a god or not.

Greenkid, I have no issue with your beliefs because they are yours to have and you seem like a well spoken person, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could honestly believe that man was made from dust and women from a rib, and then on top of that once god realized that man was an evil piece of shit, he wiped them out with a flood and started over with complete incest to improve the bloodline. He also sent his only son to die for our sins, so therefor by that meaning, we could all kill everyone with no remorse because that is what jesus died for. So basically you could live the rest of your life and not believe in the lord almighty and still get into heaven.

Do you believe in zeus or demigods?

 

[Greenkid777]

What is right and wrong is decidedly a democratic process. The process holds weight because it works. Not only that, the ones that seem to be universally agreed upon, ie. murder, rape, theft, etc., have the whole weight of the judicial system behind them.

Deriving morality from an organized religions text is wrong because they were created by ancient man to control populations, not agreed upon in the same kind of democratic process as 21st century law.

The problem I see with the process you describe is that it is ultimately men deciding the law. According to what you say, we have decided for ourselves what morality is. And that means I could decide for myself what morality is, as one mans opinion is only as good as another. Why should I listen to what another group of men tell me? Are they not trying to control the population? And in regards to the process working, that is easily open to debate.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Also, those "feel goods" are a MUCH better reason to practice genuine moral behavior rather than trying to be a good person because of your fear of burning in hell. Much much better.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

We could argue all day long if its wrong or not to murder or whatever, but it all boils down to you wont do it because you are programed a certain way and that way is to not kill. Plain in simple the debate goes no where by just saying; but you "could" yea, you "could" stab yourself in the eyeball with a hot poker, but you're not gonna do it.

 

[Greenkid777]

You guys are replying to fast .

To Chris Walkin Eagle: I appreciate your positive comments. But please do not insult me by assuming I'm to close minded to explore possibilities outside of Christianity. I would like to hear the multiple directions that you could go with this argument. And I was not conveying the idea that no moral system could arise in the absence of God, rather the process by which this system would arise (which I think Padawanbater2 conveyed quite well, I did not agree with it but I see how he could support that). But as for that quote from the Native Chief, I've studied the Native Tribes and I assure you his view of Native civilization is rather flawed. If you don't believe me ask any historian. And when has any civilization without government done well? And about the "feel goods", what about the individuals who lack empathy (as in the documented cases of psychotics throughout history).

To BeefBisquit: The problem I keep running into with "reasoning" out morality is that not all will come upon the same conclusion. And who would be right? We all consider ourselves right. I understand your argument BB, we are probably going to have to just agree to disagree. I was not wishing to ruffle any feathers (which I fear I have), I was simply wondering how others came to certain conclusions.

To SirGreenThumb: But then why has there been countless murders throughout history? Should not their DNA have prevented it? And I do not personally believe that the meaning behind Christ's sacrifice for our sins was so that even the vilest of human beings may attain salvation effortlessly (but that is opening a whole new can of worms). And no I don't believe in Zeus. Or demi-gods (in the conventional sense, but once again that is a different subject )

 

[Greenkid777]

Ok one last time at this. Just trying to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding of what I'm asking (or a failure for me to communicate my question). I am not asking whether or not a moral system could arise without God. I am asking what a said system is based on, and how it is considered valid. Because by my observations, without a higher power, it really boils down to what one (whether that be a nation, a group, or an individual) personally decides. And it is validated by support from others. Am I wrong in this?

 

[Padawanbater2]

The problem I see with the process you describe is that it is ultimately men deciding the law. According to what you say, we have decided for ourselves what morality is. And that means I could decide for myself what morality is, as one mans opinion is only as good as another. Why should I listen to what another group of men tell me? Are they not trying to control the population? And in regards to the process working, that is easily open to debate.

You're free to decide your moral code however you want either way

If you believe only true morals can be derived from an organized religions text, or they are the only ones that hold real authority, how do you explain the actions committed in said texts that are inarguably immoral?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Ok one last time at this. Just trying to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding of what I'm asking (or a failure for me to communicate my question). I am not asking whether or not a moral system could arise without God. I am asking what a said system is based on, and how it is considered valid. Because by my observations, without a higher power, it really boils down to what one (whether that be a nation, a group, or an individual) personally decides. And it is validated by support from others. Am I wrong in this?

Thats right and morality will keep evolving with us.

I wonder, is perfect morality possible? It seems like an essential tool for the progress of oneself and humanity. We seem so morally advanced now-a-days, at least those of us who see things like gay marriage as morally acceptable. I know many more examples could be given for our advanced moral behavior, just trying to keep it short. I'd like to think that once our moral standards replace these out dated laws that government and religion have placed upon us, then we'd almost be completely moral and intelligent beings capable of making rational and moral decisions without the dogma and bias of obsolete authorities getting in the way.

Also, I wasnt saying that government is bad, just our way of government. It needs to evolve, like everything else does, the system simply does not work anymore, and morally, it never worked. I think government and religion need to change dramatically in order for humanity to progress. Get rid of all the hateful shit in religion and get rid of all the bullshit in government. What do I know though, Im just a radical dumbass lol.

 

[Greenkid777]

You're free to decide your moral code however you want either way

If I'm free to decide my own moral code, then is not morality nothing more than a figment of a mans imagination? Whatever he feels is right? That's a troubling thought. Especially in regards to one who lacks empathy or has a perverted sense of empathy.

If you believe only true morals can be derived from an organized religions text, or they are the only ones that hold real authority, how do you explain the actions committed in said texts that are inarguably immoral?

That is another major subject, my friend. You could start another thread on this question alone. Within my own studies, I have found the Bible rather devoid of situations that are unarguably immoral in the sense that I have always seen reasoning behind these situations. This is a widely controversial subject as not only do you have to decide if you believe in the validity of the Bible, but even if you do there is a great deal of difference in terms of interpretation between people. I mean just look at all the religious sects due to the disagreements of interpretation. I suppose this is were spiritual discernment would come into play, but if you do not believe in God then there is no such thing as spiritual discernment (in the sense I'm speaking of).

 

[Greenkid777]

Thats right and morality will keep evolving with us.

I wonder, is perfect morality possible? It seems like an essential tool for the progress of oneself and humanity. We seem so morally advanced now-a-days, at least those of us who see things like gay marriage as morally acceptable. I know many more examples could be given for our advanced moral behavior, just trying to keep it short. I'd like to think that once our moral standards replace these out dated laws that government and religion have placed upon us, then we'd almost be completely moral and intelligent beings capable of making rational and moral decisions without the dogma and bias of obsolete authorities getting in the way.

Also, I wasnt saying that government is bad, just our way of government. It needs to evolve, like everything else does, the system simply does not work anymore, and morally, it never worked. I think government and religion need to change dramatically in order for humanity to progress. Get rid of all the hateful shit in religion and get rid of all the bullshit in government. What do I know though, Im just a radical dumbass lol.

I'm just afraid I never see perfect morality coming about without divine intervention. I mean for instance look at the case of Hitler's rise to power and reign. How the hell did that ever become possible???? I think the simple answer is that the masses are far too easy to control. And as chance would have it, some of the most evil individuals also happen to be insanely intelligent (at least in the manipulative malevolent sense).

 

[Padawanbater2]

If I'm free to decide my own moral code, then is not morality nothing more than a figment of a mans imagination? Whatever he feels is right? That's a troubling thought. Especially in regards to one who lacks empathy or has a perverted sense of empathy.

Morality is derived by man either way, whether you're a Christian and you believe in the Bible, ancient man wrote the Bible, or an atheist and you come up with it yourself through your experiences.

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

That is another major subject, my friend. You could start another thread on this question alone. Within my own studies, I have found the Bible rather devoid of situations that are unarguably immoral in the sense that I have always seen reasoning behind these situations. This is a widely controversial subject as not only do you have to decide if you believe in the validity of the Bible, but even if you do there is a great deal of difference in terms of interpretation between people. I mean just look at all the religious sects due to the disagreements of interpretation. I suppose this is were spiritual discernment would come into play, but if you do not believe in God then there is no such thing as spiritual discernment (in the sense I'm speaking of).

Are you saying you believe everything in the Bible is morally justified?

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

I'm just afraid I never see perfect morality coming about without divine intervention. I mean for instance look at the case of Hitler's rise to power and reign. How the hell did that ever become possible???? I think the simple answer is that the masses are far too easy to control. And as chance would have it, some of the most evil individuals also happen to be insanely intelligent (at least in the manipulative malevolent sense).

I am partially responding to what you said to Pad as well. Yes, the masses are far to easy to control and manipulate. Im trying not to be offensive, but I think you are an example of that. Many horrible things take place in the story of the bible yet you have been manipulated to believe that only a few of those things are horrible and that those few horrible things have good, moral intentions behind them. I find that to be absolutely insane. Rather than pick and choose the few good things from the bible and disregard the MANY horrible things, you accept the horrible things and you justify them. As Pad would say, that is a very dangerous mindset to have and I am glad that mindset is on the decline. If divine intervention is needed for us to achieve perfect morality, it certainly isnt coming from a vengeful god. The kingdom of heaven is within man, know thyself and you shall know god. Based off that, I think we are divine enough to achieve what ever amazing things we want .

 

[tyler.durden]

It is precisely because of these ideas that I have trouble seeing how morality is rational with God excluded. If what you describe is true (in terms of an evolved morality and altruism) then it would agree with reason to impede upon those who I do not regard as "my own."

That's precisely it. Even with the huge population growth of humanity, we still retain the impulse toward altruism and helping out our fellow humans. It is a type of misfiring, I'll give an example. We often witness moths circle a flame and eventually fly into it, it seems an irrationally suicidal impulse so why would natural selection favor it? The reason why is that for millions of years, moths evolved to use the moon to navigate the planet in semi-circular patterns. Before man there was no flame except for the relatively rare occurrences where nature would produce a lightening strike, or the sun would shine down uninterrupted on a parched field, etc.. Humanity came along and produced purposeful fires nightly and then went on to create artificial light. The moth still has that navigation system honed over millions of years to use the brightest object in the sky (the moon), so when seeing a flame, or artificial light, they navigate it in circular patterns until they eventually run right into it. They're not attempting suicide, just mistaking the flame for the moon. The same misfiring seems to be happening with the morality of humanity, our urge to altruism is a kind of misfiring of that same selected system to look out for other tribe members, even though most of humanity are no longer other members that could share our genes. As misfirings go, this seems to be a pleasant one...

After all, it is evident that man is reaching a state, due to resource consumption and overpopulation, where the earth is not able to sustain us. It would only make sense to decide who is "mine" and in a sense disregard those who do not fall into this criteria.

The process of evolved morality I described isn't at an intellectual level, but a deeper emotional one...

I would like to share an example from a piece of literature I'm currently reading. In the book, Crime and Punishment, the main character (Raskolnikov) decides to commit the murder of a pawnbroker. This pawnbroker is old, decrepit, and a generally malevolent old hag in general (takes advantage of the misfortune of others) . She is neither a productive member of society, or well liked by anyone (and thus would be un-missed in Raskolnikov's reasoning). The reason he murders her is because of her substantial wealth, which he seizes and plans to use for the betterment of the productive members of society who have fallen into misfortune (including himself). Was Raskolnikov wrong in doing this? I would say yes, though his intentions could be considered noble (in a twisted sort of way), due to the sanctity of life declared by the Ten Commandments. But in the absence of God, I don't see how this would be in a sense wrong. After all, his actions would help many who needed it. Would the benevolence outweigh the malevolence? From an evolutionary viewpoint, I think so.

I was just speaking about this concept with my son. If a healthy person walks into a hospital and there are ten people that would be saved if we sacrificed the one healthy individual and gave his organs to the ten dying patients, would that be moral? I'm glad we've decided it is not, an individual's rights to his own body trump the need of the many. No one would like to walk around in such a cannibalistic society where whatever you have can be taken based on another's need.

I'm sure you get the concept I conveyed about how most anyone can pick and choose the moral parts of the bible from the immoral ones, or god's moral actions from his immoral actions. How would we be able to do this unless our morality came from a source outside of those things? That's the million dollar question for you...

 

[guy incognito]

Forgive me for not putting quotes to each reply within this, it would take more space than necessary.

I think what I was asking was misunderstood. I don't adhere to morality only because I'm "scared" of consequences. What I was asking was rather if you could actually argue (in the absence of God) that anything is right or wrong, in an absolute sense. And in reply to Guy Incognito, how would slitting my throat to save yourself any less fucked up than murdering someone for financial gain? So your saying as long as your life isn't in danger it's wrong to kill, but as soon as you are threatened individually than you will do whatever necessary to preserve yourself? That may be how you feel, but please don't lump me in with you.

I guess I wonder how an atheist defines what is right or wrong. Is it whatever is better for a group? The majority? The elite? I can't understand why atheists scoff at the idea of the Bible, since it is believed by them to be man made and thus flawed, but wouldn't morality be the same? What makes your feelings for what is right and wrong any more valid than the next persons?

Is that a serious question? Do you honestly not see the difference between a situation where my survival depends on killing you vs a situation where I kill you simply for financial gain? My mind is boggling that you don't understand the difference.

I already told you how I define right or wrong. It is basically the golden rule: do unto others and you would have them do unto you. Anything that you would consider bad if you were the victim is wrong (or if you could reasonably assume someone else would consider it bad). Killing is wrong because I don't want to be killed, so I can reasonably assume other people don't want to be killed. Not because god says it is bad. You shouldn't have to bring god into it to understand that an action is wrong.

And I think the reverse of that is true; if god is the only reason you think an action is wrong, then it is not actually wrong. Premarital sex is a good example. That is a sin and is wrong according to god. Totally arbitrary. No actual underlying reason why premarital sex is wrong other than god doesn't approve of it. Why can two adults who are emotionally and financially stable and responsible not have sex unless they are married? Who is being hurt? Who is being wronged? How can something be wrong if no one is harmed or wrong?

EDIT: Oh, and what makes my feelings for what is right and wrong better than the next persons? My rules are not arbitrary and are not guided by hatred, that is what makes it an infinitely better way to judge what is right and wrong.