Can morality exist without God cont..

[Dave Ellis]

Fraid so.

'Fraid not. Simply saying "fraid so" doesn't actually make it so.

Evidence?

Look up the Canaanite Pantheon

Abraham considered him the supreme God and as I demonstrated above there is evidence that the texts regarding him go back to 2000 years ago. And yes there are historians that believe that to be the case. Besides Kenneth A. Kitchen and Cyrus Gordon, two of the most renowned middle eastern scholars, there are many other lesser known ones, such as Samuel R. Kulling.

You haven't demonstrated anything

Exactly, you just proved my point. As a side note, God allows divorce for physical abuse, it is equivalent abandonment. But most of your rationalizing are similar to the types of rule relaxing and rationalizing that a manmade god would have.

How did I prove your point exactly? All I did was call into question the morality of the christian belief system regarding the topics you brought up.

Exactly you reflect typical fallen human responses about God's laws, that is why it is unlikely that the Christian God is man made.

No, I reflect a rational mature look at ethics. Something your holy book and the god you seem to be representing lacks.

Who could forge a universe except God? While it doesn't prove the Christian God created the universe my point is that it IS evidence that He created it. It is one of the ways that the origin of something that has been created can be determined.

We are not aware of anyone that can forge a universe. Making bald assertions about what your god can do doesn't serve as evidence that he exists either.

No, it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. Throughout all of human experience purposes have only come from an intelligent mind. Provide a non-biological example of such a thing, and you may convince me.

Did I stutter? Have I not said repeatedly that purpose necessarily comes from a conscious mind.

You are ascribing purpose to things which do not have inherent purpose.

How many times do I need to repeat that before you stop asking such an inane question?

First, Genesis does not the creation is perfect, only very good. But it is perfect for its purpose as shown in other parts of the bible. Also, many of the things you refer to are to the fall of man and the curse.

If the fall of man actually happened, then it would have been planned and set into motion by your god. That makes him responsible.

It's impossible to have a perfect creation that fails. By definition if it was prone to failure, it's not perfect.

No, see above about the fall and non perfection. Leukemia is due to mans rebellion against God.

Ah, so god created childhood leukemia because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit.

Makes sense to me, seems like the pinnacle of holy ethics.

In order to destroy evil forever, God decided that a universe that is primarily natural law and with free will beings must be in it. How else could nutrients be recycled in a natural law universe? Even photosynthetic plants need nutrients in the soil.

Why did god create evil in the first place?

And going over the details of how nutrients and whatnot would work is pointless. If your god is all powerful, he can create things however he wants. You're talking about things that would be a problem in the universe as we know it, however he'd have to have the power to create a way to make my proposal work as well. He's god, he's not constrained by the physical limits of the universe as we know it. Why have nutrients at all?

He didn't directly create human cancers. They came into existence by natural processes damaged by the consequences of our rebellion against our King and creator. But He also brings great good out of evil things such as cancer. Often when people experience such hardships they turn to God and grow spiritually thereby helping to bring about the ultimate destruction of evil forever.

So there are things that exist which were not created by god? I thought god created all things? You mean there's an equally powerful creator out there?

Ok so you admit that atheistic evolution could not have produced biological structures that function with a purpose.

What exactly is "atheistic evolution"?

You have yet to prove that nature alone can create things that have directed functions toward specific goals, ie purposes. Unless you can provide a non biological example.

Goals are made my conscious entities, as is purpose. Why are you asking me to prove things I haven't claimed?

Not necessarily everything, as I stated above if you can provide a non-biological example of purpose coming into existence I am all ears.[/QUOTE]

See above, and stop repeating that silly question.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Oh, I believe that the article exists. I will take your word for that. But I need to read the article to form my own judgment of what it is actually saying.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well you may have to pay a little fee to get access to Natural History's archives, but I recommend doing so but the article is not very long and is actually in response to a letter to the editor.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Is morality relative to history, culture, your opinion or is it
absolute from an external law giver ?

All of the above, except the last.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's debatable but a waste of time to do so.
well I think your playing words there.
But Allow me to change my statement to this:
absolute from an external morals giver.

Doesn't change anything.

It's still about an authority who spoonfeeds you the rules that are supposedly moral. And why are they supposedly moral? Well, becaue the authority says so.

No particular reason, no actual reasons. Just authority.

Like Dave says, that's not acting morally. That's just being obedient to the perceived authority.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because when its changing. It's just relative. It's every bodies opinion. There is no good or bad it was just that generations opinion.

But it is demonstrably changing through the ages.

We no longer think keeping slaves is okay (in any context).
Most of the civilised world no longer allows a death penalty.
We no longer consider apartheid okay.
We have renewed standards on how to treat animals. Even those that are literally born with the only purpose of become McNuggets.
Women have equal rights today as well.
There're almost uncountable examples like this.

How can you sit there and say that morals are "absolute" and "unchanging", when clearly and demonstrably, our collective moral standards have been changing through the centuries.......

Morality is a man made concept if it is changing. (relative)

And it clearly is.

Who is to say what it is ?

Humans, off course. With the help of knowledge about the world and reasonable argumentation. Instead of mere assertions of authority...

Reasonable argumentation and an increase in collective knowledge is what produced universal human rights, the end of apartheid, animal rights, etc.

Assertions of authority... those result in flying planes in buildings, stoning gay people to death and burning "witches".

 

[DogmaHunter]

And how has that been doing ?

Considering the world today as opposed to the barbarism of ancient times, I'ld say it is going very well.

Ironicly enough, the place in the world today where it is not going well, are places where morality is dictated by a perceived authority. Which is exactly the type of "morality" you folks are preaching about here.

Here's an experiment for you...
Make a list of all countries in the world and put a "check" next to every nation where you'ld want to live.

I can almost guarantee you that the checks will all be next to secular democracies. None will be next to theocracies, dictatorships, etc...

Ask yourself why.

To put it in a christian perspective, you can add pre-secular-democracy western nations in it. Like medieval England for example. You wouldn't to live there either.

There is a lot of preventable suffering going on. The love of money. If more help was given to 3rd world countries alot of people could be prevented from dying. Man can now destroy the world which was prohecised in the New Testament. More and more unstable nations are getting Nuclear arms. Just to name a few.

The fact of the matter is that never before in the history of civilisation, has there been a better time to be alive then today and a better place to live then western secular democracies.

The pooholes of the world today, are the kind of nations that we had everywhere before the advent of secular democracies. Back when we were still ruled by religious authorities or otherwise totalitarian states.

Yes, such nations still exist today.
Ask yourself why those nations are pooholes, while the western democracies are very nice to live in.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what if someone disagreed with what others believe to be right or wrong?

They'll present their arguments and the other side will do the same. And then they'll have a reasonable discussion on the topic.

 

[dougangel]

Doesn't change anything.

It's still about an authority who spoonfeeds you the rules that are supposedly moral. And why are they supposedly moral? Well, becaue the authority says so.

No particular reason, no actual reasons. Just authority.

Like Dave says, that's not acting morally. That's just being obedient to the perceived authority.

I don't think you get it. If good and evil change. Now think about it. And I agree with you "with man good and evil does seem to change".
If there are no absolute laws before time. There is no good and evil. It's just opinion. Who ever has got the status quo. "The authority". For there to be true morality there has to be a moral law giver before time.
because how can evil be evil one day then good the next day ?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think you get it. If good and evil change.

You seem to speak about "good" and "evil" as if they are entities. But they aren't. They are labels we attach to certain actions or decisions.

The actions and decisions don't change. What changes is how we perceive those actions and decisions. And it changes due to a build up of more knowledge, understanding and experience.

Now think about it. And I agree with you "with man good and evil does seem to change". If there are no absolute laws before time.

Clearly, such "absolute laws" do not exist.

There is no good and evil. It's just opinion.

It's not "just an opinion".
Just like scientific models of certain phenomena are not "just opinions".

Rather, they are conclusions based on an understanding of reality. As we learn more about reality and understand more about how to efficiently organize societies in such a way as to maximise well-being, our conclusions thereof will change accordingly.

In the end, what is the point of morality / ethics, if not to end up with a societal model in which life is good? In which people can prosper, be happy, healthy, free, etc?

"The authority". For there to be true morality there has to be a moral law giver before time.

Again, that's not a moral compass. That's obedience to a perceived authority.

because how can evil be evil one day then good the next day ?

The same way a thing can be considered morally okay one day and very evil the next day: by learning more information, forcing you to alter previously held conclusions.

This is how we concluded that keeping slaves is not a good thing.
It's also how we concluded that it's not evil for a woman to speak her mind.

 

[bhsmte]

'Fraid not. Simply saying "fraid so" doesn't actually make it so.



Look up the Canaanite Pantheon



You haven't demonstrated anything



How did I prove your point exactly? All I did was call into question the morality of the christian belief system regarding the topics you brought up.



No, I reflect a rational mature look at ethics. Something your holy book and the god you seem to be representing lacks.



We are not aware of anyone that can forge a universe. Making bald assertions about what your god can do doesn't serve as evidence that he exists either.



Did I stutter? Have I not said repeatedly that purpose necessarily comes from a conscious mind.

You are ascribing purpose to things which do not have inherent purpose.

How many times do I need to repeat that before you stop asking such an inane question?



If the fall of man actually happened, then it would have been planned and set into motion by your god. That makes him responsible.

It's impossible to have a perfect creation that fails. By definition if it was prone to failure, it's not perfect.



Ah, so god created childhood leukemia because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit.

Makes sense to me, seems like the pinnacle of holy ethics.



Why did god create evil in the first place?

And going over the details of how nutrients and whatnot would work is pointless. If your god is all powerful, he can create things however he wants. You're talking about things that would be a problem in the universe as we know it, however he'd have to have the power to create a way to make my proposal work as well. He's god, he's not constrained by the physical limits of the universe as we know it. Why have nutrients at all?



So there are things that exist which were not created by god? I thought god created all things? You mean there's an equally powerful creator out there?



What exactly is "atheistic evolution"?



Goals are made my conscious entities, as is purpose. Why are you asking me to prove things I haven't claimed?

Not necessarily everything, as I stated above if you can provide a non-biological example of purpose coming into existence I am all ears.

See above, and stop repeating that silly question.[/QUOTE]

He claims to be a scientist, yet uses terms like; fraid so and fraid not.

Something doesnt add up.

 

[dougangel]

Considering the world today as opposed to the barbarism of ancient times, I'ld say it is going very well.

Ironicly enough, the place in the world today where it is not going well, are places where morality is dictated by a perceived authority. Which is exactly the type of "morality" you folks are preaching about here.

Here's an experiment for you...
Make a list of all countries in the world and put a "check" next to every nation where you'ld want to live.

I can almost guarantee you that the checks will all be next to secular democracies. None will be next to theocracies, dictatorships, etc...

Ask yourself why.

Don't think this is right. It's very generalistic. There's kingship's in the pacific islands and other places that run just fine.
The English queen has influenced the common wealth in a good way and advised many prime ministers. After the cross Christ doesn't want us to be part of theocracies. Governments that adhere to Christs." treat people the way you want to be treated" are the most stable.

To put it in a christian perspective, you can add pre-secular-democracy western nations in it. Like medieval England for example. You wouldn't to live there either.

Debatable. I guess there are good and bad things about all eras. Modern living can be very stressful. THe love of money being the root of evils is causing a lot of trouble in this period. last century there were more wars and more casualties to war than any other time. So I don't know how u can say that.


The fact of the matter is that never before in the history of civilisation, has there been a better time to be alive then today and a better place to live then western secular democracies.

The pooholes of the world today, are the kind of nations that we had everywhere before the advent of secular democracies. Back when we were still ruled by religious authorities or otherwise totalitarian states.

Yes, such nations still exist today.
Ask yourself why those nations are pooholes, while the western democracies are very nice to live in.

All debatable. The proliferation of arms of 1st world countries selling them and giving them to developing nations is causing a lot of problems. Big modern nations are polluting the world which is causing wild swings in our weather. Nuclear power plants are time bombs waiting to happen. Global warming the ozone layer.just to name a few.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

To answer the question, yes. Because it was due to God that the human race was able to comprehend the difference between good and evil.
If morality is thought to only be imputed by believers in God then doesn't that necessarily imply people without God are immoral?
Wouldn't the first person who does not believe in god but is a moral individual refute that presumption and make it void?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't think this is right. It's very generalistic. There's kingship's in the pacific islands and other places that run just fine.
The English queen has influenced the common wealth in a good way and advised many prime ministers. After the cross Christ doesn't want us to be part of theocracies. Governments that adhere to Christs." treat people the way you want to be treated" are the most stable.

England is a secular democracy as well. Having a royal family doesn't mean that it's not.
Belgium has a king as well. It's still a secular democracy.

Point remains: you'ld put checks next to such countries. Not next to north korea, afghanistan or any other such hellholes.

Debatable. I guess there are good and bad things about all eras. Modern living can be very stressful. THe love of money being the root of evils is causing a lot of trouble in this period. last century there were more wars and more casualties to war than any other time. So I don't know how u can say that.

There weren't "more wars". There were more casualties. And the reason is not "less morals". The reason is "better technology".

If the crusaders would have had access to 20th century weaponry, what do you think would have happened? I'ld dare to say that it would have been even worse then what we have seen during both world wars.

All debatable. The proliferation of arms of 1st world countries selling them and giving them to developing nations is causing a lot of problems. Big modern nations are polluting the world which is causing wild swings in our weather. Nuclear power plants are time bombs waiting to happen. Global warming the ozone layer.just to name a few.

None of this changes anything that I've said either.

The fact remains, today is the best time to be alive thoughout the history of civilisation. Never has there been so much safety, prosperity and life-expectancy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

He claims to be a scientist, yet uses terms like; fraid so and fraid not.

Something doesnt add up.

He claims to be a scientist? That's a laugh, I wasn't aware of that.

 

[Radrook]

Did Hebrews go around and intentionally and exclusively single out any individuals because of their race and enslaved them solely because of their race? Yes or No?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The word "race" isn't used in the Bible.

"For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved”

(Rom. 10:11-13).

Both the Old and New Testaments show that God does not hold any significance to race. God sees all people as one people called "man." Physical characteristics are not a part of God's evaluation of man ". . .for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart" (I Samuel l6:7).


God states clearly He is not a respecter of persons, and that includes race or nationality.. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35)

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, but I am holding a copy of the magazine in my hands as I sit at my computer.

What is the title of the article?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑ Fraid so.

de: 'Fraid not. Simply saying "fraid so" doesn't actually make it so.

I said that because you didn't provide any evidence for your statement. So why should I try to refute something that you didn't even support yourself?

↑

ed: Evidence?

de: Look up the Canaanite Pantheon

I did, nothing in that refutes my argument. It very well could be the opposite of what they claim. The Canaanites could have borrowed the concept of a Supreme God from Abraham and Melchizedek or it could even be cultural memory from Seth and Adam. Many Anthropological studies have demonstrated that almost all primitive and ancient societies have a cultural memory of when there was only one supreme God and then later other gods were added over time. Read studies by Wilhelm Schmidt. This confirms what is taught by scripture.

↑

ed: Abraham considered him the supreme God and as I demonstrated above there is evidence that the texts regarding him go back to 2000 years ago. And yes there are historians that believe that to be the case. Besides Kenneth A. Kitchen and Cyrus Gordon, two of the most renowned middle eastern scholars, there are many other lesser known ones, such as Samuel R. Kulling.

de: You haven't demonstrated anything

Maybe I haven't but they have. Read some of their works pertaining to the subject at hand. Especially Kitchens "Reliability of the OT."

↑

ed: Exactly, you just proved my point. As a side note, God allows divorce for physical abuse, it is equivalent abandonment. But most of your rationalizing are similar to the types of rule relaxing and rationalizing that a manmade god would have.

de; How did I prove your point exactly? All I did was call into question the morality of the christian belief system regarding the topics you brought up.

You proved it by confirming that fallen human nature naturally rejects Gods moral standards but not the standards of man made religions and gods. IOW you have no real problem with gods and religions that allow promiscuous sex, open marriages and lies and cheating in certain circumstances as long as no one gets hurt. Am I right?

↑

ed: Exactly you reflect typical fallen human responses about God's laws, that is why it is unlikely that the Christian God is man made.

de: No, I reflect a rational mature look at ethics. Something your holy book and the god you seem to be representing lacks.

No, it is not objectively rational to believe that humans deserve special treatment if atheistic evolution is true. It is in fact objectively irrational. And almost all societies founded on Christian ethics and principles are the most humane societies on the planet. Ie Western societies.

↑

 

[Dave Ellis]

I said that because you didn't provide any evidence for your statement. So why should I try to refute something that you didn't even support yourself?

↑


I did, nothing in that refutes my argument. It very well could be the opposite of what they claim. The Canaanites could have borrowed the concept of a Supreme God from Abraham and Melchizedek or it could even be cultural memory from Seth and Adam. Many Anthropological studies have demonstrated that almost all primitive and ancient societies have a cultural memory of when there was only one supreme God and then later other gods were added over time. Read studies by Wilhelm Schmidt. This confirms what is taught by scripture.

↑


Maybe I haven't but they have. Read some of their works pertaining to the subject at hand. Especially Kitchens "Reliability of the OT."

↑

You proved it by confirming that fallen human nature naturally rejects Gods moral standards but not the standards of man made religions and gods. IOW you have no real problem with gods and religions that allow promiscuous sex, open marriages and lies and cheating in certain circumstances as long as no one gets hurt. Am I right?

↑


No, it is not objectively rational to believe that humans deserve special treatment if atheistic evolution is true. It is in fact objectively irrational. And almost all societies founded on Christian ethics and principles are the most humane societies on the planet. Ie Western societies.

↑

'fraid not

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, it is not objectively rational to believe that humans deserve special treatment if atheistic evolution is true. It is in fact objectively irrational.

Nonsense.

We as human beings are a social species. Why do you think that we communicate and coordinate our activities with each other through the use of language? It does make sense that we would give each other special treatment. We depend on each other for the values we need to survive and thrive.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Who could forge a universe except God? While it doesn't prove the Christian God created the universe my point is that it IS evidence that He created it. It is one of the ways that the origin of something that has been created can be determined.

de: We are not aware of anyone that can forge a universe. Making bald assertions about what your god can do doesn't serve as evidence that he exists either.

You totally missed my point. I was stating that art experts determine who created a specific piece of art by looking at the characteristics of the piece specific to a particular artist. And that is what I am saying about the universe. We can look at the characteristics of the universe and determine who or what created it. This is done all the time/

↑

ed: No, it is not an argument from ignorance, it is an argument from knowledge. Throughout all of human experience purposes have only come from an intelligent mind. Provide a non-biological example of such a thing, and you may convince me.

de: Did I stutter? Have I not said repeatedly that purpose necessarily comes from a conscious mind.

You are ascribing purpose to things which do not have inherent purpose.

How many times do I need to repeat that before you stop asking such an inane question?

You have not proven that they do not have an inherent purpose. What purpose does an eye, ear, or legs have if not what they are almost all used for?

↑

ed: First, Genesis does not the creation is perfect, only very good. But it is perfect for its purpose as shown in other parts of the bible. Also, many of the things you refer to are to the fall of man and the curse.

de: If the fall of man actually happened, then it would have been planned and set into motion by your god. That makes him responsible.

I never denied that He is not indirectly responsible. But He is not directly responsible. He did not put Satan in the Garden and He did not tell Satan to tempt Adam and Eve.

de: It's impossible to have a perfect creation that fails. By definition if it was prone to failure, it's not perfect.

If the purpose of a car is to get you from one place to another at 60 mph, then it is perfect for its purpose but it is not a perfect car.

↑