If we accept evolution, then where will we get our morality?

[Parogar]

I am open and respectful to all beliefs and ideas. That's why, if someone genuinely wants to live in a world where every morning you need to dodge Molotov cocktails on the way to work while a band of mutants with Mohawks chase you in a jeep with the intention of capturing you and selling you on the human slave market, then that is their right, and I respect their opinion.

But what about the rest of us? What about those of us who still want to live in a society where murder, theft, and jaywalking is illegal?

If we accept the theory of evolution, then how will we be able to live as a peaceful society of people? Obviously, once evolution is accepted, bibles will be seized and taken from us. Then after that happens, people won't be able to read the bible to know how to behave properly, because the bible is the book that taught us it's not good to live in a society where all court cases are settled via gladiatorial combat.

How do evolutionists plan to live in such a Godless world?

Is it really worth the cost? If so, then I hope you know how to wield an axe or a broadsword, because that's exactly the kind of thing you'll need after the atheists rediscover the use of black magic and create an army of unicorn pirates.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do evolutionists plan to live in such a Godless world?

I believe scientists are second to none in being able to invent technology to defend this world against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The problem, however, is that there is a "ghost in the machine."

A ghost in the form of a sin nature.

Because of this, scientists are wont to identifying the wrong things as "the enemy."

In other words, they go overboard -; much like Jehu did in the Bible.

God will return soon to set the record straight and show scientists who's on the throne; but unfortunately, in the end, it will only amount to "shaking a beehive," as there will be one final war (after Armageddon) that we call the "Final Conflict."

Revelation 21:9a And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:

And then it will be Lake Phlogiston for them.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I am open and respectful to all beliefs and ideas. That's why, if someone genuinely wants to live in a world where every morning you need to dodge Molotov cocktails on the way to work while a band of mutants with Mohawks chase you in a jeep with the intention of capturing you and selling you on the human slave market........after the atheists rediscover the use of black magic and create an army of unicorn pirates.

I wonder how many people you'll get to take this seriously enough to discuss the "atheist morality" portion after they've read this tripe.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder how many people you'll get to take this seriously enough to discuss the "atheist morality" portion after they've read this tripe.

If true morality is defined as the relationship between God and man -- as opposed to true ethics, which would be defined as the relationship between man and man -- then "atheist morality" would be a contradiction in terms.

 

[DerelictJunction]

If true morality is defined as the relationship between God and man -- as opposed to true ethics, which would be defined as the relationship between man and man -- then "atheist morality" would be a contradiction in terms.

I don't recall saying "atheist true morality".
Almost all of God's laws concern the relationship between man and man.

YOIKS! You got me to talk about it! I am truly addicted to this stuff.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If true morality is defined as the relationship between God and man -- as opposed to true ethics, which would be defined as the relationship between man and man -- then "atheist morality" would be a contradiction in terms.

But, morality has no absolute definition. In fact, I don't recall even the bible stating that morality was a relationship with god. I could even argue that the bible depicts humans as incapable of being moral. After all, if we were moral, what would we have to be forgiven for?

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't recall saying "atheist true morality".

Neither do I.

I believe the word "morality" was hijacked somewhere in history and applied horizontally (man to man).

True morality is vertical (God to man).

Solomon brought out this difference in the book of Ecclesiastes, when he used the phrase "under the sun."

His horizontal-only thinking almost led him to suicide, until he finally concluded at the end that the elevator goes up and down, not back and forth.

Almost all of God's laws concern the relationship between man and man.

40% of the Ten Commandments, specifically the first four, deal with morals.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, morality has no absolute definition.

That's because scientists took control of it many years ago.

Look at how they talk when they assume control of the Bible: It's just a "book," and they don't even capitalize It.

In fact, I don't recall even the bible stating that morality was a relationship with god.

I don't either.

I could even argue that the bible depicts humans as incapable of being moral.

I totally agree.

Scientists would disagree with you though, since they think "moral" is horizontal.

After all, if we were moral, what would we have to be forgiven for?

Good question.

 

[RDKirk]

Seriously, fellow Christians, have none of you ever heard of Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Zenos? Never heard of Buddha or Confucius?

Have you not even read the New Testament? Ever read Acts 17?

The world already had operationally practical moral systems, and they all had creation myths that were nothing like Genesis.

We can argue that at base and unconsciously they had somehow received whatever was good about those systems from God, but it's silly to argue that without a specific belief in Genesis the world would descend into utter chaos. The world has already been there and didn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's because scientists took control of it many years ago.

Look at how they talk when they assume control of the Bible: It's just a "book," and they don't even capitalize It.

I don't either.

I totally agree.

Scientists would disagree with you though, since they think "moral" is horizontal.

Good question.

Calling god absolutely moral doesn't make god the definition of absolute morality just like when I am sick with the flu I do not become a definition of the flu. God might be an example of absolute morality in the bible, but I doubt that any clear definition of what that means could be derived from the bible.

Scientists on the whole rarely deal in morality as a subject of study, and it is pretty constrained to psychology related studies. They definitely have to consider it when designing experiments though.

I recognize morality as too complex to be any linear direction. And I am technically a scientist, I conduct experiments 3 days a week. I have even designed a few. But I have never done an experiment studying morality, and I took Theory and Practice of Rights.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calling god absolutely moral doesn't make god the definition of absolute morality just like when I am sick with the flu I do not become a definition of the flu.

Yes, I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

God might be an example of absolute morality in the bible, but I doubt that any clear definition of what that means could be derived from the bible.

Maybe not.

But as I said, it was hijacked some time in history and bastardized.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

Maybe not.

But as I said, it was hijacked some time in history and bastardized.

Given that people will go to hell without belief regardless as to their actions in life, is morality even relevant? A hateful thought is the same as a murder, and such transgressions are forgiven through belief.

I think the question shouldn't be "where do those who accept evolution get their morals", but rather why do people who think nothing but belief shall matter bother to follow any rules.

And that thought/action equivalent is mentioned in the bible, you cannot deny that a murderer can get into heaven just on belief alone, while Gandhi is sitting in hell. Unless you are Catholic, in which case both are in hell unless the murderer somehow made up for their crimes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that people will go to hell without belief regardless as to their actions in life, is morality even relevant?

If you respond to morality with the proper action, you won't end up in Hell.

And that thought/action equivalent is mentioned in the bible, you cannot deny that a murderer can get into heaven just on belief alone,

Paul is in Heaven.

You know who Paul was, don't you?

He was the one who wrote this:

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

... while Gandhi is sitting in hell.

I-dont-like-your-Christians Gandhi, if he is sitting in Hell, is sitting there for one reason:

He didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour; i.e., he didn't respond to morality with the proper action.

 

[Split Rock]

You guys are being POE'd. The "army of unicorn pirates" is a nice touch, though.

 

[Split Rock]

40% of the Ten Commandments, specifically the first four, deal with morals.

That's not a lot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you respond to morality with the proper action, you won't end up in Hell.

Paul is in Heaven.

You know who Paul was, don't you?

He was the one who wrote this:

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


I-dont-like-your-Christians Gandhi, if he is sitting in Hell, is sitting there for one reason:

He didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour; i.e., he didn't respond to morality with the proper action.

AV. Does a Christian who kills 10 children and wears their skin deserve to be in heaven more than Gandhi?

 

[DerelictJunction]

If you respond to morality with the proper action, you won't end up in Hell.

Paul is in Heaven.

You know who Paul was, don't you?

He was the one who wrote this:

Galatians 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:


I-dont-like-your-Christians Gandhi, if he is sitting in Hell, is sitting there for one reason:

He didn't accept Jesus Christ as his personal saviour; i.e., he didn't respond to morality with the proper action.

Looks like you had to change the definition of "morality" in order to make it seem like belief was the same thing as being moral.

 

[Strathos]

That's like asking "if we accept gravity, where do we get our morality?"

They are two completely unrelated things.

 

[DerelictJunction]

AV. Does a Christian who kills 10 children and wears their skin deserve to be in heaven more than Gandhi?

Yes, of course.
Your treatment of your fellow man is not considered by God in his determination of who gets into heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not a lot.

It's enough.

Anything that can get the attention of scientists (who allegedly are "morally neutral" on Biblical issues) enough to want them removed from public property is sufficient, as far as I'm concerned.