Atheistic Morality

[armyman_83]

I've never been able to understand religious folks who say this. I don't believe in any gods, but I don't "do whatever I want." I have a set of moral and ethical understandings, and I do my best to live in accordance with them, simply because I believe that it is right to do so. How do I differ in this regard from a believer who claims that the only control over or guide to his behavior is the belief in a divine being, and what can be concluded from this difference?

Perhaps because you have never been religious? (I am asking not taunting )

The difference is that God is real and has spoken to the prophets and such. But you do not believe in such things. You believe you are right because you believe you are right. We believe we are right, because God has spoken to man.
What can be concluded from the difference? You trust in yourself, while we trust in God.

 

[EndersConscience]

Perhaps because you have never been religious? (I am asking not taunting )

The difference is that God is real and has spoken to the prophets and such. But you do not believe in such things. You believe you are right because you believe you are right. We believe we are right, because God has spoken to man.
What can be concluded from the difference? You trust in yourself, while we trust in God.

The difference between doing something just/right/moral with God and doing something just/right/moral without God is that when you believe there is a God, you are commiting those acts for selfish reasons: God will "get" you if you do bad, or save you if you do good. When you have no supreme being, you're doing just/right/moral acts simply because you believe in the goodness of such acts for themselves.

 

[armyman_83]

The difference between doing something just/right/moral with God and doing something just/right/moral without God is that when you believe there is a God, you are commiting those acts for selfish reasons: God will "get" you if you do bad, or save you if you do good. When you have no supreme being, you're doing just/right/moral acts simply because you believe in the goodness of such acts for themselves.

Or you do those acts because the Divine should be obeyed. So, hopefully, you follow God (Yahweh) because He is God.

 

[TooCurious]

Perhaps because you have never been religious? (I am asking not taunting )

I was raised with Christian beliefs, and didn't realize my unbelief until early adulthood.

The difference is that God is real and has spoken to the prophets and such.

In your opinion. Such has not been conclusively substantiated.

But you do not believe in such things. You believe you are right because you believe you are right.

More accurately, I am under the impression that I am right because my position makes logical sense to me, and no position to the contrary has sufficient evidence in support of it to convince me otherwise.

We believe we are right, because God has spoken to man.

Or at least, because you believe this to be the case.

What can be concluded from the difference? You trust in yourself, while we trust in God.

Or rather, that I trust in what can be perceived, and you trust in what cannot be perceived.

But that does not answer my question. I stated that, though I have no belief in gods, I have a moral and ethical understanding, and try to live in accordance with it even when it might be easier or more satisfying to do otherwise. You have stated that, if you did not believe in your god, you would cheerfully rape and murder, because it would "feel good." That is the difference that I am trying to understand.

 

[armyman_83]

I was raised with Christian beliefs, and didn't realize my unbelief until early adulthood.

Thank you for your anwser, hopefully you will fine God (Yahweh).

In your opinion. Such has not been conclusively substantiated.

Faith is needed to obey God.

More accurately, I am under the impression that I am right because my position makes logical sense to me, and no position to the contrary has sufficient evidence in support of it to convince me otherwise.

The old "Logic vs. Faith", perhaps the wisest know that for some things there is no logic? But really, all consequences aside; if murdering were normal then you would do it. If stealing was normal and there was nothing viewed against it why wouldn't you do it? It is only because you have been raised in a country with law (a moral code to live by; not murdering, not stealing etc.) that you believe what you believe.

If you were raised in a country were stealing was acceptable you would steal. It is only because we have law (which is based off of religion) that you think the way you do. Of course there are always exceptions to the rules. Some people just get a kick out of murdering some one.

In short: You wouldn't know if murder was wrong, if you were never told it was wrong. You are told it is wrong because of law. Law is derived from divine mandate.

Or at least, because you believe this to be the case.

True, I believe in something greater than myself; you are comparing your belief to God's belief.

Or rather, that I trust in what can be perceived, and you trust in what cannot be perceived.

I cannot see your beliefs, your thoughts and morals are not tangable, why should I trust them?

But that does not answer my question. I stated that, though I have no belief in gods, I have a moral and ethical understanding, and try to live in accordance with it even when it might be easier or more satisfying to do otherwise. You have stated that, if you did not believe in your god, you would cheerfully rape and murder, because it would "feel good." That is the difference that I am trying to understand.

"But that does not answer my question. I stated that..."
There was no question there.

I suppose the difference is human nature; you try to control human nature by human laws. I try to control human nature by divine law. Since my "flesh" is of the world it wants to do worldly things, steal, sex before I am wed, etc. While I used the example of "raping and murdering" I meant it as a blanket statement of sin. (As I have said before, some people enjoy stealing and murdering, I would be fine with sex before I am wed .) But you must not believe in sin, because there is no God?

 

[Niels]

Anyone can be moral and/or immoral. It's just part of being human. Being moral doesn't make a person Christian, and being a Christian doesn't make a person moral.

That said, if you can successfully follow all of Christ's teachings, then chances are good that you will be more moral than I.

 

[Pheehp]

"Faith is needed to obey god" - is this because if you think about it it becomes a bit dodgey?

The following is NOT an attempt to turn this thread into a gay rights blah blah blah thread (lots already)

besides that Morality is quite subjective, certain ppl find it morally wrong to commit gay sex acts, i find it morally wrong for these ppl to find it wrong. which of us is more moral? my morality is obviously the one i side with as i've considered and thought this conclusion up myself, not been told its wrong and accepted.

as children did you not ever ask questions? i believe questions are the most important things, should be asked even by adults, they lead to everything fun and new. ^^

i never found "Cause i said so" to be a convincing arguement by my mum or dad when giving a reason, i plan never to say it to my children should i ever become a parent.

 

[TooCurious]

Thank you for your anwser, hopefully you will fine God (Yahweh).

Thank you for your concern. I am, however, content with my current lack of belief.

Faith is needed to obey God.

This is true insofar as faith is needed to believe that any gods exist.

The old "Logic vs. Faith", perhaps the wisest know that for some things there is no logic?

For instance?

But really, all consequences aside; if murdering were normal then you would do it. If stealing was normal and there was nothing viewed against it why wouldn't you do it? It is only because you have been raised in a country with law (a moral code to live by; not murdering, not stealing etc.) that you believe what you believe.

If you were raised in a country were stealing was acceptable you would steal.

These statements have merit, insofar as a person's moral values are influenced by that person's cultural background, which is true.

It is only because we have law (which is based off of religion) that you think the way you do.

(Emphasis added)

If you want my to accept this statement, you will need to support it. I am under the impression that laws, at least most laws in America, are based on the protection of individual liberties and a need to maintain a certain level of personal safety and social function. If you have evidence that the laws of America are based on any particular religious sect's beliefs, I am interested in hearing this evidence. Other countries have codified religious laws into the laws of the state, but I do not live in any of these countries.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rules. Some people just get a kick out of murdering some one.

Yes; I find such people disturbing.

In short: You wouldn't know if murder was wrong, if you were never told it was wrong.

Rather, I wouldn't think that murder was wrong if I had never been introduced to the idea (either from an external source or through my own thoughts) that human life has value.

You are told it is wrong because of law.

My morals are not exclusively based on the laws of the country in which I live. In fact, my country has some laws with which I disagree.

Law is derived from divine mandate.

Again, you must substantiate this assertion if you expect me to believe it.

True, I believe in something greater than myself; you are comparing your belief to God's belief.

Actually, it would be rather impossible for me to do that, as I do not believe that there exists any such being as "God."

I cannot see your beliefs, your thoughts and morals are not tangable, why should I trust them?

Do I require you to "trust" my beliefs, thoughts, or morals? Or rather, is this a way of saying that you suspect that I am being untruthful? I honestly do not know what you are trying to say here; can you clarify?

"But that does not answer my question. I stated that..."
There was no question there.

The question was in my first post, and at the end of the paragraph whose beginning you quoted, I did in fact restate it, though in different terms. I will state it again here, phrased as a question: If, without a belief in a god, you would cheerfully behave in an immoral fashion and cause harm to others, while I, who have no belief in any gods, endeavor to adhere to a moral code and avoid causing harm to others, what does that say about you and I, and about people who share our respective viewpoints on this topic? More specifically: Who is more moral--a person who behaves morally solely because of a perceived divine mandate, or a person who behaves morally simply because they think it's the right thing to do?

I suppose the difference is human nature; you try to control human nature by human laws. I try to control human nature by divine law.

Actually, I do not "try to control human nature by human laws." I try to guide my actions through my understanding of right and wrong. Law doesn't enter into it for me. Law is an external regulatory force with associated penalties if breached. My morals involve a set of ideas to which I assign value, and an effort to guide my behavior in a manner that supports these values.

Since my "flesh" is of the world it wants to do worldly things, steal, sex before I am wed, etc. While I used the example of "raping and murdering" I meant it as a blanket statement of sin. (As I have said before, some people enjoy stealing and murdering, I would be fine with sex before I am wed .) But you must not believe in sin, because there is no God?

If "sin" is defined as defying God, then no, I do not believe in "sin." That does not mean that I do not have a concept of "wrongdoing," because I do have such a concept. It involves behaving in a manner that violates those ideals to which I assign value.

 

[armyman_83]

Thank you for your concern. I am, however, content with my current lack of belief.

Well you know yourself better than I know you .

This is true insofar as faith is needed to believe that any gods exist.

Correct, Faith takes "faith".

For instance?

How was the universe created? What is the meaning to life? Things of this nature.

These statements have merit, insofar as a person's moral values are influenced by that person's cultural background, which is true.

Indeed we agree to an extent.

If you want my to accept this statement, you will need to support it. I am under the impression that laws, at least most laws in America, are based on the protection of individual liberties and a need to maintain a certain level of personal safety and social function. If you have evidence that the laws of America are based on any particular religious sect's beliefs, I am interested in hearing this evidence. Other countries have codified religious laws into the laws of the state, but I do not live in any of these countries.

You will most likely not believe what I have to say, as it relates to the Bible. But should one believe in the Bible then one would find that the very first commandment was given by God “Do not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (paraphrased). This command was broken of course (I am sure you are aware of the story). Noah and his seed knew also to love God (they were the only ones that did good) So their seed populated the earth. And it comes down that these people did evil often times but were restrained by what? The “morals” taught to them as children (no doubt). These morals were based off of what? Divine mandate; even from Adam and Eve, through Noah, and so forth.

Now I bet you don’t believe the Bible so I suppose this doesn’t help much in what you were looking for. But from this you can see my reasoning at least.

As to the laws of America: Perhaps the Supreme Court can say it best:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.

And long before when the pilgrims landed the first pact written was known as the Mayflower Compact:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Those first settlers based law of the Bible (religion), it was from their seed (as well as others who came later) that the laws of America were based.
Commandment VI: Thou shalt not murder. Murder is against the law in every state of the Union.
Commandment VIII: Thou shalt not steal. Stealing is against the law in every state of the Union.
Commandment IX: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This means among other things, that you cannot go into a court of law and commit perjury.
Commandment V: Honour thy father and thy mother. No one can force a person to love your mother and father, but God has commanded that you should honor them. In this country if you abuse your parents by using physical force or taking from them that which doesn't belong to you, it is a crime.
Commandment VII: Thou shalt not commit adultery. When this Republic was birthed and for a long time afterwards, adultery was a crime. It was a legal basis for divorce.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence. (emphasis added)

Yes; I find such people disturbing.

Indeed, I would hope all men do.

Rather, I wouldn't think that murder was wrong if I had never been introduced to the idea (either from an external source or through my own thoughts) that human life has value.

Perhaps both combined are required to some extent?

My morals are not exclusively based on the laws of the country in which I live. In fact, my country has some laws with which I disagree.

See below.

Again, you must substantiate this assertion if you expect me to believe it.

Look above to section 3. (sorry for all the road signs!)

Actually, it would be rather impossible for me to do that, as I do not believe that there exists any such being as "God."

Ok, true you do not compare them to God’s beliefs (I am saying this for your satisfaction) but to my belief in what God believes.

You said “Or rather, that I trust in what can be perceived, and you trust in what cannot be perceived.”

Do I require you to "trust" my beliefs, thoughts, or morals? Or rather, is this a way of saying that you suspect that I am being untruthful? I honestly do not know what you are trying to say here; can you clarify?

I cannot perceive your morals since they are not written down (or are not in tangible form) (though of course I can see some by your actions), but God’s morals are written down. (But you do not believe they are because you do not believe in the Bible. So it might be better to say: but I believe God’s morals are written down.)

The question was in my first post, and at the end of the paragraph whose beginning you quoted, I did in fact restate it, though in different terms. I will state it again here, phrased as a question: If, without a belief in a god, you would cheerfully behave in an immoral fashion and cause harm to others, while I, who have no belief in any gods, endeavor to adhere to a moral code and avoid causing harm to others, what does that say about you and I, and about people who share our respective viewpoints on this topic? More specifically: Who is more moral--a person who behaves morally solely because of a perceived divine mandate, or a person who behaves morally simply because they think it's the right thing to do?

I should have been clearer. I meant “natural law” as in your own law (or set of morals). Thus my quote my read “I suppose the difference is human nature; you try to control human nature by human morals. I try to control human nature by divine law (divine mandate of morals). (That was my bad on clarity).

Actually, I do not "try to control human nature by human laws." I try to guide my actions through my understanding of right and wrong. Law doesn't enter into it for me. Law is an external regulatory force with associated penalties if breached. My morals involve a set of ideas to which I assign value, and an effort to guide my behavior in a manner that supports these values.

You--“My morals involve a set of ideas to which I assign value, and an effort to guide my behavior in a manner that supports these values.”

If that is the case doesn’t each person’s morals vary? So whose is more correct? Yours and the psycho that enjoys murdering people? Because if everyone’s moral code (based upon their own mind) is ok then the Psycho’s must also be accepted.

If "sin" is defined as defying God, then no, I do not believe in "sin." That does not mean that I do not have a concept of "wrongdoing," because I do have such a concept. It involves behaving in a manner that violates those ideals to which I assign value.

I understand that you don’t believe in sin, but this question I pose to you: If you believe in evolution (since you don’t believe in “Creation”) do you think humans are just sophisticated animals?

 

[seebs]

The problem I have with Divine Command theories of morality is that they don't tell us why we should obey God. They are uncomfortably close to simple "might makes right".

If we are to affirm that this is more than just a might-makes-right system, we need to talk about how we know that these commands are moral, or how we recognize a moral authority...

At which point, we have described morality independent of these commands!

 

[armyman_83]

Bump

 

[nadroj1985]

What can be concluded from the difference? You trust in yourself, while we trust in God.

This is a distortion. Everyone trusts him/herself, because there's no one else to trust. If you believe you are following God's commands, no one but you decided that it was moral to follow God's commands. Either God controls you completely, or you must ultimately trust yourself to come up with your own values. There is no other alternative.

 

[TooCurious]

Well you know yourself better than I know you .

Indeed. Thank you.

Correct, Faith takes "faith".

What I meant was, you can't have "faith" in something that you don't believe exists, can you?

How was the universe created?

To this, I am content to say, "I don't yet know how the universe was created, or if it was 'created,' per se. Science is making strong inroads in understanding the early universe, but there is still much that we don't yet know. Perhaps someday we shall.

What is the meaning to life? Things of this nature.

My life has whatever meaning I choose to give it. I don't know if "life" as in existence-in-general has any sort of overarching purpose or significance, nor do I need it to have one.

Indeed we agree to an extent.

Indeed.

You will most likely not believe what I have to say, as it relates to the Bible. But should one believe in the Bible then one would find that the very first commandment was given by God “Do not eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (paraphrased). This command was broken of course (I am sure you are aware of the story). Noah and his seed knew also to love God (they were the only ones that did good) So their seed populated the earth. And it comes down that these people did evil often times but were restrained by what? The “morals” taught to them as children (no doubt). These morals were based off of what? Divine mandate; even from Adam and Eve, through Noah, and so forth.

Now I bet you don’t believe the Bible so I suppose this doesn’t help much in what you were looking for. But from this you can see my reasoning at least.

You're right; I don't think the Bible stories are literally true, and hence I don't think that our morals derive from the events described in them. But I do understand that you believe this to be the case, and from that perspective, your reasoning makes sense.

As to the laws of

America: Perhaps the Supreme Court can say it best:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.

And long before when the pilgrims landed the first pact written was known as the Mayflower Compact:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Then again, these items were written in the nineteenth and the seventeenth centuries, respectively; god-belief was a more central part of their cultures.

Those first settlers based law of the Bible (religion), it was from their seed (as well as others who came later) that the laws of

America were based.
Commandment VI: Thou shalt not murder. Murder is against the law in every state of the Union.
Commandment VIII: Thou shalt not steal. Stealing is against the law in every state of the Union.
Commandment IX: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. This means among other things, that you cannot go into a court of law and commit perjury.

These prohibitions are not unique to the Bible, nor did they first appear there. These are basic rules for any functioning society.

Commandment V: Honour thy father and thy mother. No one can force a person to love your mother and father, but God has commanded that you should honor them. In this country if you abuse your parents by using physical force or taking from them that which doesn't belong to you, it is a crime.

It is illegal to abuse anyone by using physical force or taking from them that which doesn't belong to you. I don't see how this is especially relevant to the case you're trying to make here.

Commandment VII: Thou shalt not commit adultery. When this Republic was birthed and for a long time afterwards, adultery was a crime. It was a legal basis for divorce.

Again, any society with rules for marriage has something analogous. This is not unique to Christianity. It simply enforces the mores of the culture.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." Excerpt from The Declaration of

Independence. (emphasis added)

Honestly, I don't think this really bolsters your argument either. It was the parlance of the era to make some passing nod to a divinity of some description; much as playwrights in ancient Greece would honor the Muses at the beginning of their works.

Indeed, I would hope all men do.

Indeed.

Perhaps both combined are required to some extent?

It's entirely possible; one must internalize and decide on the merit of social mores to which one is introduced by one's culture.

Ok, true you do not compare them to God’s beliefs (I am saying this for your satisfaction) but to my belief in what God believes.

You said “Or rather, that I trust in what can be perceived, and you trust in what cannot be perceived.”

Indeed.

I cannot perceive your morals since they are not written down (or are not in tangible form) (though of course I can see some by your actions), but God’s morals are written down. (But you do not believe they are because you do not believe in the Bible. So it might be better to say: but I believe God’s morals are written down.)

Right. You believe that the Bible contains divine mandates. I think that it contains the social mores of an ancient culture, as recorded by men. That is one of the major points on which we diverge.

I should have been clearer. I meant “natural law” as in your own law (or set of morals). Thus my quote my read “I suppose the difference is human nature; you try to control human nature by human morals. I try to control human nature by divine law (divine mandate of morals). (That was my bad on clarity).

That's a reasonable assessment (stipulating, of course, that it's what you believe to be a divine mandate of morals).

You--“My morals involve a set of ideas to which I assign value, and an effort to guide my behavior in a manner that supports these values.”

If that is the case doesn’t each person’s morals vary?

Yes.

So whose is more correct? Yours and the psycho that enjoys murdering people?

Well obviously, I think mine is, because it's mine. From a societal perspective, the "more correct" code is probably the one that allows a person to function successfully in society. Since casual murder is counterproductive from a societal perspective, I think my moral code would win there.

[quote-armyman_83]Because if everyone’s moral code (based upon their own mind) is ok then the Psycho’s must also be accepted.[/quote]


This comes from the idea that if there is no Absolute Authority (TM), then there can be no standards at all, right? Again, there are societal, as well as biological, standards to consider. If I'm remembering correctly, sociopaths have something biochemically wrong with their brains.

I understand that you don’t believe in sin, but this question I pose to you: If you believe in evolution (since you don’t believe in “Creation”) do you think humans are just sophisticated animals?

First: Evolution and religious belief are not incompatible. Even when I believed in the Christian God, I believed that evolution was his method of bringing about the diversity of life on earth.

Second: I really don't see how the word "just" is applicable in that sentence. Yes, humans are animals, and yes, they could be considered more "sophisticated" than most. Do you hold to the idea that being a species of animal makes humans somehow diminished, or "not as special"?

 

[armyman_83]

What I meant was, you can't have "faith" in something that you don't believe exists, can you?

Yes, so we are both right in a sense.

To this, I am content to say, "I don't yet know how the universe was created, or if it was 'created,' per se. Science is making strong inroads in understanding the early universe, but there is still much that we don't yet know. Perhaps someday we shall.

So we agree there are some things we can’t understand?

My life has whatever meaning I choose to give it. I don't know if "life" as in existence-in-general has any sort of overarching purpose or significance, nor do I need it to have one.

So we agree there are some things we can’t understand? (no response is needed really)

You're right; I don't think the Bible stories are literally true, and hence I don't think that our morals derive from the events described in them. But I do understand that you believe this to be the case, and from that perspective, your reasoning makes sense.

Well at least you can see where I am coming from .

Then again, these items were written in the nineteenth and the seventeenth centuries, respectively; god-belief was a more central part of their cultures.

That’s was I was trying to prove.

These prohibitions are not unique to the Bible, nor did they first appear there. These are basic rules for any functioning society.

If you believe that the Torah was written when most believe it was then it would show that it was one of the oldest, if not the oldest, written mandate, which claimed to be divine. But indeed, anarchy would ensue should such laws not be enforced.

It is illegal to abuse anyone by using physical force or taking from them that which doesn't belong to you. I don't see how this is especially relevant to the case you're trying to make here.

I was only putting up as many commandments as I could to further my over all point.

Again, any society with rules for marriage has something analogous. This is not unique to Christianity. It simply enforces the mores of the culture.

Exactly, as most societies’ morals are based off “religion”? (you don’t have to answer.)

Honestly, I don't think this really bolsters your argument either. It was the parlance of the era to make some passing nod to a divinity of some description; much as playwrights in ancient

Greece would honor the Muses at the beginning of their works.

A play and a Declaration of Independence is a little different . Whether or not it was a “passing nod” it still shows reverence to a god (whether the god of Christ is a not really a matter). Perhaps some of our state Constitutions should be shown too.

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution ..
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with
gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature,
the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the
dictates
of
their consciences .
Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this
Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection
and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful
hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us
an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction


.........(I couldn't fit all the states in one post but they all thank a Divine power to one extent or another)
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain
this
Constitution .
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the
blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to
God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this
Constitution .

It's entirely possible; one must internalize and decide on the merit of social mores to which one is introduced by one's culture.

We agree.

Right. You believe that the Bible contains divine mandates. I think that it contains the social mores of an ancient culture, as recorded by men. That is one of the major points on which we diverge.

Yes, and the point which started this debate. For if you did Believe the Bible to have Divine mandates in it, you wouldn’t, most likely be an Atheist.

That's a reasonable assessment (stipulating, of course, that it's what you believe to be a divine mandate of morals).

I see, but if no one’s is truly better (in a kind of “great- better way”) there is no reason to believe yours is more correct. Maybe killing isn’t bad all the time. (That is, of course way out in left field, but you see my point and I see yours)

Well obviously, I think mine is, because it's mine. From a societal perspective, the "more correct" code is probably the one that allows a person to function successfully in society. Since casual murder is counterproductive from a societal perspective, I think my moral code would win there.

This comes from the idea that if there is no Absolute Authority (TM), then there can be no standards at all, right? Again, there are societal, as well as biological, standards to consider. If I'm remembering correctly, sociopaths have something biochemically wrong with their brains.

Yes, no absolute Authority then no right or wrong, you can call it that. What makes societal norms “good”? Who is to say that the psycho is really sane while everyone else is mad? Biological factors? I would say that this is in favor of the psycho as it could mean that his body is telling him to do it, so its ok. It is true that psychos brains are different from ours, but what makes his behavior wrong if there is no absolute authority? Society may say its ok for some things but that doesn’t always make it right.

First: Evolution and religious belief are not incompatible. Even when I believed in the Christian God, I believed that evolution was his method of bringing about the diversity of life on earth.

Second: I really don't see how the word "just" is applicable in that sentence. Yes, humans are animals, and yes, they could be considered more "sophisticated" than most. Do you hold to the idea that being a species of animal makes humans somehow diminished, or "not as special"?

While I have known people who believe in evolution and the god of Christ, I have never asked about their thoughts on humans as “animals” or “humans”. I do believe God made the world in six days, how he did it—well that I do not know (and won’t know until I reach heaven I suppose).

Yes, I do believe that if humans are “just” animals then we are diminished. For it is written: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. I, XXVII.

Do animals have morals? No. If then, man is just an animal then we have no morals. And killing is not wrong in any great sense. Racism too would be correct, as they would want their species to be “on top”, as all animals want (to survive). For if man is but an animal, then each ethnic group is their own, and which one is the best? I suppose the best is the only one that can over-come the others, survival of the fittest?

 

[TooCurious]

Yes, so we are both right in a sense.

That's fair.

So we agree there are some things we can’t understand?

No, but I will agree that there are some things that we do not currently understand.

So we agree there are some things we can’t understand? (no response is needed really)

That's all right, I'll respond anyway.

I'm not sure how my response, which was, "My life has whatever meaning I choose to give it. I don't know if "life" as in existence-in-general has any sort of overarching purpose or significance, nor do I need it to have one," yielded the conclusion "there are some things we can't understand." I don't see how that follows. What I was trying to get across was the idea that "What is the meaning of life?" is the wrong question. I do not believe that some divine being grants our lives meaning; I believe that each of us finds meaning in our own lives.

Well at least you can see where I am coming from .

Yes; I hope you can see where I'm coming from?

That’s was I was trying to prove.

All right; I'll go along with the idea that public acknowledgement of God was part of the cultural values of the societies you cited.

If you believe that the Torah was written when most believe it was then it would show that it was one of the oldest, if not the oldest, written mandate, which claimed to be divine. But indeed, anarchy would ensue should such laws not be enforced.

The Torah is a very old collection of documents, and it claims to contain divine mandates. I'm not completely certain, but I seem to recall that some religious manuscripts from Asia and India are similarly old.

I was only putting up as many commandments as I could to further my over all point.

I see.

Exactly, as most societies’ morals are based off “religion”? (you don’t have to answer.)

Really, I don't mind responding to your questions; it's kind of why I'm here. And actually no--I'd say that most religions are based off societies' morals.

A play and a Declaration of Independence is a little different . Whether or not it was a “passing nod” it still shows reverence to a god (whether the god of Christ is a not really a matter). Perhaps some of our state Constitutions should be shown too.

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution ..
Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..
Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .
Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .
Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with
gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...
Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature,
the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the
dictates
of
their consciences .
Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this
Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection
and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution
Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful
hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us
an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction


.........(I couldn't fit all the states in one post but they all thank a Divine power to one extent or another)
Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain
this
Constitution .
West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the
blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to
God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this
Constitution .

I've given you that cultures of the recent past included social values regarding the public acknowledgement of gods. This is clearly reflected even in more modern times in documents steeped in traditional formulae, such as state constitutions.

We agree.

Agreement is pleasant.

Yes, and the point which started this debate. For if you did Believe the Bible to have Divine mandates in it, you wouldn’t, most likely be an Atheist.

You are quite correct.

I see, but if no one’s is truly better (in a kind of “great- better way”) there is no reason to believe yours is more correct. Maybe killing isn’t bad all the time. (That is, of course way out in left field, but you see my point and I see yours)

Actually, I would have reason to believe that mine is more correct, as my moral code is founded on rational principles which I find persuasive. Individual and societal morals don't tend to be completely arbitrary. Would you agree with that?

Yes, no absolute Authority then no right or wrong, you can call it that. What makes societal norms “good”?

That they allow society to function smoothly, perhaps? That they yield the greatest positive results for the greatest number of people? These are things that folks generally consider positive.

Who is to say that the psycho is really sane while everyone else is mad? Biological factors? I would say that this is in favor of the psycho as it could mean that his body is telling him to do it, so its ok.

It is one of the basic tenets of philosophy that one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is." In other words, the fact that something is the case has no bearing on whether that thing should be the case.

It is true that psychos brains are different from ours, but what makes his behavior wrong if there is no absolute authority? Society may say its ok for some things but that doesn’t always make it right.

You're entirely correct in saying that just because society says something is acceptable, that doesn't mean it's right. That is why there must be reasons behind our social mores and values. Why is murder bad? Well, I don't want to be killed. So, if we make a rule that killing is wrong and all agree to follow the rule, then I'm less likely to be killed, because everyone has a similar motivation to make sure that everyone follows that rule. And society functions.

While I have known people who believe in evolution and the god of Christ, I have never asked about their thoughts on humans as “animals” or “humans”. I do believe God made the world in six days, how he did it—well that I do not know (and won’t know until I reach heaven I suppose).

You're entitled to that belief.

Yes, I do believe that if humans are “just” animals then we are diminished. For it is written: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him

;

male and female created he them.” Gen. I, XXVII.

You're entitled to that belief as well. Obviously, I disagree with it. I don't think it "diminishes" us to be a species of animal, any more than it "diminishes" us to have blood flowing through our bodies or to draw oxygen from the air.

Do animals have morals? No.

Some species of animals seem to operate under rudimentary moral codes. Dolphins have been known to rescue people, as well as help their podmates. The mothers of many species will risk their lives to defend their young. Now, other species don't think about "morality" in the same way that humans do. Why? Because they lack the cognitive capacity that humans possess. We can conceptualize abstract ideas like morality in a way that other animals cannot. We have large, complex brains and social group structures. We have complex spoken language which allows us to communicate our ideas to other individuals and express those ideas in more sophisticated terms.

If then, man is just an animal then we have no morals.

I have no idea how you go from "Man is an animal" to "We have no morals." This does not make sense to me. Could you explain?

And killing is not wrong in any great sense. Racism too would be correct, as they would want their species to be “on top”, as all animals want (to survive). For if man is but an animal, then each ethnic group is their own, and which one is the best? I suppose the best is the only one that can over-come the others, survival of the fittest?

The only way I can understand this paragraph is if you're deriving an "ought" from an "is" again, which, as I've discussed, is fallacious. The fact is, ouor species has developed the cognitive capacity to think about and understand the consequences of our actions, both for ourselves and for others, and we have developed the emotional awareness and empathy to appreciate how those consequences make other individuals feel. From these awarenesses, we have developed societal units with rules to govern behavior for the best interest of the group as a whole. Not bad for "just animals," eh?