• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Can there be morality without God?

Golden Yak

Not Worshipped, Far from Idle
May 20, 2010
584
32
✟15,938.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Some questions for the atheists.

Why is it wrong to murder someone in cold blood if it furthers your own ends and you can get away with it? Why is it wrong to be a rich indusrialist who knowingly exploits workers if doing so enhances your personal wealth, allows you to live more comfortably and you can get away with it. Many have historically done so. Why not be a "sociopath" if you can get away with it? Is humanism nothing more then a vestige of archaic moral systems like Christianity because it presumes some kind of underlying altruistic morality?

Why not be a sociopath/killer/etc. - Well, would you like to suffer the attentions of one? Presumably not. I wouldn't. I don't want friends or family to either. Or even strangers. I care about other people and don't like to see them come to harm. Other people feel the same. Together, we can make a society that works to prevent things like murder and exploitation from happening, because we care about people and don't want them suffer.

Tell me, if you believe God doesn't want murder, exploitation, or human misery either... why not? Are they just some random actions that He decided to forbid for arbitrary reasons? Or... could it be because He cares about people and doesn't want them to suffer?

Are we altruistic because it is in our DNA and our brain physiology, as a result of natural selection, because doing so enhanced the survival of our offspring?
Yes. Recognizing this fact is no reason to stop doing it. A good idea is a good idea.

Why not Neitzsche who inspired Adolph Hitler? I'm sure there must be some out there who like Ayn Rand and her capitalist Objectivism, especially those who live in the US? Or Sartre and his neo-Marxism? There are many varieties of atheism.
No. There's just the one - atheism is a lack of belief in deities. There is nothing about not believing in deities that compels anyone to act as they did, however - atheism was incidental to their ideals.

My point is that in atheism there are no moral parameters. You are allowed to create any morality that appeals to you.
Yes, this is generally why atheists get morality from something other than their atheism, which is simply a single position on a single issue - a lack of belief in the existence of deities. There are no moral commandments or precepts in that. So you need to look elsewhere for those.

You are exposed to the chill of the empty universe.
That's why we draw together.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The bible specifically states that the path to heaven is not through works, but through belief.

If Hitler was still a Catholic when he died, then he believed in Christ. If he sincerely asked for forgiveness, he was forgiven and goes to Heaven.

Good Hindus, who spent their lives helping their fellow man, go to Hell because they were born in the wrong place and don't believe in Christ.

Where am I wrong?
No thats where you need to study the bible. Especially the path to heaven. Salvation maybe by faith but to make that faith live you need to do good. I cant see how you can say that when there are 100s of bible verses that state we need to do good. Jesus Himself stated this many times when asked what a person needs to do to get to heaven. He often said keep the laws. He often said the whole law is summed up in loving your neighbor as yourself. He talked about the good Samaritan and the importance of helping others. He often talked about the Pharisees and how they were hypocrites in just verbalizing about things and not practicing what they preached. He said you can tell a person is saved by the fruits they bear meaning the good deeds they do.

Paul goes on about the importance of faith but he is not saying it is faith alone. He states we are saved by grace. He says but then should we go on sinning to increase that grace. No he says that when we are saved we are changed and we have the spirit of God in us. We are obedient to God and no longer a slave to sin. We need faith and that is important but faith without works is dead faith. A good example used in the bible is the faith of the prophets in the old testament. God asked them to do things and they did through their faith in God. They parted seas, they fought battles and faced death. But they put their faith into action by doing those things. If they just sat there and said yeah I believe it would mean nothing without actually putting their lives on the line and putting that faith into action.
James 2:14-26
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.



 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are the one saying that, not me. You are the one saying that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and the God of the Old Testament ordered genocide.
I was just trying to clarify with you because Jesus shows who God really is and Jesus has no sin. Jesus doesn't commit any genocide or do anything wrong. The bible tells us that in Jesus is all the qualities of God. So a God who commits genocide doesn't equate to this. So your understanding of those stories are wrong and you have not understood all that was involved. Yet you choose to believe that God committed genocide but you dont believe what the bible says about Jesus being God. You seem to be picking and choosing what you want to believe.

Do bad doctors claim they are good doctors? Yep, they sure do.

Do bad mechanics claim they are good mechanics? Yep, they sure do.
Thats right but what we see in Jesus is all good. So He has the actions to back His claims. We are talking about the rights of someone who is truly good to then make a statemnet that they are good. If a mechanic is truly good then he should be able to promote himself based on that. If he is not good then it will be seen in the end. But it shouldn't stop him from being able to say that he is a good mechanic. Now many in the bible state that God is good. Jesus states that God is good. God states that Jesus is sinless and He is pleased with him. Pilot finds no fault in Jesus and He was crucified an innocent man. Everyone that know God and Jesus stated they were good in the bible. So there is support for them being good.

That is not the point. The point is that someone is not automatically good just because they say they are.
Thats right so there is ample evidence that Jesus is good.

How can it be interpreted any other way?
A similar way like history doesn't say that the US and allied forces committed genocide on Japan in the 2nd world war. Or that the US committed genocide when they invaded Iraqi and bombed many people. But with God He is even more worthy and all knowing to be able to act in accordance with His judgements. He knows everything that would and could have happened if certain actions were not performed. He knew what the importance of doing those things and what this would lead to in the future for the salvation of all people.

"1 Samuel
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
(15:2-3) "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."
God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago.
To kill or not to kill
Is God merciful?
What the Bible says about genocide, family values, and God
God's 65th Killing
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

If you aren't allowed to judge what God does, then how can you say that God is moral?
The problem with this is you are using a story in which a God has acted. That God will act outside the understanding of you or any other human. So you are then placing the limited understanding of humans in the scheme of things onto an all knowing and righteous God. That in itself should be enough to make you stop and reconsider things. Hey maybe there is something I dont know about this situation. Maybe God had a reason that I dont know about. But still you dont want to allow that so that you can limit it down to your interpretation of what is right and acceptable.

If people didn't know all the circumstances of why the allied forces dropped an atomic bomb on Japan they would think they were evil and committing genocide. If it were an alien person who didn't know what was going on he would think it was horrible and the allied forces were wrong for killing so many people who seemed to have done nothing. But the greater good was that it stopped the war and brought peace. It stopped many others dying and stopped a possible take over of the enemy who may have taken away our freedoms and way of life. It was stopping a mad man.

So imagine a God who was so much more aware of things and what the consequences would be. God is thinking on an eternal scale and you are thinking on a limited human scale. The other thing is you choose to pick out those particular sections but ignore the many other writings which show the same God as loving, kind, merciful and forgiving. You choose to ignore that Jesus was sent to show us that God because all through the rest of time including the old testament we didn't have a clear connection to God so that we could know Him. So Jesus is the clearest way and the most reliable way to know God. Thats because Jesus who was God in the flesh was there right before peoples eyes. Just like a person living their life for all to see. So if there is any way we can trust that will give us an idea of who God is and what He is like its in Jesus.

So what is more reliable to know who God is, ancient stories in the old testament which try to give us little bits of an idea about God from a distance or Jesus who was here on earth living with us. Its the same person but according to you this would make God two different people. They cant both be God as the actions are completely opposite according to you. Which one do you believe.

The old testament states that everything that was being done was aimed at the coming Messiah Jesus who would save the world. It was Gods very own Son who He gave so that we may be saved. It actually says that God loved us so much that He was willing to make a sacrifice Himself of His own Son. So this is showing His great love for us. Yet you choose to ignore all this and focus on smaller pieces of the bible because they will support your limited views about what you think is right and acceptable in your limited time here on earth. You believe that trumps everything else and that you are great enough to know everything to be sure that you are morally right. Yet the very morals you want to base this on are from God Himself anyway.

I could go into a debate about the details of each of these stories of the old testament but I know that you will disagree and insist on pushing your limited views. God is damned if He does and damned if He doesn't as far as you and others are concerned. So what is the point. I have been down this track before and it always ends the same. You have already decided because you are a non believer. You want to see things the way you do and will not even allow God his own majesty or eternal qualities. You want to box him into a corner and make Him out to be evil while overlooking anything that paints Him as good.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why not be a sociopath/killer/etc. - Well, would you like to suffer the attentions of one? Presumably not. I wouldn't. I don't want friends or family to either. Or even strangers. I care about other people and don't like to see them come to harm. Other people feel the same. Together, we can make a society that works to prevent things like murder and exploitation from happening, because we care about people and don't want them suffer.
I agree but its also a trendy thing to say in a modern humanistic all inclusive society that we care for others when we do things to hurt them at the same time. In reality just about everything that secular society does is causing someone to suffer the consequences. It may not be in the psychopaths level but its more subtle and can lead to just as much death and harm. The very commercialism and consumerism that people support and buy into is causing many somewhere to suffer. The western countries like the US and Australia use 4 or 5 planet earths worth of stuff while the poor countries are lucky to use 1/2 a planet. We throw away tons of excess food and stuff while others dont have a crumb to eat. And we know it and we pretend we care. So long as we are comfortable and happy its all OK. Its still killing except others but we pretend its not as bad and sweep it under the carpet.

There are thousands and thousands of people that go missing every year. You cant tell me there are people getting away with murder and all sorts of depraved things all the time. Think of all the countries that dont have good justice systems or policing. There are millions of crimes that people get away with. In south America its the drug lords that run the system. Even in our so called democratic systems we have corruption allowing many to get away with stuff. There is a lot of injustice in this world and we will never be able to right the wrongs of what humans have done to each other. Even our animals fear us humans as we wipe out species by the millions. We are destroying our planet everyday and we know we are but still we dont do anything. So there are plenty of people getting away with stuff all the time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Why is it wrong to murder someone in cold blood if it furthers your own ends and you can get away with it?

It doesn't further any of my ends. Why would I choose ends that would require murder? Why would that be a wise course of action?

I don't think that human beings truly advance their best interests through essentially destructive or power-seeking activities. It is far better to create one's own values than to attempt to live through others. That is the only way to generate genuine self-respect and inner peace.

Why is it wrong to be a rich indusrialist who knowingly exploits workers if doing so enhances your personal wealth, allows you to live more comfortably and you can get away with it.

I don't see myself as a privileged member of society. Like other human beings, I am a human being. I am not more important than others by nature. I have no moral right to mistreat others any more than they have a moral right to mistreat me.

Is humanism nothing more then a vestige of archaic moral systems like Christianity because it presumes some kind of underlying altruistic morality?

What does it matter where altruism comes from? What makes it "archaic"? Moral principles, if they apply to human life, are timeless.

I disagree, though, that it requires altruism to not want to be a sociopath. That is a false alternative.

Are we altruistic because it is in our DNA and our brain physiology, as a result of natural selection, because doing so enhanced the survival of our offspring? Is altruism something we share with other mammals, particularly primates and is this why many atheists are humanists?

Quite possibly.

I'm sure there must be some out there who like Ayn Rand and her capitalist Objectivism, especially those who live in the US?

Yes, that includes myself, and her ethics provides me with many reasons not to want to be a sociopath or to murder others.

My point is that in atheism there are no moral parameters.

In theism there are no moral parameters. Not one.

It is only when you accept a particular religion that you accept that religion's moral parameters. The same thing is true for atheistic philosophies.

You are allowed to create any morality that appeals to you.

Allowed? Do you think Ayn Rand would approve of people arbitrarily changing moralities?

While I can certainly choose to be irrational, I can't claim that this is in my best interests. Likewise, it is in my best interests to correctly identify moral principles. It is for my own good, after all.

You are exposed to the chill of the empty universe.

No more than you!


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You can be a Christian Terrorist guys.
No you can be a terrorist who pretends to be a Christian. A Christian stems from the original church that grew from the cross of Christ. So it was following Jesus and being Christ like. That is why its called Christ-ians.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,825
44,936
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Some questions for the atheists.

Why is it wrong to murder someone in cold blood if it furthers your own ends and you can get away with it?

Because my system of morality is not based on selfish self-promotion.

Are we altruistic because it is in our DNA and our brain physiology, as a result of natural selection, because doing so enhanced the survival of our offspring?

Probably.

My point is that in atheism there are no moral parameters. You are allowed to create any morality that appeals to you.

Precisely. Nevertheless, most atheists don't choose to be psychopaths. It doesn't appeal to us.

That's why we're horrified when Christians sometimes say, "If I found out there was no God, I would immediately go out and rape and murder people."

Realistically, we don't believe these people. They are just attempting a very poor argument, trying to show the horrible horrible consequences of atheism. But atheists know their argument is baloney. Because we're not like that.

You are exposed to the chill of the empty universe.

That's a fact, jack.

“To be bitter is to attribute intent and personality to the formless, infinite, unchanging and unchangeable void. We drift on a chartless, resistless sea. Let us sing when we can, and forget the rest.” --HPL
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟182,792.00
Faith
Seeker
Some questions for the atheists.

Why is it wrong to murder someone in cold blood if it furthers your own ends and you can get away with it? Why is it wrong to be a rich indusrialist who knowingly exploits workers if doing so enhances your personal wealth, allows you to live more comfortably and you can get away with it. Many have done so throughout history. Why not be a "sociopath" if you can get away with it?
If you have to ask....
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
People forget we have a bad side as well as a good side. We can all say we want to treat others good. But the fact is we were born with a sinful nature as well. We are selfish and will tend to think of ourselves before others. Thats the way secular society has gone. profits before people and exploit the weak. Its almost as though evolution is a result of sin as it is all about the survival of the fittest. People keep saying that evolution makes us want to get along and treat others good. But what about all the bad stuff that people do to each other.
 
Upvote 0

Golden Yak

Not Worshipped, Far from Idle
May 20, 2010
584
32
✟15,938.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
People forget we have a bad side as well as a good side.

Anyone here forget that?

We can all say we want to treat others good. But the fact is we were born with a sinful nature as well. We are selfish and will tend to think of ourselves before others.

This doesn't stop us from being able to others good. Selfish impulses can be overridden. The religious have just put another name, 'sin', on natural impulses to make it look like they have an understanding of human nature.

Its almost as though evolution is a result of sin as it is all about the survival of the fittest.

There are several definitions of the word 'fit'. Understand which one was meant when that phrase was coined.

People keep saying that evolution makes us want to get along and treat others good. But what about all the bad stuff that people do to each other.

Evolution makes us want to do that stuff too (to some extent). Strive to embrace the good and override the bad.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Anyone here forget that?
I often here evolutionists say that morals come from our need to get along and to be good to one another. Like there is this powerful motivating factor that makes us naturally good that we have learnt over a long time. This helps them explain morality and that its a matter of thought only. That we logically have come to this conclusion because of an evolutionary process through chemical reactions in our brains. But I believe it is more than that.

I never hear them speak to much about our evil side which is really destructive for evolution. It goes against what evolution is about because it suggest that there is something else going on besides just chemicals and equations driving us. Its like we have this dimension to us that is beyond just being an animal. I call this our spiritual side and there is a battle between our fleshly sinful natures and our spiritual nature. This is when we see the evil side to us that can do all sorts of depraved and horrible things that go beyond a mere animal with instincts. We are drawn into the temptation of sin which can take over and control us. We are driven by things like greed, power, lust, envy and pride. We can only tame our sinful nature through God when we accept Jesus and are transformed.

The bible describes this as our flesh which is carnal and seeks the sinful things and our spirit which is Godly and will seek God.
Romans 8:5
Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

This doesn't stop us from being able to others good. Selfish impulses can be overridden. The religious have just put another name, 'sin', on natural impulses to make it look like they have an understanding of human nature.
We can all do good as its in our natures. Thats because we were made in Gods image. But we allowed sin to enter our world. So now we have this battle. But when we reject God sin can take over. It doesn't always have to be the obvious sin like killing and rape. Our sinful natures can make us selfish. This can cause us to be consumed by our own desires which we make more important than helping others. We cant over ride this because it is interwoven into everything we do. We are lured to look after ourselves first whereas Jesus said to love others as you love yourself.

There are several definitions of the word 'fit'. Understand which one was meant when that phrase was coined.
The context I'm using it in is where we stand by and allow millions to die of starvation while we throw awy tons of excess food and waste. We could allow everyone to eat and be fairly comfortable. But it means we would have to give up much of how we live in comfort. It would mean sacrificing our lives for others. So because people dont then its almost as though they are knowingly allowing millions to suffer and die. So in this sense it is survival of the fittest. Some have enough and are unwilling to share to keep their level of comfort and lifestyle. They are willing to allow others to perish to keep that. But I believe its more to do with selfishness. Because it goes beyond survival into greed.

Evolution makes us want to do that stuff too (to some extent). Strive to embrace the good and override the bad.
Evolution says that being good is a natural process that we have learnt. I believe that its more than that and its a spiritual aspect to us that is in constant battle between good and evil. We all know good but we all know evil as well. The only way we can restore the balance of power is to allow God to be in our lives. Gods will and not our will.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Golden Yak

Not Worshipped, Far from Idle
May 20, 2010
584
32
✟15,938.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I often here evolutionists say that morals come from our need to get along and to be good to one another. Like there is this powerful motivating factor that makes us naturally good that we have learnt over a long time. This helps them explain morality and that its a matter of thought only. That we logically have come to this conclusion because of an evolutionary process through chemical reactions in our brains. But I believe it is more than that.

It isn't necessarily a conscious conclusion that was deliberately adopted, but it does come from the mind which is a product of the brain which is biochemical, so that's all broadly true, yes.

I never hear them speak to much about our evil side
How often does anyone think to bring it up, I wonder.

which is really destructive for evolution. It goes against what evolution is about because it suggest that there is something else going on besides just chemicals and equations driving us.
No, it does not. Nor is it 'destructive for' evolution. Evolution doesn't only produce things that are 'nice.'

Its like we have this dimension to us that is beyond just being an animal.
'Being an animal' covers an extremely board range of behaviors. Slugs and chimpanzees are both animals. They have wildly, wildly different behaviors. I would say the difference in behavior is far greater than the one between chimpanzess and humans. When you get right down to it.

I call this our spiritual side and there is a battle between our fleshly sinful natures and our spiritual nature. This is when we see the evil side to us that can do all sorts of depraved and horrible things that go beyond a mere animal with instincts. We are drawn into the temptation of sin which can take over and control us. We are driven by things like greed, power, lust, envy and pride.
None of that is inconsistent with evolution. Evolutionary drives can produce co-operative behaviors, but evolution is also ultimately a competition. The monkey has to get along with the other monkeys to survive, but the monkey also has to be better than the other monkeys to ensure his genetic future. Individual against individual, and further out tribe against tribe, because there's only so many resources. Come together to keep the kids safe from tigers. Fight like hell for the best mates. Cooperation and competition. These impulses are not in contradiction, they are in conflict.

Humans, being mentally complex, can take behaviors to a great extreme. We have both good and evil impulses. These natural impulses, taken to the extreme, can produce both wondrous or horrible results.

We can only tame our sinful nature through God when we accept Jesus and are transformed.

The bible describes this as our flesh which is carnal and seeks the sinful things and our spirit which is Godly and will seek God.
Humans observed something about human nature and tried to explain it. No one knew any better, so it probably seemed very impressive at the time.

We can all do good as its in our natures. Thats because we were made in Gods image. But we allowed sin to enter our world. So now we have this battle.
Natural impulses to co-operate with others. Nature impulses to be selfish and compete to get ahead of others. Its sunk deep into our collective unconscious, where the monkey lives. We need the other monkeys around but there can only be so many winners. But humans can recognize this, and rise above it.

The context I'm using it in is where we stand by and allow millions to die of starvation while we throw awy tons of excess food and waste. We could allow everyone to eat and be fairly comfortable. But it means we would have to give up much of how we live in comfort. It would mean sacrificing our lives for others. So because people dont then its almost as though they are knowingly allowing millions to suffer and die.
It is hard to get the monkeys to care for much beyond their own tribe (family, neighborhood, city, country, class, race, etc.) More waste is caused by ignorance and apathy in general than outright directed malice.

You start saying 'we,' but claim that allowing God 'into your life' will solve these problems. You don't consider Christians to be contributors to some of this exploitation and suffering? Speaking for myself, I do not throw away food, and am not a theist. Will this only work if absolutely everyone allows God into their lives in a certain way? But it is not hard to imagine a way of life that solves all ills. If absolutely everyone had the exact morals that I do, there would be no war, domestic violence, murder, or racism either. This is true of a great many individuals.

I know that there will never be a time when all humans believe in the same religious idea, like God. All humans do, generally, prefer health over illness, well-being over ruin, happiness over misery. Knowledge and understanding of what we collectively desire can still bring people together to strive for good, regardless of their religious beliefs, which are often divisive. No doubt there are some muslims and other groups claim everything would be wine and roses if only they could get everyone to be a muslim, or whatever.

Anyway, we've gotten a bit off track, but my point has been made and still stands - people do strive for good without God, and don't need God to strive for good, even if there are those who do not, for whatever reason.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How often does anyone think to bring it up, I wonder.
As far as evolution is concerned they probably dont like to bring it up to often. Admitting that humans have this evil side will show a destructive nature. That opposes evolution. The reasons they use to show how morality is formed by a natural process is the need for us to get along and be good to each other. So acknowledging that we can also be as destructive to ourselves, other species and this planet goes against evolution which should be about survival and adapting to our environment. It seems we have this destructive side which is killing our fellow humans and animals and destroying the planet. But the thing is we know we are doing it but we still do it anyway. We could be the first species that evolution has produced that is knowingly destroying the process that made us in the first place. As well as everything else that it has produced on this planet. Its like evolution has created a monster and its defeating itself.

No, it does not. Nor is it 'destructive for' evolution. Evolution doesn't only produce things that are 'nice.'
Well it seems strange that evolution can produce a creature that knows its being evil. That knows it can have a choice in destroying or saving things but can often choose to destroy. That can be so evil against its fellow humans. I am not sure this all comes down to a level of brain power and chemicals. Animals will kill for food but I am not sure they knowingly kill or hurt. It seems humans have this extra dimension that makes us evil.

'Being an animal' covers an extremely board range of behaviors. Slugs and chimpanzees are both animals. They have wildly, wildly different behaviors. I would say the difference in behavior is far greater than the one between chimpanzees and humans. When you get right down to it.
Well we are capable of doing great harm. We could destroy all the slugs, chimpanzees and all the other animals just for the sake of looking after ourselves. I dont think any animals do that. They seem to all live together and know their ranks. There are some animals that have large brain capacity but dont seem to be so evil.

None of that is inconsistent with evolution. Evolutionary drives can produce co-operative behaviors, but evolution is also ultimately a competition. The monkey has to get along with the other monkeys to survive, but the monkey also has to be better than the other monkeys to ensure his genetic future. Individual against individual, and further out tribe against tribe, because there's only so many resources. Come together to keep the kids safe from tigers. Fight like hell for the best mates. Cooperation and competition. These impulses are not in contradiction, they are in conflict.
But where is that line drawn.If its species against species and tribe against tribe, is it also nation against nation to the point of war. What is the result of evolution and what is the result of something else which may be evil in nature. Evolution is suppose to be driven by biological processes that really dont think to much about the rights or the wrongs of things. Its survival like you say which may means standing out more or being in the right place at the right time. Its about instinct and territory and where to get the next meal from.

But if it comes down to person against person or tribe against tribe to survive then maybe evolution is something that drives destruction in the end. Maybe there is not as much care for others as made out. Afterall if there isn't enough to go around then survival of the fittest would say lets get rid of some of the excess which is taking away from our food and resources so we have enough for ourselves. The more we allow others to have the less chance there is for us to survive. That makes evolution a very cold and uncaring process. Maybe evolution has more to do with sin than anything else in that sense. Afterall sin is tied up with the flesh. The flesh is all to do with the physical desires and influences that can drive a person. Whereas following God and being born of the spirit follows the spiritual things which are selfless. It is putting others on the same par as yourself. Even to the point sometimes of sacrificing yourself for the sake of others.

Humans, being mentally complex, can take behaviors to a great extreme. We have both good and evil impulses. These natural impulses, taken to the extreme, can produce both wondrous or horrible results.
But that extreme can do depraved and horrible things. Its not like we are acting on some chemical reaction and cant help it. We often know we do wrong and have the choice. But things like anger, lust and greed can drive us to do bad things. I'm not sure its all a natural thing or something that is within us that makes us evil. This is where I believe we can overcome these things by being transformed by Jesus. But we have to let go of the that selfish part of us that wants to be in control of things. Thats when we want to be the gods of our own world and think we know better. We have to acknowledge that we are sinners and are weak to the temptations of the flesh and then allow God to rein in our lives. So its like a battle of wills where we want to rebel and do things ourselves.

Humans observed something about human nature and tried to explain it. No one knew any better, so it probably seemed very impressive at the time.
Either that or we do actually have a side to us that is evil in nature. If it was just a case of biological processes then we wouldn't have this conscious part of us that can purposely choose to do evil and do all sorts of depraved things to hurt our fellow humans. It seems that we can tame that side of us and God seems to resore some balance. I believe we naturally fall into a good way of life when we tune into Gods way. He gives us a God conscious and we naturally want to do good and please Him. If anything else it can make us better people even if you say there isn't a God.

Natural impulses to co-operate with others. Nature impulses to be selfish and compete to get ahead of others. Its sunk deep into our collective unconscious, where the monkey lives. We need the other monkeys around but there can only be so many winners. But humans can recognize this, and rise above it.
When I look at the animals kingdom I dont see other groups of animals going around destroying all the habitat of other animals. Or killing of their own all the time. Yes they fight but it seems more about instinct. We are more knowingly doing it out of hate and envy or just for the thrill of it. We are the only species that is doing this and killing other animals off the face of the earth. Destroying other animals habitats for selfish reasons like we dont care. That to me is more than about brain power or biological reactions. Its a conscious effort to destroy and be evil. It goes beyond any evolutionary process.

It is hard to get the monkeys to care for much beyond their own tribe (family, neighborhood, city, country, class, race, etc.) More waste is caused by ignorance and apathy in general than outright directed malice.
I'm not sure its ignorance. Maybe apathy. But I also think its selfishness which seems to be a big part of us humans. Its all about what I want and what will benefit me. My life, my career, my needs and wants. What I can get out of it. Where as Jesus was the opposite and being a Christian should take you away from that to the point of where you should be willing to give up your life for another as Jesus did. That is why Jesus can break that chain of selfish existence with living in the flesh of our sinful natures.

You start saying 'we,' but claim that allowing God 'into your life' will solve these problems. You don't consider Christians to be contributors to some of this exploitation and suffering? Speaking for myself, I do not throw away food, and am not a theist. Will this only work if absolutely everyone allows God into their lives in a certain way? But it is not hard to imagine a way of life that solves all ills. If absolutely everyone had the exact morals that I do, there would be no war, domestic violence, murder, or racism either. This is true of a great many individuals.
I say we because we are all the same. We are all sinners. I cant single out individuals because I dont know and each person is different. But as a whole secular society or societies without God will go down this road of self. That is the nature without God. Our societies are built on these things. Everyone wants a job, wants money and things. Companies want profits and share holders want the companies to make profits. Profits have to go before people because thats how commercialism works. They want to drive down costs of production and so there is always pressure to extract more from people.

This creates poverty and the haves and have nots. We make stuff and we throw away stuff and then there is always someone without stuff. That is the nature of the beast. We will never stop and sacrifice what we want to give away to others so that we can just have enough to survive so that others can also have something. We always think of self unfortunately. The beast is to big to tame and it will continue to grow and consume. But it will eventually fall apart because any system that goes along and allows people to die and suffer wont work in the end.

I know that there will never be a time when all humans believe in the same religious idea, like God. All humans do, generally, prefer health over illness, well-being over ruin, happiness over misery. Knowledge and understanding of what we collectively desire can still bring people together to strive for good, regardless of their religious beliefs, which are often divisive. No doubt there are some Muslims and other groups claim everything would be wine and roses if only they could get everyone to be a Muslim, or whatever.
I think it will get worse before it gets better. This system whether its religion or secular will crumble. There are even signs of this within our own societies. People are going without but there are people who are also getting angry. There are many who are depressed and wonder what its all about. There are many ending their lives. There are more seeking help and more going mad. There are more diseases coming about and the environment is beginning to suffer. Terrorism in growing all over the world and people are getting worried and angry. I think many are in denial.

Anyway, we've gotten a bit off track, but my point has been made and still stands - people do strive for good without God, and don't need God to strive for good, even if there are those who do not, for whatever reason.
We will have to see what happens. It depends what you mean by good. Man kinds version of good is different to Gods. But I think it will get worse before it gets better. I think everything we have discussed is related indirectly to whether we follow our own way of doing things or follow and trust God. I believe there is a case that following God brings good things and is the only way to find true peace and life.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,825
44,936
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I often here evolutionists say that morals come from our need to get along and to be good to one another.

Our moral sense comes from evolution, and 'tit for tat' turns out to be a successful strategy for dealing with good guys and bad guys.

Like there is this powerful motivating factor that makes us naturally good that we have learnt over a long time.

No, it gives us a moral sense. And this moral sense is designed in a background where bad guys exist.

Its like we have this dimension to us that is beyond just being an animal.

No, we see proto-morality and reciprocal altruism in animals.

Evolution says that being good is a natural process that we have learnt.

No, it doesn't. It says the moral faculties developed naturally. What we do with them is up to each of us.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,844
1,698
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,360.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Our moral sense comes from evolution, and 'tit for tat' turns out to be a successful strategy for dealing with good guys and bad guys.
But I dont see that what people are doing is a tit for tat thing. It is often one sided and some get a lot while other get nothing. The western countries use 4 or 5 planet earths worth of resources while poor countries get about 1/2 a planet if that. People take when they can so long as they make themselves comfortable at the expense of others.

No, it gives us a moral sense. And this moral sense is designed in a background where bad guys exist.
So what about the sense of immorality. Isn't that sense of morality a subjective thing anyway. So there will be may different views of morality. How does a sense work when it will be different for different people. This would end up making many different versions of what is right and good in different situations. There wouldn't be any consistency.

No, we see proto-morality and reciprocal altruism in animals.
But our behavior is beyond what an animals would do. I dont see animals doing some of the depraved things we do to each other. Committing evil deeds for spite and for the thrill of it. Destroying peoples homes and all their possessions because of hate and well just because they can through power and control.

No, it doesn't. It says the moral faculties developed naturally. What we do with them is up to each of us.
I thought it was like you said a tit for tat thing. We have learnt that being good is better than being bad. Getting along is better than being in conflict. We had to learn that over time. But doesn't evolution also say that our sense of right and wrong isn't anything to do with something outside ourselves like a spirituality. Its a biological process and one of natural instincts that drive and control us. We are sort of subject to a greater influence that is driving us like survival of the fittest. So I will be looking for opportunities to benefit myself and give me an advantage.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I can't think of a social species with more dysfunction than ours. It is the unfortunate result of us evolving under the conditions of relatively small groups, not even 1000 people, that competed with neighboring groups for resources. Hence our tendency to divide people by minor physical traits and the great degree of conflict we create.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,825
44,936
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
But I dont see that what people are doing is a tit for tat thing. It is often one sided and some get a lot while other get nothing. The western countries use 4 or 5 planet earths worth of resources while poor countries get about 1/2 a planet if that. People take when they can so long as they make themselves comfortable at the expense of others.

Tit for tat only works for very small scale 'societies', like a pack of animals (which is where we see this kind of reciprocal altruism among other animals). Evolution has not provided us any tools for dealing with environmental catastrophes, or geopolitical diplomacy, or equitable distribution of wealth. We have to use our brains for that.

Isn't that sense of morality a subjective thing anyway.

Yes. Some people feel disgust when they see an animal harmed. Some people enjoy harming animals.

So there will be may different views of morality. How does a sense work when it will be different for different people. This would end up making many different versions of what is right and good in different situations. There wouldn't be any consistency.

Welcome to the real world.

I thought it was like you said a tit for tat thing. We have learnt that being good is better than being bad.

That's not what tit for tat is. We get along with people who get along, and we punish those who do not get along.


We are sort of subject to a greater influence that is driving us like survival of the fittest. So I will be looking for opportunities to benefit myself and give me an advantage.

Yes, but because we have more sophisticated minds, we can override our natural instincts. We don't have to have sex for procreation to spread our genes and become evolutionary success stories; we can do it for fun and love.

It's true that chimpanzees will hide food from others, or engage in sneaky intercourse, if they can get away with it. And they get punished if they are found out.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Some questions for the atheists.

Sure

Why is it wrong to murder someone in cold blood if it furthers your own ends and you can get away with it?

Because I have empathy, and would recognize the impact it would not only have on the person themselves, but that persons family and friends. Furthermore, I wish to live in a society where randomly killing each other is not permitted, as such I should not do that myself. Also, I am a human and value human life, even when it is not my own.

Why is it wrong to be a rich indusrialist who knowingly exploits workers if doing so enhances your personal wealth, allows you to live more comfortably and you can get away with it.

Again, because I can understand the consequences my actions have on the people who are being exploited. It would disgust me to know I earned my wealth through the exploitation of those who built my wealth for me.

Many have done so throughout history. Why not be a "sociopath" if you can get away with it?

Because sociopaths have a mental disorder which limits their ability to feel the natural empathy that humans have for each other... You can't "choose" to be a sociopath.

Since I am not a sociopath, engaging in the type of classic behavioural patterns that sociopaths do would disgust me, and make me feel incredibly guilty for the harm I have caused others. I simply could not do it.

Is humanism nothing more then a vestige of archaic moral systems like Christianity because it presumes some kind of underlying altruistic morality?

Just to clarify, Humanism is indeed a moral system, however Christianity is not. Therefore it would not be correct to call Humanism a vestige of it. In fact, Humanism flies directly in the face of many Christian dogmas or beliefs.

Are we altruistic because it is in our DNA and our brain physiology, as a result of natural selection, because doing so enhanced the survival of our offspring? Is altruism something we share with other mammals, particularly primates and is this why many atheists are humanists?

Sure, I'd agree with that.

Why not Neitzsche who inspired Adolph Hitler?

Why are you pointing to Nietzsche and leaving out people like Martin Luther who also heavily inspired Hitler? For example his Anti-Semitism can be directly linked to Martin Luther's writings (in fact he specifically chose to carry out kristallnacht on Luther's birthday), and the predominately Christian culture of his time.

I'm sure there must be some out there who like Ayn Rand and her capitalist Objectivism, especially those who live in the US? Or Sartre and his neo-Marxism? There are many varieties of atheism.

Neither of those things are a "variety" of atheism... in fact neither one has anything to do with atheism.

Ironically, Ayn Rand is somehow a hero among Tea Party Conservative Christians. I've never been able to figure that one out...

My point is that in atheism there are no moral parameters. You are allowed to create any morality that appeals to you. You are exposed to the chill of the empty universe.

On the contrary, the moral parameters are the objective consequences of our actions, the good, and the harm that we can cause to ourselves, others, or the societies in which we live.

On the flip side, there are no moral parameters that I can tell within Christianity. You can do whatever you like, and as long as you repent to Jesus for your actions it's ok, regardless of whatever harm you have caused others, and however little you have done to make things right with them.

Under an atheist worldview, we are responsible for our own actions and must act responsibly. Under a Christian worldview, Jesus pays for your sins, and is used as a scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility. There's nothing moral in that at all.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Because my system of morality is not based on selfish self-promotion.

I'd argue if your system is based on selfish self-promotion, it's not a moral system at all :)
 
Upvote 0