Does morality exist without God? (2)

[Insane_Duck]

I'm cool with not debating, but if you start making claims I'm going to start refuting them.

The idea that everyone has a good understanding of Christianity's claims isn't even close to true. I'd argue most Christians in this country don't really understand their faiths claims.

Perhaps you're right, if more people knew more about Christianity they'd reject it more often. I'd agree that many people live in ignorance or apathy of their faith, but that doesn't mean you're right about Christianity. I'd make an opposite argument that you are also misrepresenting Christianity at its core (regardless of what it "claims"), from which a debate would follow.

I don't see why you highlighted what you did, or why that makes "it" (which I didn't understand ever) not work. I'd like to see you argue Christ is immoral. Because thats who I'm trying to follow.

You said that many who claim to be Christians aren't, and I'm afraid that's not your right. "It" in this context is used a bit like "That's what they say". But if you like you can replace "it" with "rationality" or "logic".

Christopher Hitchens also does a good job of that. (watch the video) It goes something like the following.

Partially from the video:

1. While Jesus did have some good ideas...
2. Vicarious redemption is an ugly concept.
3. Telling people to take "no thought for tomorrow" is immoral. (kinda like what Harald camping did)
4. The universe and our position (100,000 years ago) in it is an obviously irrational and immoral act by heaven. (see video)
5. The proposition humans don't know right from wrong and are born in sin is insulting.
6. God's authority is by definition totalitarian (i.e. thought crime).
7. And (again from an atheistic perspective) teaching people false things like divinity is immoral.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Do other forms of biological life have morals? Open question.

Not if morality means assessing the "good" or "bad" of an action. Regardless of their ability to do so (with more intelligence) they simply don't see the world in terms of right and wrong.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I'm cool with not debating, but if you start making claims I'm going to start refuting them.


Perhaps you're right, if more people knew more about Christianity they'd reject it more often. I'd agree that many people live in ignorance or apathy of their faith, but that doesn't mean you're right about Christianity. I'd make an opposite argument that you are also misrepresenting Christianity at its core (regardless of what it "claims"), from which a debate would follow.

You claim I am misrepresenting Christianity but you don't say how.

You said that many who claim to be Christians aren't, and I'm afraid that's not your right. "It" in this context is used a bit like "That's what they say". But if you like you can replace "it" with "rationality" or "logic".

I said many who claim to be Christians don't understand the what Christianity is ( or rather for technicalities sake, what Christianity claims)

Christopher Hitchens also does a good job of that. (watch the video) It goes something like the following.

Partially from the video:

1. While Jesus did have some good ideas...
2. Vicarious redemption is an ugly concept.
Why?
3. Telling people to take "no thought for tomorrow" is immoral. (kinda like what Harald camping did)
I don't even get what that has to do with anything, I have never once been told as a Christian not to think about my worldly future, I'v been told that I have an eternity safe in heaven if something does happen
4. The universe and our position (100,000 years ago) in it is an obviously irrational and immoral act by heaven. (see video)

I'm not going to watch the video, I'm watching swamp people on the history channel. However I'd like to see you convince me that God was immoral about putting us where we are in the universe
5. The proposition humans don't know right from wrong and are born in sin is insulting.
Sin nature doesn't state humans don't know right from wrong. It says humans know right from wrong but choose wrong anyway.
6. God's authority is by definition totalitarian (i.e. thought crime).
Lets say God does exist. The only way he could not have be a criminal in your books is if he decided not to create sentient beings.
7. And (again from an atheistic perspective) teaching people false things like divinity is immoral.
Prove there is no God. For evidence of God, lets question where the universe began, and how did life form from abiotic matter.

Oh, so if no biological life contains morality other than humans, where did it evolve from? Even more challenging, how do you evolve a complex system like an eye ball? Did the retina evolve first, and then the poor creature with only a retina survive long enough to eventually develop the rest of the eye?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Oh, so if no biological life contains morality other than humans, where did it evolve from? Even more challenging, how do you evolve a complex system like an eye ball? Did the retina evolve first, and then the poor creature with only a retina survive long enough to eventually develop the rest of the eye?

Humans, like Chimpanzees (and other higher primates) have the ability to feel empathy. This ability to do so allowed them to group select. If they shared food and cared for each other's well being, their small group unit would flourish and be selected for. When humans became more intelligent (stood up and started using our hands to make better and better tools) we increased this ability to care about others. It became even more important when humans lost physical strength and had to rely on team work with each other, coupled with their intelligence.

The difference is that the chimp doesn't make intelligent decisions over the morality of an action, it just goes with it's feelings. Depending on how you define morality and how you phrase the debate the answer can change.

The evolution of the eye is well explained. It's evolution is demonstrated by it's stages in various animals like (in order): Flat worms, The Nautilus, Snails, Octopi, Fish and other Vertebrate. Look up a video, they are all over the place. I believe the stage you are looking for is the snail stage. There are many more. (I'll post a video in a minute)

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I kind of suspected you would ignore everything I said and instead fight for the last one, and I am not well studied in evolution, so I will take your word that those explanations for the eye, and morality are feasible. I still expect you to respond to everything else I said in my above post. I believe I called quite a bit of what you said, I sure hope you try to back it up. For another tough question since you seem to have your science down, how did life evolve from abiotic matter? Honestly.

 

[Insane_Duck]

YouTube - ‪Evolution of the eye‬‏

This is the shortest one that I could find that touched on what I wanted to say. I think the snail has the eye with mucus involved. The video is, however, only a simple introduction into what we know.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I kind of suspected you would ignore everything I said and instead fight for the last one, and I am not well studied in evolution, so I will take your word that those explanations for the eye, and morality are feasible. I still expect you to respond to everything else I said in my above post. I believe I called quite a bit of what you said, I sure hope you try to back it up. For another tough question since you seem to have your science down, how did life evolve from abiotic matter? Honestly.

Oh wow. I hadn't realized that you had responded (in bold) at all. You really should indicate such things when posting another separate response. I'll get to that in a minute.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

Sorry, my bad. I thought you were dodging, I'm sorry I accused you as such. Being new to forums has it's downsides.

 

[Insane_Duck]

You claim I am misrepresenting Christianity but you don't say how.

Not what Christianity claims. But the deception it is. The video raises many objections, but since you won't watch it now I'll get to this later. It's 1:30 AM here and I'm going to bed soon.

I said many who claim to be Christians don't understand the what Christianity is ( or rather for technicalities sake, what Christianity claims)

I would agree with the parenthesis clad statement and not the first. They are different things.

Why?

(as Hitchens explains) It's a dead middle eastern tradition. (and not just in Judaism) Throw your sins on a goat and kill it. I can take your punishment for a crime but I can't take your responsibility. Jesus as a perfect "lamb" to take our sins reflects a barbaric (and illogical) ancient tradition and we shouldn't be worshiping it.

I don't even get what that has to do with anything, I have never once been told as a Christian not to think about my worldly future, I'v been told that I have an eternity safe in heaven if something does happen

Then you are ignorant of Christianities teachings.

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

This means leave your wife, and your livelihood. Like Harold camping telling people to sell their possessions to get ready for May 21st. Many lost everything. From an atheistic perspective, telling people to give up their life and follow a delusion is immoral.

I'm not going to watch the video, I'm watching swamp people on the history channel. However I'd like to see you convince me that God was immoral about putting us where we are in the universe

Hitchens does a better job than I could in text. Please just watch 8:00 - 10:34. It deals with this question. And if you watch to the end of the video Hitchens goes into further detail.

Sin nature doesn't state humans don't know right from wrong. It says humans know right from wrong but choose wrong anyway.

Sin nature and right and wrong are separate objections. The latter is phrased like this: It's insulting to think that the Jewish people were so stupid, that they needed the ten commandments. It is only common sense. The former is talking about how the "born in sin" is an obvious evolved memetic ploy to self sustain Christianity.

Lets say God does exist. The only way he could not have be a criminal in your books is if he decided not to create sentient beings.

First off, not prosecuting thought crime is a start. But your statement is true. (assuming the God is Yahweh as defined by Christians) Hitchens makes the case that an overbearing eternal judge who hears your thoughts and a variety of other things is immoral and totalitarian. He uses this to demonstrate the immorality of the Christian concept of God.

Prove there is no God. For evidence of God, lets question where the universe began, and how did life form from abiotic matter.

Challenge 1: Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Challenge 2:

YouTube - ‪The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak‬‏

I know how you are reluctant to watch these, but they aren't long at all and my typing about it is getting tedious as well as not achieving the desired impact.

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

Answers in bold. It's the same time over here, I will likely go to sleep too, and to be honest, I have been debating many things all day, so I may or may not respond tomorrow.

Not what Christianity claims. But the deception it is. The video raises many objections, but since you won't watch it now I'll get to this later. It's 1:30 AM here and I'm going to bed soon.

I would agree with the parenthesis clad statement and not the first. They are different things.

I added the first to better clarify what I meant. My mistake, I own up to it.

(as Hitchens explains) It's a dead middle eastern tradition. (and not just in Judaism) Throw your sins on a goat and kill it. I can take your punishment for a crime but I can't take your responsibility. Jesus as a perfect "lamb" to take our sins reflects a barbaric (and illogical) ancient tradition and we shouldn't be worshiping it.

I do not think someone sacrificing themselves for the good of many is barbaric. The difference between Jesus and a animal, is Jesus chose to die, He did not have to. Its not illogical ever. Sins must be paid. Someone perfect, paid them, and because He was perfect he could survive the payment.

Then you are ignorant of Christianities teachings.

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

This means leave your wife, and your livelihood. Like Harold camping telling people to sell their possessions to get ready for May 21st. Many lost everything. From an atheistic perspective, telling people to give up their life and follow a delusion is immoral.

Once again, this is assuming Jesus is a delusion. I could use the liar, lunatic, or savior argument on you. I'm sure you've heard it before. Once again you seem to find sacrifice disgusting. People who give away their possessions believe they are trading them for something worth more. And from a Christian perspective they are. I would also say from a Christian perspective, you are telling people to give up their life and follow the delusion of a universe without purpose

Hitchens does a better job than I could in text. Please just watch 8:00 - 10:34. It deals with this question. And if you watch to the end of the video Hitchens goes into further detail.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not in video watching mood. Its nothing against you or the subject. I actually am fairly interested in the evolution of the eye. However, I'm just not gonna do it. Don't feel like it.

Sin nature and right and wrong are separate objections. The latter is phrased like this: It's insulting to think that the Jewish people were so stupid, that they needed the ten commandments. It is only common sense. The former is talking about how the "born in sin" is an obvious evolved memetic ploy to self sustain Christianity.

I suspect the Ten Commandments were written out so that none would have an excuse. I don't believe it is insulting to the Jews, indeed it appears you would be insulted by any set of moral laws written out, and I doubt you honestly hold that stance..? And born in to sin. The idea that humans are imperfect. Unless you think otherwise?

First off, not prosecuting thought crime is a start. But your statement is true. (assuming the God is Yahweh as defined by Christians) Hitchens makes the case that an overbearing eternal judge who hears your thoughts and a variety of other things is immoral and totalitarian. He uses this to demonstrate the immorality of the Christian concept of God.

The Christian concept of God is a being who is perfect, just, loving, merciful. I don't see how such a being can be immoral. I certainly once again don't see how you can call Jesus (who is my God) immoral. I'm not going to get in the hell debate, I've posted quite a bit on it, look up a thread called "Only for Christians who believe in a hellish hell". Non believers are allowed on that forum, and you can hear my recent thoughts on the subject there if you care.

Challenge 1: Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Challenge 2:

YouTube - ‪The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak‬‏

I know how you are reluctant to watch these, but they aren't long at all and my typing about it is getting tedious as well as not achieving the desired impact.
I would argue evolutionists certainly can't prove their theory in its entirety. So why should I have to prove mine? But mine is provable, in that it provides a logical explanation for the existence of the universe.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I added the first to better clarify what I meant. My mistake, I own up to it.

I'll look at it later.

I do not think someone sacrificing themselves for the good of many is barbaric. The difference between Jesus and a animal, is Jesus chose to die, He did not have to. Its not illogical ever. Sins must be paid. Someone perfect, paid them, and because He was perfect he could survive the payment.

The problem is that you can't absolve responsibility. I can substitute for your punishment but not your responsibility. This is what vicarious redemption replies.

Once again, this is assuming Jesus is a delusion. I could use the liar, lunatic, or savior argument on you. I'm sure you've heard it before. Once again you seem to find sacrifice disgusting. People who give away their possessions believe they are trading them for something worth more. And from a Christian perspective they are. I would also say from a Christian perspective, you are telling people to give up their life and follow the delusion of a universe without purpose

Which is my point. The morality of Christianity depends on it's truth. Which is why many atheists feel a desire to remove religions influence because of the harm it (from their perspective) causes. You asked why I called the teachings of Jesus immoral, this is why.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not in video watching mood. Its nothing against you or the subject. I actually am fairly interested in the evolution of the eye. However, I'm just not gonna do it. Don't feel like it.

Fair enough. But you should take the time to examine the evidence. (at some point)

I suspect the Ten Commandments were written out so that none would have an excuse. I don't believe it is insulting to the Jews, indeed it appears you would be insulted by any set of moral laws written out, and I doubt you honestly hold that stance..? And born in to sin. The idea that humans are imperfect. Unless you think otherwise?

It's like your mother writing you a note reminding you to blink if your eyes start to feel dry. "I suspected that you might have some trouble so I wrote it out on paper to remind you." Would you be insulted?

The Christian concept of God is a being who is perfect, just, loving, merciful. I don't see how such a being can be immoral. I certainly once again don't see how you can call Jesus (who is my God) immoral. I'm not going to get in the hell debate, I've posted quite a bit on it, look up a form call "Only for Christians who believe in a hellish hell". Non believers are allowed on that forum, and you can hear my recent thoughts on the subject there if you care.

This is the problem. Many contend that while you claim that your God is perfect and loving, he (by definition) is not. Others claim that his actions show otherwise. You can call him all loving until you are blue in the face but it won't change the matter.

I would argue evolutionists certainly can't prove their theory in its entirety. So why should I have to prove mine? But mine is provable, in that it provides a logical explanation for the existence of the universe.

Well then your argument would be entirely unfounded. While your theory (presumably ID) is provable the key is for it to be falsifiable. (it hasn't met it's burden of proof or falsifiability FYI) Evolution meets both criteria.

I don't have a theory about the ultimate origin for the universe per say. But I find God a stupid explanation. My reasoning is as follows.

1. I can come up with an explanation besides God that is equally supported by the cosmological argument. i.e. A Natural explanation we don't know of, non-intelligent creator that has a similar creating role to God, Multiple Gods, A deistic God, Extra-universe computer programers that programed physical constants into the universe and wish to observe them with no focus on life.
2. Some of those explanations work better than God because they inject less new entities but explain the same phenomena equally. (Occam's Razor)

Thus if I were to advance one of the above concepts on the basis it explains the universe, it wouldn't make sense to pick the theistic God. As is, I'm perfectly happy to leave the question with an open ended "no one knows".

 

[InSearchOfCompassion]

I'll look at it later.

The problem is that you can't absolve responsibility. I can substitute for your punishment but not your responsibility. This is what vicarious redemption replies.

Which is my point. The morality of Christianity depends on it's truth. Which is why many atheists feel a desire to remove religions influence because of the harm it (from their perspective) causes. You asked why I called the teachings of Jesus immoral, this is why.

Fair enough. But you should take the time to examine the evidence. (at some point)

It's like your mother writing you a note reminding you to blink if your eyes start to feel dry. "I suspected that you might have some trouble so I wrote it out on paper to remind you." Would you be insulted?

This is the problem. Many contend that while you claim that your God is perfect and loving, he (by definition) is not. Others claim that his actions show otherwise. You can call him all loving until you are blue in the face but it won't change the matter.
Well then your argument would be entirely unfounded. While your theory (presumably ID) is provable the key is for it to be falsifiable. (it hasn't met it's burden of proof or falsifiability FYI) Evolution meets both criteria.

I don't have a theory about the ultimate origin for the universe per say. But I find God a stupid explanation. My reasoning is as follows.

1. I can come up with an explanation besides God that is equally supported by the cosmological argument. i.e. A Natural explanation we don't know of, non-intelligent creator that has a similar creating role to God, Multiple Gods, A deistic God, Extra-universe computer programers that programed physical constants into the universe and wish to observe them with no focus on life.
2. Some of those explanations work better than God because they inject less new entities but explain the same phenomena equally. (Occam's Razor)

Thus if I were to advance one of the above concepts on the basis it explains the universe, it wouldn't make sense to pick the theistic God. As is, I'm perfectly happy to leave the question with an open ended "no one knows".

I'm going to sleep, I appreciate your answers. I (of course) don't entirely understand everything presented. I'm not going to tackle everything written, but as far as the burden of responsibility, God promises to forgive and (the oft forgotten) forget your sins. I don't know if that changes anything to you.
On the issue of my mother writing me a note as such, you could choose either to be insulted, or you can feel gratitude that your mom loved you so much that she cared even for such a small issue. I don't see Christianity as immoral when it is followed properly. But I feel you and I are very divided on the idea of self sacrifice and if it is moral. I don't see God as a stupid explanation. Most of the suggestions you have made are essentially Gods who don't care from what I see. I don't see how a programmer from out of the universe doesn't require just as much faith to believe in as God. Natural explanations we don't know of is a non answer. None of your answers were more believable than mine. I believe they were invented so that people wouldn't have to turn to the real God.

 

[selfinflikted]

Christians believe in faith not works. You can't earn heaven. You just must believe Jesus died for you.

Has anyone actually ever stopped to consider this? Why on earth would faith (a useless gesture in all respects, imo) be considered more important than how you treat other people? It makes no sense.

 

[Tzaousios]

You do if you or any other Christian wants to argue that the Christian God is the source of morality. For any argument to be sound, its premises must be true so for your argument to be sound, you need to prove that the Christian God is real. If Christians cannot establish the validity or truth of their claims then why should anyone believe them?

If you have already decided that there is no God, Christian or otherwise, and that those who believe in God are delusional, then how could the "validity" or "truth" even be proved for you?

You have already set what the premises must be in order for any argument about God to be true or believable. Those premises are that God does not exist and that those who believe in God are delusional.

Thus, despite your pleading for "sound arguments" and "true premises," in actual fact it is only an exercise in rhetorical vilification and denigration.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Do other forms of biological life have morals? Open question.

Depends on the definition of morals. I believe that moral behavior reduces (in part) to the regulation of experienced positive or negative value ( happiness, lunch, music, sexiness, pain etc). I believe that animals can experience similar value and regulate their behavior in relation to it. So in a loose sense the answer is "yes".

Possibly our ethical theories and moral codes are examples of evolutionary algorithms working towards solving the problem of managing and maximising (or facilitating attraction towards) experienced value. Although animals may not have these at the level of linguistic articulation (they don't write books or give speeches) they might exist somewhere in their unconscious brain functioning.

I've seen a lot of people say you don't need God for morality but not very many alternate answers as to where morality comes from? And honestly, how did morality evolve? It seems kind of a large evolutionary leap.

If you accept that the mind evolves, and with it experience of value then we can base morality in that. Morality: the regulation of experiences of value. In fact the utilitarians and hedonists theories of pleasue being good could possibly reflect the general way our mind works, and the experience of pleasure and other positive psychological states may be a form of 'attracting set' in an 'complex dynamical system' ("Attractors" and "stragge attractors" have recognised existence. Browse google search results for "strange attractor brain" and there ought to be some fringe science out there...).

Heres a good quote:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]One of the discoveries of Chaos Theory is that the brain is in fact organized by chaos. While the brain's electrical activity is chaotic and unpredictable, it has a hidden order in that it is attracted to a certain region of the plot space.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] Strange attractors are fractal patterns made by a dynamical system exhibiting chaos. Rapp explained the discovery of these fractal "strange attractors" in the brain: (read more here)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]."[/FONT]

 

[Belk]

If you have already decided that there is no God, Christian or otherwise, and that those who believe in God are delusional, then how could the "validity" or "truth" even be proved for you?

Normally via things like evidence and sound reasoning.

You have already set what the premises must be in order for any argument about God to be true or believable. Those premises are that God does not exist and that those who believe in God are delusional.

Uh, no. That doesn't even make any sense

Thus, despite your pleading for "sound arguments" and "true premises," in actual fact it is only an exercise in rhetorical vilification and denigration.

Why are you so desperate to see people as vilifying your beliefs simply because we do not find the evidence presented thus far convincing?

 

[selfinflikted]

Why are you so desperate to see people as vilifying your beliefs simply because we do not find the evidence presented thus far convincing?

I think for some people, they think it serves to somehow validate their beliefs.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I'm going to sleep, I appreciate your answers.

Likewise.

I'm not going to tackle everything written, but as far as the burden of responsibility, God promises to forgive and (the oft forgotten) forget your sins. I don't know if that changes anything to you.

Well... that is something. But then you'd have to prove that sins (as described by the Christian faith) exist, find a way to measure them, and then prove that God does (with the sins) what you say he does.

On the issue of my mother writing me a note as such, you could choose either to be insulted, or you can feel gratitude that your mom loved you so much that she cared even for such a small issue.

I honestly wouldn't take it as such a gesture.

I don't see Christianity as immoral when it is followed properly. But I feel you and I are very divided on the idea of self sacrifice and if it is moral.

I would disagree.

I don't see God as a stupid explanation. Most of the suggestions you have made are essentially Gods who don't care from what I see. I don't see how a programmer from out of the universe doesn't require just as much faith to believe in as God.

Which is exactly why I don't worship computer Gods. But if the cosmological argument is the only reason you have to worship God, you might as well be worshiping the Giant Universe-Creating Omni-Cake. Logic makes some of those explanations better than God. Positing a Theistic God as the answer just because that was how you were raised makes no sense.

Natural explanations we don't know of is a non answer. None of your answers were more believable than mine. I believe they were invented so that people wouldn't have to turn to the real God.

Hardly. One naturalistic explanation we do know of that tends to create universes ex nihil is Chaotic Inflation. But saying: "I don't know but I don't see a need to involve the supernatural" is better than "God did it". (a personal loving God who conforms to your world view at that)

 

[Tzaousios]

Normally via things like evidence and sound reasoning.

Right, and the non-partial atheist judge begins with the presupposition that God does not exists and those who believe in God are delusional. Of course, this is usually obscured or whitewashed by repeating the trope "there is no evidence that has yet convinced me." Gotta dangle that carrot out there that they just might be persuaded to belive.

You have already set what the premises must be in order for any argument about God to be true or believable. Those premises are that God does not exist and that those who believe in God are delusional.

Uh, no. That doesn't even make any sense

A fitting appeal to ignorance.

In other words, the premises are already set in stone, although most atheists like to present the illusion that a positively theistic argument could be set forth with true premises that could possibly "convince" them.

In reality, the only acceptable premises are ones which are made to disprove theism. If that doesn't happen, they will at least be set up to mock theism and display it in a negative light.

Why are you so desperate to see people as vilifying your beliefs simply because we do not find the evidence presented thus far convincing?

Saying I am "desperate to see my beliefs vilified" is rhetorical fluff. However, I did not make the first statement to just anyone. 3sigma is this type of atheist. If you are not, I am glad to hear that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Please present a premises that you think we should all accept and that lead to a theistic conclusion.