Morals and God

Dave Ulchers · Mar 10, 2002

Originally posted by Jesterhole
Killing a lame member of your troop who are dependent on following herds of animals is beneficial to your group survival

No it isn't. Abandoning them might be a good idea, and I'm not sure how that would be immoral if you have no means to help them become well. But killing them would just be a waste of effort.

VeraciousMaven · Mar 10, 2002

Jester:

From VM:

<<<Nothing you have said has done anything but back my claim up. >>>>

You are supposed to be backing up your own claim. Can you do that? Will you?

I already backed up my claims. See my second post. I don't see how objective morals can exist apart from God. If humanity is changing, and evolution is the result of these morals, then it stands to reason that these morals would also change, and thus not be objective.

From VM:

<<<And if we all evoloved these morals to be inbred into our genetics as if it were instince, then why is there so much immorality? >>>

Man has the intelligence to overcome his base instincts. Which is why there is a lot less rape and murder than there would be if we didn't. (note: not trying to make light of rape or murder, just pointing out that man can control his urges.)

That goes to support my opinion that morals are not part of instinct. Quite the opposite really. Immorality is part of instinct is what you seem to be saying.

From VM:

<<<Rape is an advantage to population. >>>

But a disadvantage to society.

Ah, but to which socitety? Also, who's to say that you couldn't build a society with rape in it and have it not work? Spartan Empire anyone?

Freodin:
VeraciousMaven : Ok, so YOUR whole argument stops here, because, as I have shown, objective morals can quite well exist without God.

OBJECTIVE morals do by definition not need a sucject to evaluate them to exist.

You might say that God is the only one who is able to evaluate these objective morals, but they would still EXIST without him.

Because absolute morals cannot exist apart from God, I'd say that you're basically comparing the morals to the morals and telling me that because the morals are subjected to the interpretation of the morals then they are subjective. I don't buy it.

Dave:
quote:
I don't see how that is objective. The morals are still being definied for the set group that it works for. And if we all evoloved these morals to be inbred into our genetics as if it were instince, then why is there so much immorality?

Perhaps we are still evolving. Antelopes evolved to escape lions, right? But some antelopes are still sometimes caught by lions. The complexity of the world also may confuse man's inate instincts.

If we are evolving, then the morals are changing. They arn't objective are they?

quote:
Rape is an advantage to population.

No it isn't, at least not in our species. Go read the book "Sperm Wars" and get back to me when you've learned about the birds and the bees.

Well, I'm not going to read the book just yet so you'll have to tell me what it says to make your point.

quote:
If it's in our instinct at all, then people would be very hesitant indeed to lie or steal ... but this isn't the case at all.

I think you'll find that very few people lie or steal unless they percieve this is necessary for their survival.

I find that to be completely untrue. I don't know where you're from in the world/country, but where I am, people steal anything they can get away with. Why not after all?

I don't know about your Church, but mine teaches that there is nothing wrong with stealing food or clothing or shelter when it is needed and ones lacks legitimate means to obtain them.

Agreed.

People are basically good, it's mostly an issue of their perceptions being clouded about what is right and what is wrong and what they must do to survive which causes them to sin. The imbalance in their perceptions is brought about by elements of civilization which their instincts have difficulty dealing with because civilization is such a new thing. Money for example, causes all sorts of confusion.

I'm not sure where you're going with this ... if humanity was good by nature then your "church" is useless. Also, if humanity was good by nature, his nature would have derived even greater goodness instead of corruption. Humanism doesn't work in practical terms.

quote:
Marriage.

Marriage goes against the instinct to survive? I don't see how.

I don't see how it helps any. You're stuck with one wife. Less breeding.

quote:
Also seeing someone else in trouble, and helping them despite the fact that you may die as well.

As I already explained, it is always better for the species that its member help eachother. So that works in favor of the genome, not against it.

You're telling me that if a tiger was stuck in a building, and some other tiger that had never even seen it before was outside, the tiger would run in there and rescue it? Unlikely.

quote:
If man made all moral laws, then why are moral laws impossible to follow?

Moral laws aren't impossible to follow. As I said, people's instincts are just confused so it is difficult for them to figure out right from wrong in the current situation. That's where, I concede, God's help comes in handy, like in Jesus explaining what is right and what is wrong, etc. Btu that is a different argument.

That's strange. You think that God exists, but He didn't invent absolute morals? We evolved aboslute morals, which are instinct (somehow), and God played no part in it?

No it isn't. Abandoning them might be a good idea, and I'm not sure how that would be immoral if you have no means to help them become well. But killing them would just be a waste of effort.

But we don't do either. In fact, we carry their dead bodies back with us. How instinctive is THAT?

Dave Ulchers · Mar 10, 2002

Originally posted by VeraciousMaven
If we are evolving, then the morals are changing. They arn't objective are they?

If what is moral is what is in the best interests of the species, then morality is inherently objective.

Well, I'm not going to read the book just yet so you'll have to tell me what it says to make your point.

Why do you think rape is beneficial? You apparently think sex and pregnancy is like plugging an electric cord into a socket and the light comes on. A rapist doesn't know when a woman is fertile, for starters. Also, a woman's body is far more likely to allow sperm into her inner womb if she [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which is generally unlikely in rape. Females of the human species have evolves various techniques which are thus disadvantageous to a rapist, because offspring which a born into a family situation are more likely to survive, and bonding long term with a mate increases the chances of there being an extended family. Science has already pondered and discovered perfectly valid biological reasons why men and women just don't go around raping eachother all day.

where I am, people steal anything they can get away with.

Really? I wonder where you are from.

if humanity was good by nature then your "church" is useless. Also, if humanity was good by nature, his nature would have derived even greater goodness instead of corruption.

People are basically good, just confused. The role of my church is to encourage them to know what is good and what is evil.

You're stuck with one wife. Less breeding.

Why does marriage mean less breeding? Since women are more biologically receptive to reproduce when they are in stable relationships, it would seem to result in more breeding.

You're telling me that if a tiger was stuck in a building, and some other tiger that had never even seen it before was outside, the tiger would run in there and rescue it? Unlikely.

Not all species have evolved the tribal instinct we have, but why does a trapped animal call out for help if its cry never works?

We evolved aboslute morals, which are instinct (somehow), and God played no part in it?

I have no reason to believe either way, but it is entirely plausible given that altruism is a beneficial evolutionary trait.

But we don't do either. In fact, we carry their dead bodies back with us. How instinctive is THAT?

That's cultural, not moral. "Let the dead bury their dead" is a perfectly moral approach.

Freodin · Mar 11, 2002

Because absolute morals cannot exist apart from God, I'd say that you're basically comparing the morals to the morals and telling me that because the morals are subjected to the interpretation of the morals then they are subjective. I don't buy it.

VM: Ah, so we are now talking about absolute morals, no longer objective morals.

What is, by your definition a "moral", an "absolute moral" and a "moral interpretation"?

What is the difference between "objective" and "subjective" moral?

Where does "moral" come from?

VeraciousMaven · Mar 11, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by VeraciousMaven
If we are evolving, then the morals are changing. They arn't objective are they?

If what is moral is what is in the best interests of the species, then morality is inherently objective.

That didn't make any sense ... these morals are still defined by the people.

quote:
Well, I'm not going to read the book just yet so you'll have to tell me what it says to make your point.

Why do you think rape is beneficial? You apparently think sex and pregnancy is like plugging an electric cord into a socket and the light comes on. A rapist doesn't know when a woman is fertile, for starters. Also, a woman's body is far more likely to allow sperm into her inner womb if she [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which is generally unlikely in rape. Females of the human species have evolves various techniques which are thus disadvantageous to a rapist, because offspring which a born into a family situation are more likely to survive, and bonding long term with a mate increases the chances of there being an extended family. Science has already pondered and discovered perfectly valid biological reasons why men and women just don't go around raping eachother all day.

Then why did rape work so well for Sparta?

quote:
where I am, people steal anything they can get away with.

Really? I wonder where you are from.

I could ask the same thing! Where are you from that people dont steal?! I wanna move!

quote:
if humanity was good by nature then your "church" is useless. Also, if humanity was good by nature, his nature would have derived even greater goodness instead of corruption.

People are basically good, just confused. The role of my church is to encourage them to know what is good and what is evil.

How are they confused again? At what age? Seriously, at what age did they get confused? If people started off good, then what turned them bad? They've only got themselves acting on themselves. We should all be VERY good!

quote:
You're stuck with one wife. Less breeding.

Why does marriage mean less breeding? Since women are more biologically receptive to reproduce when they are in stable relationships, it would seem to result in more breeding.

I don't see how ... you've gotta wait how long before you can start again with only one woman?

quote:
You're telling me that if a tiger was stuck in a building, and some other tiger that had never even seen it before was outside, the tiger would run in there and rescue it? Unlikely.

Not all species have evolved the tribal instinct we have, but why does a trapped animal call out for help if its cry never works?

Well the cry would obviously not work in a burning building. Maybe the animal is in distress, or pain. And these other species rely more on their instincts then humans do.

quote:
We evolved aboslute morals, which are instinct (somehow), and God played no part in it?

I have no reason to believe either way, but it is entirely plausible given that altruism is a beneficial evolutionary trait.

I don't see any reason to follow altruism on a strictly evolutionary basis.

quote:
But we don't do either. In fact, we carry their dead bodies back with us. How instinctive is THAT?

That's cultural, not moral. "Let the dead bury their dead" is a perfectly moral approach.

I'm pretty sure Jesus was just telling the guy to quit stalling.

But either way, I don't see how it is instinctive.

-----------------
Freodin:
VM: Ah, so we are now talking about absolute morals, no longer objective morals.

Either, I think my point stands.

Freodin · Mar 12, 2002

VM:
Ok, as you don´t deign to answer my questions, (I can understand it, the other post by DU was rather long), I will give you MY definitions.

If you don´t agree with them, please give me yours.

Objective morals: moral statements that are true, regardless of circumstance or interpreter

Subjective morals: moral statements that are true or false depending on circumstance or interpreter

I think these are defintions that most people would agree on.

So a moral statement "rape is bad" is objective, it would be true even if there was no God around to interprete it.

Irwin Hawkins · Mar 12, 2002

Howe many animals do you suppose are sitting at computers, and argueing over whether or not morals could exist with, or without GOD? Show me where this is taking place, and I will deny my GOD, and Savior. The very "fact" that man is able to do these things, and invent things that animals haven't the intellegence to do proves the existence of GOD. Animals don't have morals. If there were no GOD morals would-not exist.

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Irwin Hawkins · Mar 12, 2002

It is so simple to answer: "No GOD, no morals."

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Irwin Hawkins · Mar 12, 2002

Without God; rape wouldn't be rape. I have even heard that there is no such thing as rape. Without the conviction of GOD, man would just do what seemed right in his own eyes. The Bible teaches us that that is just what man once did. Without GOD, each man is his own law. Look at sports for example. If the referee don't see you there is no foul. GOD is the referee, and He don't miss anything.

With the love of Jesus Christ.

Freodin · Mar 12, 2002

Irwin Hawkings:
It seems you have not seen many animals. They have a clear understanding of what is "right" and "wrong".

And, surprise, often (not always) it´s very different from human "right" and "wrong".

So animals work on a certain set of "divine rules" and humans on an different set. Now what does that tell us about absolute morals?

Starscream · Mar 12, 2002

Freodin:

It seems you have not seen many animals. They have a clear understanding of what is "right" and "wrong".

And some might say that animals have a better idea of right and wrong than humans...

When's the last time you've seen a group of animals perform genocide? Which animal besides humans has manufactured and used mass instruments of destruction?
Has any animal ever gone to war against another (besides man)?

Freodin · Mar 12, 2002

Too true, starscream.

But you have to remeber, most Christians deny that Atheists have morals. How should they attribute such a thing to mere animals.

VeraciousMaven · Mar 12, 2002

Freodin, I agree with your definition of objective and subjective morals.

I do think atheists have morals. They've objective; even the unbeliever can feel what is right and wrong deep down inside.

Freodin · Mar 13, 2002

VM:

Freodin, I agree with your definition of
objective and subjective morals.

Now I´m confused.

By my definition, it should be clear that objective morals CAN exist without God.

So why do you still deny that?

VeraciousMaven · Mar 13, 2002

But I don't understand how objective morals could be there unless placed there.

Corey · Mar 13, 2002

Starscream:

Has any animal ever gone to war against another (besides man)?

Actually, chimpanzees (Pan troglydytes) do occasionally war with each other. Not surprising when you consider who their closest cousin is.

Irwin Hawkins:

Without God; rape wouldn't be rape.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Rape is forcible sexual activities; God is not in the definition.

I have even heard that there is no such thing as rape.

Whatever. You need to provide a source for this one. Extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.

Without the conviction of GOD, man would just do what seemed right in his own eyes.

Doesn't seem so bad to me.

VeraciousMaven:

But I don't understand how objective morals could be there unless placed there.

Well, let's start with: Cogito ergo sum. I know that I exist. From that bedrock, I assume that other humans around share this same experience. Since I want to live as I wish, I assume others wish to do so as well. Therefore, any infractions by me onto others that interrupt how they wish to live may be morally wrong as it would be for others to do so to me.

VeraciousMaven · Mar 13, 2002

Corey:
Well, let's start with: Cogito ergo sum. I know that I exist. From that bedrock, I assume that other humans around share this same experience. Since I want to live as I wish, I assume others wish to do so as well. Therefore, any infractions by me onto others that interrupt how they wish to live may be morally wrong as it would be for others to do so to me.

... are you talking about objective morals?

supermagdalena · Mar 13, 2002

Let me pose this question:

Would anyone here want live in a society with no moral standard? Where it was okay to rape and kill as you pleased? Morals are important. God gave them to us because He knew we were going to hurt eachother, He was trying to prevent that.

Also, I checked and noticed no women were involved in the whole rape-as-an-advantage issue. Sorry, but I don't believe it's very respectful to even say such a thing. It's both barbaric and disgusting...any rape victim reading this would be crying, probably. Please people, let's think about what we're saying here.

Blessed-one · Mar 14, 2002

agree.

ok, take a child for example. Even a child knows how to steal and hides things from the adults, such as deliberately lying that he's done the HW, or that he hides a lolly behind his back.
Assumes (generally) that parents won't steal at home, and that the education system doesn't teach you how to lie, how does the child come up with stealing?
AND knowing that it's a wrong thing to do, esp when the parent starts asking questions.

we all have a conscious in our hearts that distinguish the basicity between moral and immoral. But the concept of it changes as we grow and receive the world's standards on what's moral and what's immoral.
Take having sex before marriage for example, it's becoming widely accepted (sort of) as portrayed on TV.

As we grow, our sense of morality seems to decay, that's where religion comes in. Humans're born with knowing what's right and wrong, but we tend to go down to the wrong path, unless saved by God, we've nowhere to escape to.

supermagdalena · Mar 14, 2002

Blessed ONe: Good point!

Morals and God

Well-Known Member

Jesus Saves!

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Jesus Saves!

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Jesus Saves!

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Jesus Saves!

Veteran

Jesus Saves!

The Shrubs and the Flan.

a long journey ahead

The Shrubs and the Flan.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency