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.
What is your view or explanation for the existence of our awareness of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice?
Our drive towards recognising the concept is both necessary as a biological component of being a sentient social species and necessary for our survival as a sentient social species.What is your view or explanation for the existence of our awareness of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice?
You know, whatever you or I base this notion upon, we won´t be able to convince someone who doesn´t understand this (i.e. a sociopath). We can appeal to reason, empathy, karma, consequences, and you can appeal to your God´s authority in these matters until the cows come home - to no avail.On what basis are you differentiating between what is evil and what is good? How do you determine between the two? What makes causing harm to someone evil rather than good?
You know, whatever you or I base this notion upon, we won´t be able to convince someone who doesn´t understand this (i.e. a sociopath). We can appeal to reason, empathy, karma, consequences, and you can appeal to your God´s authority in these matters until the cows come home - to no avail.
So please stop using this script of leading questions (based on an argument from consequences) that merely distracts from the fact that your own approach suffers from the very same shortcomings.
People harming others is part of reality. You believe that a God exists. Thus, your argument that without a God people couldn´t be prevented from harming others is absurd. Neither God - if existing - nor absolute objective morality - if existing - help solving the problem of people disagreeing on what is moral, and even less they solve the problem that an extremely small minority of people (i.e. sociopaths) don´t even care about such questions.
In essence, you keep telling us that in the absence of a God and an objective absolute morality decreed by this God the world would be...exactly like it is (people disagreeing on what´s moral; people disagreeing on the source of morality, a very small minority not even caring about this issue) . You may not realize it, but you keep shooting your own foot with this approach.
So you claim. No-one has any reason to believe it.I am saying that any talk of good and evil, of morality in general is useless for one who does not believe that God is the source of said morality.
Uh, no.Under the atheistic framework of biological evolution by natural selection, there is no allowance for morality. Only animal instinct.
So you claim. No-one has any reason to believe it.
Uh, no.
There's also no such thing as a universal "atheistic framework".
You might have reason to believe it, but no-one you're talking to does so referencing it is completely pointless.I have reason to believe it, as well as anyone else who acknowledges that objective moral values exist.
Sure. But keep in mind there are many different and unrelated non-theistic views of morality.How do you want me to put it? As the non-theistic view?
Useless?I am saying that any talk of good and evil, of morality in general is useless for one who does not believe that God is the source of said morality.
You need to think more clearly. An atheist needn´t accept the theory of evolution, and someone who accepts the theory of evolution isn´t necessarily an atheist.Under the atheistic framework of biological evolution by natural selection,
Well, I don´t believe in gods, and I accept the theory of evolution. Yet, I find myself considering what´s the best thing to do day in day out. I find myself driven by cognition, instinct and feelings. So I don´t even have to take a look at the logic at which you arrive at your conclusion to know that the conclusion is wrong.there is no allowance for morality. Only animal instinct.
Common Arguments:
We choose to go to hell by rejecting Jesus' offer of salvation.
- This is simply untrue. I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and the offer of his sacrifice due to a lack of evidence and reasoned argument in favour of it. My skepticism on this point reflects only my convictions and has nothing to do with choosing hell. This argument also completely ignores the existence of Muslims, Sikhs, Zoroastarians and plenty of other theists that have their own understanding of redemption and paradise. Do you seriously contend that they rejected heaven and opted for hell? This argument is blatant nonsense.
No, it isn't. Although the consequences of the choice is not believed at the time of choosing, it is still a result of the choice, nonetheless.
The argument stands. If a drowning man refuses a life-vest thrown to him, he chooses to drown, even though he might think he can swim to the shore.
A terrible analogy. Corrected, the man refusing the life vest would simply be walking down a street when, out of nowhere, a life vest hits him in the head. He wheels 'round, and a man is yelling at him, "Take it! It's your only hope!"
He rightly ignores this person, who is clearly insane.
You have yet to provide any evidence that we are sinking in the first place.
To say that the consequences of a choice necessarily become choices as well is a gross misapplication of the word 'choice'. Obviously nobody chooses to be tortured forever. To dance around and play semantic games to make this appear to be so is dishonest at best and disgusting at worst.
You don't want to finish that analogy. If we are all by default "drowning men" refusing life-vests then you have to believe that God drowned us in the first place and you have to also believe that he is the only one offering working life-vests through his agents (Christians) and that everyone else is offering defective life-vests that will kill you some other way (Muslims).No, it isn't. Although the consequence of the choice is not believed at the time of choosing, it is still a result of the choice, nonetheless.
The argument stands. If a drowning man refuses a life-vest thrown to him, he chooses to drown, even though he might think he can swim to the shore.
Sin was bestowed upon us. We were born into it, according to you. Born wretched and commanded to be perfect. An impossible demand with the solution a faith-based one that requires everyone to believe in complete nonsense in order to be saved. Is this justice? Is this morality? Not at all.The analogy of drowning is an allusioin to a man being steeped in sin and wickedness and unable to reform himself of this sinful nature. It applies to you, to me, to everyone.
This is a meaningless statement. What is the "glory of God" and why are we held to such mad standards?All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
God made us and shaped our minds. He knew this would happen.Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5
This is just a smear and is completely untrue. Indeed, Elioenai if it were true then why is it better to live in some of the most secular and non-theistic nations on the planet such as Norway, Sweden, Finland?The fool has said in his heart, There is no God,
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.
Why is "seeking after God" a prequesite for being non-corrupt?God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there is anyone who understands,
Who seeks after God.
Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good, not even one. Psalm 53
You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.The analogy of drowning is an allusioin to a man being steeped in sin and wickedness and unable to reform himself of this sinful nature. It applies to you, to me, to everyone.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Are you calling people fools again, for not believing in what you cannot demonstrate to be true?Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:5
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God,
They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice;
There is no one who does good.
<snip>
You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.
Yet, "opinion" is all anyone has to go on in this matter. Yes, that includes you.
You have not yet established this premise. I challenge you to demonstrate that this anything other than your opinion.
Are you calling people fools again, for not believing in what you cannot demonstrate to be true?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?