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.
if there WAS to be some sort of "moral compass", where should it come from?
another human?
this sort of thing needs to come from a "supreme being", in my opinion anyway.
this does raise some interesting questions though.
a culture of headhunters, or of cannibals, are they "immoral"?
let's stretch this a little.
what about a culture of "perverts", an incestuous culture perhaps.
what then?
why would headhunters be moral and the incestuous not, or vice versa?
huh?This isn't a thread for apologetics. I realize you're not the only one making posts related to apologetics....but I'd appreciate it if you and everyone else stop discussing proofs, for or against the existence of god or the validity of christianity.
Thanks.
the problem with this argument is that you have no controls to test it.Much of our moral compass is cultural - it is learned from other people. But the codified rules that make up the consensus moralities of successful cultures are influenced by basic behavioural tendencies with an evolutionary origin in intra-group co-operation and inter-group competition; for example, forager groups whose individuals co-operate in competition with other groups tend to be more successful, so these traits are selectively reinforced (at least, until agriculture allows larger, settled groups and more complex social structures). We still see this powerful group loyalty at all levels today, from families and small teams (e.g. in sports), to the hierarchy of geographic groups from neighborhoods to states and superstates (which tend to be increasingly fragile with scale).
not at all.Why? because you can't imagine how else it could happen?
some?There are those can suppress any sense of conscience & guilt, and also sociopaths who feel no such qualms - no conscience, no guilt; true parasites.
huh?
wasn't it you that started this thread about "anti-theism", but yet wants to forbid any discussion on how and why there might be a god???
it seems to me that you want to only discuss your side, while trying to bar the other.
maybe you should request the thread to renamed to "the atheist agenda".
the problem with this argument is that you have no controls to test it.
i know of no culture that is absolutely devoid of religious influence.
not at all.
morality needs to come from something other than the corrupt ways of humanity.
mere mortals can be exceedingly barbarous, most humans can be prodded into murder if urged correctly.
one experiment proves than most people are tortuous.
this is the major reason i argue in favor of a god, not necessarily that it actually exists, but because humanity desperately needs one
some?
MOST people can be like this if correctly trained for it.
you mean . . . my posts are against the forum rules?It's against forum rules...not my personal choice.
I'd love to discuss the evidence for god ...I don't get to make the rules though, so please stop breaking them.
It's against forum rules...not my personal choice.
I'd love to discuss the evidence for god ...I don't get to make the rules though, so please stop breaking them.
still, the fact remains that ordinary people were willing to inflict pain.Also the experiment you're thinking of shows people respond to authority...it doesn't show they are "torturous".
I'm pretty sure if you can make a thread railing against God and upholding anti-theism then a theist can argue evidence for God. You, however, cannot try to say there is no God.
This kind of thread only exists by technicality, it really should be dropped.
Manipulate much? It seems to me that you are just throwing a tantrum.
What I meant was we know why you come here. You do too but will not allow yourself to accept why.
I've said before on a similar thread....what would we do without you.
you mean . . . my posts are against the forum rules?
i'm not asking ANYONE to defend their beliefs, at least i don't think i am.
this has me really curious now, how can you have a philosophy forum, AND NOT discuss the prospects of a god?
what, exactly, do you mean by this?There's no god.
this type of thing is nonsense.Again, that's something you'll have to take up with the mods...
I'd enjoy a good apologetics discussion...I've seen posts that do less to defend the existence of god get removed and then close the thread. If I had to guess, I'd say that if your posts were reported you'd definitely be accused of discussing apologetics and your posts would be removed and you given a warning.
I'm not going to report anyone unless they decide to act childish and start insulting me. That doesn't mean others won't report you though.
what, exactly, do you mean by this?
i understand why you would make such a comment, but then again i don't.
how can you make this comment when there is no real evidence either way?
the best i, personally, can say is i find the concept difficult to believe, but i cannot outright state there is none.
this type of thing is nonsense.
you cannot objectively discuss philosophy without discussing the influence of a god.
BTW, my intent is not to insult you or anyone else.
okay, i can agree with that.Simple rationality.
maybe god isn't a religious god at all.I think it stands to reason that if there were a god, at least a god as god is defined by most major religions, there would be evidence of one.
well, maybe the evidence exists, but you aren't seeing it as such.If there is no evidence for existence when evidence is reasonably expected...
not necessarily.That lack of evidence is itself evidence that thing does not exist.
There's no god.
okay, i can agree with that.
the concept of god is ludicrous, ridiculous.
rationality says there is no god, or its highly improbable.
OTOH, since when has "ludicrous" been proof of anything?
maybe god isn't a religious god at all.
maybe god is a highly advanced transdimensional being.
any sufficiently advanced entity would appear godlike.
well, maybe the evidence exists, but you aren't seeing it as such.
maybe you are trying to explain god in religious terms and there isn't a connection at all.
not necessarily.
like i mentioned in an earlier post, this god, or intelligence, can exist transdimensionally, eluding all attempts at detection and still exist within the physical bounds of the universe.
like einstien said:
not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
a question that always comes up in discussions like this, is one of "first causes".
this paradox can easily be solved by putting the universe at infinity, both in scope and duration.
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?