The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Not necessarily -- If "good and evil" are brought about by God's arbitrary fiat, then it is obvious that there is no difference between "good and evil" independent of his decree and it is meaningless to state that something can be absolutely 'good or evil' (at all possible times) unless 'good and evil' are moral standards anterior to God himself. Yet if this is the case, then God stands as a redundant moral intermediary and can simply be dismissed.
>>If we can agree that the golden rule mentality flows from a conscience, then were did the conscience come from? The conscience was put there by a creator or was a product of natural selection. <<
Well, MY conscience developed from my childhood experiences, as I imagine most people got theirs as well.
The "conscience" of our society is the result of millions of years of eolution. We keep the rules that produce a stable society (and this one is stable) and throw away the rest.
>>If the latter, I just don't see how that is any more binding than one's hair color; it was simply something you were given. If it doesnt' suit you, just change it. <<
Most of the time, you conscience DOES suit you. Mine defintiely suits me, and I'm happy with the conscience I have now.
>>This supports the notion that "Zakath IS doing what makes him happy. Why do you think that causing pain will make him happy?", said Shima. I appreciate that Zakath behaves well in society. But my point is that without an external standard, Zakath's choices reflect a personal standard which can only be ratified by society.<<
It is a personal choise for everyone. Its just that most of us live in the same society, have learned similar things during childhood and therefore developed into people who could function within this society.
>>If one such as Andrea Yates chooses a different behavior then who is to say she is wrong? Society?<<
Ultimately, this society is what provides you with the things you need to survive. Those who threaten the society are removed in order to protect it.
The "behavior" isn't wrong in any "absolute" moral sense. However, when it damages society, society tends to protect itself. Society doesn't really have an opinion as long as the behavior of its individuals do not damage it. It is quite tolerant towards different behavior, different moral values, different ideals. The hippy movement is a case in point.
Well, MY conscience developed from my childhood experiences, as I imagine most people got theirs as well.
The "conscience" of our society is the result of millions of years of eolution. We keep the rules that produce a stable society (and this one is stable) and throw away the rest.
>>If the latter, I just don't see how that is any more binding than one's hair color; it was simply something you were given. If it doesnt' suit you, just change it. <<
Most of the time, you conscience DOES suit you. Mine defintiely suits me, and I'm happy with the conscience I have now.
>>This supports the notion that "Zakath IS doing what makes him happy. Why do you think that causing pain will make him happy?", said Shima. I appreciate that Zakath behaves well in society. But my point is that without an external standard, Zakath's choices reflect a personal standard which can only be ratified by society.<<
It is a personal choise for everyone. Its just that most of us live in the same society, have learned similar things during childhood and therefore developed into people who could function within this society.
>>If one such as Andrea Yates chooses a different behavior then who is to say she is wrong? Society?<<
Ultimately, this society is what provides you with the things you need to survive. Those who threaten the society are removed in order to protect it.
The "behavior" isn't wrong in any "absolute" moral sense. However, when it damages society, society tends to protect itself. Society doesn't really have an opinion as long as the behavior of its individuals do not damage it. It is quite tolerant towards different behavior, different moral values, different ideals. The hippy movement is a case in point.
Husband&Father
New member
<<Very good. Perhaps you also noticed that all humans live within some frame of moral reference. The discussion comes when frames do not overlap.>>
Not all…there is that class of people we call sociopaths.
Also, there is some question as-to how, in a purely naturalistic setting, morals "evolved". Why, if survival and procreation were primary and there is no one or nothing else to answer to, would any animal waste energy caring about the pain, necessary or unnecessary, caused to another.
<<I can tell you why I think it's wrong. Because it causes unecessary pain to another. Period.>> [referring to the torturing of babies for fun]
I know why you think it’s wrong. I read your bio. You have kids. If you feel for yours even a slight shadow of what I feel for mine…well I don’t have to explain to a father the concept of fatherhood. You can not "allow" for or otherwise endorse or ratify pain being caused to others because you are sophisticated enough to understand that by making an argument that hurting others is not wrong you would be (by default) giving others license to hurt you and yours.
And whose definitions of unnecessary do we use, the pain giver’s or the pain receiver’s? What if they don’t "overlap?"
Why YOU think its wrong is not the point, the question is would it be wrong even if you thought it was right?
Cats routinely torture mice, they catch ‘em even if they aren’t hungry, they bat ‘em around, they let ‘em go and catch ‘em again, one animal causing unnecessary pain to another. Is it wrong? No it’s a cat; a dumb animal exercising his naturally evolved dominion over another. There is no right and wrong for the cat. The cat will not be called to heavens throne to account for his actions. And you don’t believe that you will be either. If you’re right then there is no throne in heaven to stand in front of, in fact there is no heaven. You have no more to answer for than the cat. However, by your definition of wrong: <<… . Because it causes unecessary pain to another. Period.>> the cat is wrong and if you hurt another you would be wrong…why? There is no God for the cat and no God for you. You decide not to hurt because you’re not into it and, in any case, it’s not worth the effort, like a cat who sometimes would rather nap than kill a mouse other times decides to kill a mouse. Whatever works for you and the cat.
In the scheme of things it matters not what you think, it’s not worth anything more than what I think, which is to say it’s not worth anything. And if there is no God then you matter even less, if there is no God then your opinion is worth no more than the cat’s.
What matters is what is so…what conforms to reality.
You think it’s wrong to cause unnecessary pain, so for you it’s wrong. Is it wrong for me? Is it wrong for someone who doesn’t believe it’s wrong?
<< quote:
Big questions: Does evil exist or not?
Yes.
quote:
What makes it evil, your declaration?
The observable fact that it causes unecessary harm to another.>>
Good, you believe that evil exists and it is evil because of the observable fact that it causes unnecessary harm to another…errr…depending on your definition of what is observable, unnecessary and harmful…which you have no authority to define except for yourself which makes them utterly useless to anyone other than yourself or, put another way; devoid of any significance or consequence.
<<The fact that Christians have no universal consensus on moral laws because they pick and choose their moral laws ala carte…>>
We agree! Someone, I think it was Augustine, said "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
This is very frustrating to see in Christians, non-Christians, and in my own life.
You are very correct in pointing out that << Christians have no universal consensus on moral laws>> but I (believing in the bible) can go just one step further and point out that Christians have no excuse for not having a consensus on moral law. I think you must be content just in pointing out the obvious fact because you lack (not believing in absolute truth) any basis to say that they, in-fact, should have a consensus or that having a consensus is preferable to not having one. You believe that there are no absolute morals to have any consensus about so you really can’t criticize Christians for not agreeing on something that you don’t believe exists.
P.S.: Great Crack about the prayer shawls. I had to laugh at that one.
Not all…there is that class of people we call sociopaths.
Also, there is some question as-to how, in a purely naturalistic setting, morals "evolved". Why, if survival and procreation were primary and there is no one or nothing else to answer to, would any animal waste energy caring about the pain, necessary or unnecessary, caused to another.
<<I can tell you why I think it's wrong. Because it causes unecessary pain to another. Period.>> [referring to the torturing of babies for fun]
I know why you think it’s wrong. I read your bio. You have kids. If you feel for yours even a slight shadow of what I feel for mine…well I don’t have to explain to a father the concept of fatherhood. You can not "allow" for or otherwise endorse or ratify pain being caused to others because you are sophisticated enough to understand that by making an argument that hurting others is not wrong you would be (by default) giving others license to hurt you and yours.
And whose definitions of unnecessary do we use, the pain giver’s or the pain receiver’s? What if they don’t "overlap?"
Why YOU think its wrong is not the point, the question is would it be wrong even if you thought it was right?
Cats routinely torture mice, they catch ‘em even if they aren’t hungry, they bat ‘em around, they let ‘em go and catch ‘em again, one animal causing unnecessary pain to another. Is it wrong? No it’s a cat; a dumb animal exercising his naturally evolved dominion over another. There is no right and wrong for the cat. The cat will not be called to heavens throne to account for his actions. And you don’t believe that you will be either. If you’re right then there is no throne in heaven to stand in front of, in fact there is no heaven. You have no more to answer for than the cat. However, by your definition of wrong: <<… . Because it causes unecessary pain to another. Period.>> the cat is wrong and if you hurt another you would be wrong…why? There is no God for the cat and no God for you. You decide not to hurt because you’re not into it and, in any case, it’s not worth the effort, like a cat who sometimes would rather nap than kill a mouse other times decides to kill a mouse. Whatever works for you and the cat.
In the scheme of things it matters not what you think, it’s not worth anything more than what I think, which is to say it’s not worth anything. And if there is no God then you matter even less, if there is no God then your opinion is worth no more than the cat’s.
What matters is what is so…what conforms to reality.
You think it’s wrong to cause unnecessary pain, so for you it’s wrong. Is it wrong for me? Is it wrong for someone who doesn’t believe it’s wrong?
<< quote:
Big questions: Does evil exist or not?
Yes.
quote:
What makes it evil, your declaration?
The observable fact that it causes unecessary harm to another.>>
Good, you believe that evil exists and it is evil because of the observable fact that it causes unnecessary harm to another…errr…depending on your definition of what is observable, unnecessary and harmful…which you have no authority to define except for yourself which makes them utterly useless to anyone other than yourself or, put another way; devoid of any significance or consequence.
<<The fact that Christians have no universal consensus on moral laws because they pick and choose their moral laws ala carte…>>
We agree! Someone, I think it was Augustine, said "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
This is very frustrating to see in Christians, non-Christians, and in my own life.
You are very correct in pointing out that << Christians have no universal consensus on moral laws>> but I (believing in the bible) can go just one step further and point out that Christians have no excuse for not having a consensus on moral law. I think you must be content just in pointing out the obvious fact because you lack (not believing in absolute truth) any basis to say that they, in-fact, should have a consensus or that having a consensus is preferable to not having one. You believe that there are no absolute morals to have any consensus about so you really can’t criticize Christians for not agreeing on something that you don’t believe exists.
P.S.: Great Crack about the prayer shawls. I had to laugh at that one.
H&F
>>Also, there is some question as-to how, in a purely naturalistic setting, morals "evolved". Why, if survival and procreation were primary and there is no one or nothing else to answer to, would any animal waste energy caring about the pain, necessary or unnecessary, caused to another.<<
Actually, yes. Cooperation is one of those "social" strategies that enhance your survival chances. Game theory has proven that this strategy is highly successfull and can arise through evolution. Thus, encoded "moral" behavior is good for the survival of the society and thus the individual.
>>And whose definitions of unnecessary do we use<<
As always, we use the definition our society has agreed on.
>>Cats routinely torture mice, they catch ?em even if they aren?t hungry, they bat ?em around, they let ?em go and catch ?em again, one animal causing unnecessary pain to another. Is it wrong?<<
Cats have no conscience, just basic instinct. Humans have evolved beyond that point. We call that "free will" and with free will comes responsibility for your actions. So, should one human unnessecarily hurt another, the person hurting the other is responsible for his actions. We as asociety may deem this man dangerous to the stability of that society.
>>Someone, I think it was Augustine, said "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."<<
So, basically, of all those christian churches and factions, which of those actually believe the GOSPEL instead of THEMSELVES? Obviously, they don't believe the same things about the bible, otherwise there woulnd't be all these factions and churches.
>>Also, there is some question as-to how, in a purely naturalistic setting, morals "evolved". Why, if survival and procreation were primary and there is no one or nothing else to answer to, would any animal waste energy caring about the pain, necessary or unnecessary, caused to another.<<
Actually, yes. Cooperation is one of those "social" strategies that enhance your survival chances. Game theory has proven that this strategy is highly successfull and can arise through evolution. Thus, encoded "moral" behavior is good for the survival of the society and thus the individual.
>>And whose definitions of unnecessary do we use<<
As always, we use the definition our society has agreed on.
>>Cats routinely torture mice, they catch ?em even if they aren?t hungry, they bat ?em around, they let ?em go and catch ?em again, one animal causing unnecessary pain to another. Is it wrong?<<
Cats have no conscience, just basic instinct. Humans have evolved beyond that point. We call that "free will" and with free will comes responsibility for your actions. So, should one human unnessecarily hurt another, the person hurting the other is responsible for his actions. We as asociety may deem this man dangerous to the stability of that society.
>>Someone, I think it was Augustine, said "If you believe what you like in the gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."<<
So, basically, of all those christian churches and factions, which of those actually believe the GOSPEL instead of THEMSELVES? Obviously, they don't believe the same things about the bible, otherwise there woulnd't be all these factions and churches.
Freak:
>>The reality of the conscience speaks of the reality of God, for only an intelligent being could "write" natural law upon the hearts of man.<<
The "reality" of the conscience is that we currently have no idea how the conscience is formed exactly. What we DO know is that every human being has a different consciousness, and different ideas about what is rigth and what is wrong.
Those different ideas arise from their upbringing. Since the society in which we live has some basic rules associated with it, we can see that most people in that society would agree with what is "wrong" and what is "right". Since our society has had a HUGE influence from the christian religion, our society has adopted most of their ideas of "right" and "wrong" from the New Testament. Thus, kids who grow up in this society tend to regard the same things as "wrong" as the bible does.
What we also know is that kids who grow up in a DIFFERENT society to ours tends to have a much different idea about what is right and what is wrong. The behavior to women, for example, is much different in Muslim countries than in christian countries. Yet, they still label their own ideas as "right" and ours as "wrong".
So, we see that each persons "imprint" is unique. And upbringing has a LOT to do with it, especially parents. Without parents caring for their children or teaching them "right" from "wrong", these kids can develop into people who's ideas of "right" and "wrong" are very different from our own, and very different from those created by "God".
>>The reality of the conscience speaks of the reality of God, for only an intelligent being could "write" natural law upon the hearts of man.<<
The "reality" of the conscience is that we currently have no idea how the conscience is formed exactly. What we DO know is that every human being has a different consciousness, and different ideas about what is rigth and what is wrong.
Those different ideas arise from their upbringing. Since the society in which we live has some basic rules associated with it, we can see that most people in that society would agree with what is "wrong" and what is "right". Since our society has had a HUGE influence from the christian religion, our society has adopted most of their ideas of "right" and "wrong" from the New Testament. Thus, kids who grow up in this society tend to regard the same things as "wrong" as the bible does.
What we also know is that kids who grow up in a DIFFERENT society to ours tends to have a much different idea about what is right and what is wrong. The behavior to women, for example, is much different in Muslim countries than in christian countries. Yet, they still label their own ideas as "right" and ours as "wrong".
So, we see that each persons "imprint" is unique. And upbringing has a LOT to do with it, especially parents. Without parents caring for their children or teaching them "right" from "wrong", these kids can develop into people who's ideas of "right" and "wrong" are very different from our own, and very different from those created by "God".
Zakath
Resident Atheist
You believe that God taught men good and evil? But I thought that you believed that Genesis taught that it was man's sin of disobedience in the garden that did so...
BTW, I do not believe that God put anything "in the hearts of man". Many concepts exist generally throughout the human race, for instance, the concept of numbers. I see no indication that requires the existence of a deity to explain it, nor do I see any indication that God is needed to explain human's development of moral systems over the span of history.
BTW, I do not believe that God put anything "in the hearts of man". Many concepts exist generally throughout the human race, for instance, the concept of numbers. I see no indication that requires the existence of a deity to explain it, nor do I see any indication that God is needed to explain human's development of moral systems over the span of history.
>>But, as you noted "right" & "wrong" exist. <<
No, they don't. They only exist as ideas inside our head. Things like "Justice", "Right", "Idea" etc are all concepts, and all abstract. None of them are concrete in the sense that they represent something physical about the world.
>>"Good" & "Evil" exist in all cultures of our world.<<
The notions of "good" and "evil" exist, yes. Good and evil THEMSELVES do not exist.
Most moral values we now hold dear have most likely evolved through evolution. Just like biological systems had to change to accomodate changes, so did society. A society of only 30-50 people don't really need rules other than the most common "might makes right" rules. But societies that get larger also get more complicated. People start to specialize in different ways of catching/providing food, making leather, build shelter. Ofcourse, those that specialize in making leather or building shelters don't nessecarily have time to gather food themselves. Therefore, they need rules to establish how much food some services are worth.
As you will have noticed right now, society is based on rules governing human interaction. You believe they have been given to us by God. However, that doesn't explain the DIVERSITY of rules from one society to another. You would expect different societies to have the same rules of "right" and "wrong" if those rules were "imprinted" by God.
However, we WOULD expect different rules IF those rules evolved through time to solve problems regarding different circumstances. You will notice how many rules have developed to give that society the best chance of survival. Societies that live in extreme conditions develop unique rules to deal with those conditions, such as polygamy (having multiple sexual partners) for example.
Different holy texts provide different rules about "right" and "wrong" and therefore cannot be the product of one God.
No, they don't. They only exist as ideas inside our head. Things like "Justice", "Right", "Idea" etc are all concepts, and all abstract. None of them are concrete in the sense that they represent something physical about the world.
>>"Good" & "Evil" exist in all cultures of our world.<<
The notions of "good" and "evil" exist, yes. Good and evil THEMSELVES do not exist.
Most moral values we now hold dear have most likely evolved through evolution. Just like biological systems had to change to accomodate changes, so did society. A society of only 30-50 people don't really need rules other than the most common "might makes right" rules. But societies that get larger also get more complicated. People start to specialize in different ways of catching/providing food, making leather, build shelter. Ofcourse, those that specialize in making leather or building shelters don't nessecarily have time to gather food themselves. Therefore, they need rules to establish how much food some services are worth.
As you will have noticed right now, society is based on rules governing human interaction. You believe they have been given to us by God. However, that doesn't explain the DIVERSITY of rules from one society to another. You would expect different societies to have the same rules of "right" and "wrong" if those rules were "imprinted" by God.
However, we WOULD expect different rules IF those rules evolved through time to solve problems regarding different circumstances. You will notice how many rules have developed to give that society the best chance of survival. Societies that live in extreme conditions develop unique rules to deal with those conditions, such as polygamy (having multiple sexual partners) for example.
Different holy texts provide different rules about "right" and "wrong" and therefore cannot be the product of one God.
Freak
New member
You have a hard time reading, don't you?
Despite what you may say the truth remains and will remain long after you enter hell. You could say 2+2=57 but the truth is it equals 4.
You're looking like a fool, Zakath. You believe goodness and evil exist yet out of the other side of your mouth you say they don't. :kookoo:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
No, I read what you write.
Your arguments are based on mere assertions, Jay, not hard, factual evidence.
That's because your selective reading omitted the words "concepts of" from consideration in your reply. I do not believe in absolute right and wrong. I do believe in the existence of the concepts of right and wrong. It's a bit like the difference between the "concept of God" and "God". Although perhaps that difference is too subtle for you to discern...
