PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolutionary Origins of Morals
       How does an Amoral Universe give rise to Morality?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Quelle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The universe is filled with wonders and beauty, but also brute force.  Things bump into each other, smash each other, devour each other.  A planet that might have life on it one day can be smashed by an asteroid the next, or irradiated by an exploding sun.

Nature pays no mind to concepts like care or concern, love and kindness, good and evil.  A male lion, can kill the alpha male of a pride, whereupon all the lion cubs of the alpha male are killed...either by the intruding male, or the mothers of the cubs.  Infanticide.  Throughout nature we find all kinds of behaviors like this and the human observer recognizes that this is just how nature is.

Yet when it comes to human beings, we frown upon such behaviors.  We label them as bad or evil.  We prosecute and punish those who would do such things.  Why...when this is how an amoral universe operates everywhere?

How does an impersonal and amoral universe give rise to morality.  Where does this moral sense come from...how does evolutionary theory explain it?


-------
So When Was The Flood?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 09:17 AM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since no one has taken a go at it I suppose I will. This is mostly conjecture, just fyi.

Quote from Quelle at 09:17 AM on September 19, 2009 :
Nature pays no mind to concepts like care or concern, love and kindness, good and evil.  A male lion, can kill the alpha male of a pride, whereupon all the lion cubs of the alpha male are killed...either by the intruding male, or the mothers of the cubs.  Infanticide.  Throughout nature we find all kinds of behaviors like this and the human observer recognizes that this is just how nature is.

Yet when it comes to human beings, we frown upon such behaviors.  We label them as bad or evil.  We prosecute and punish those who would do such things.  Why...when this is how an amoral universe operates everywhere?


The universe is neither moral or amoral, but indifferent; silent, on the issue of morality, right and wrong.  

How does an impersonal and amoral universe give rise to morality.  Where does this moral sense come from...how does evolutionary theory explain it?


Evolution deems that the best fit organisms will reproduce and pass on their genes. Often times this means that if a population has a mutation to work together the population at a whole is better fit to survive. Once the population becomes social and lives together in a society, than anything that holds that society together or strengthens it will be beneficial.

Now talking about society in general, whether human or otherwise, if someone goes around killing members the society is weakened. So any mutation that makes it instinct not to kill its own members for no reason will most likely be beneficial. And likewise, any mutation that makes it instinct to be caring for other members will strengthen the society increasing fitness.

In nature we do see lots of 'strange' ways societies work, like the male lions who will kill all the young if it is not their cubs. This is probably due to the co-evolution of morality. Take the eye for example, it is present in many creatures, but each eye is different and it works for their environment. Similarly, the instinct of morality depends on how it evolved, if it works for the environment than it works, even if it is appalling to another creatures morality; like us and the lions.

Now why do we, humans, have such a complex construct of morality? This is most likely do to our enlarged cerebral cortex and frontal lobe. Because of this we have more complex thoughts in general, and since a working set of morality improves fitness, it seems that logically we will have a more complex morality than any other creature. The human's idea of morality and curiosity may have lead to the development of the first religions, but who knows.

(Edited by Fencer27 9/21/2009 at 11:33 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:52 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Quelle at 09:17 AM on September 19, 2009 :

How does an impersonal and amoral universe give rise to morality.  Where does this moral sense come from...how does evolutionary theory explain it?


The universe did not give rise to morality. Morality does not exist. It is a mental construct of rules that humans and other neurologically sophisticated mammals (dogs, dolphins, other primates) use to ensure survival. The moral "sense" we feel is a result of our honed genetic instincts: As it so happens, killing other humans tends to reduce our chances to survive extinction, so over time our genetic makeup has changed so that we feel bad about killing other humans. Our society itself also contributes to this "moral sense" by incessantly brainwashing us since birth to believe that killing and other actions we call "crimes" are wrong -- it is a sense that is passed down from generation to generation, growing more extensive and sophisticated over time.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:51 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am reluctant to discus the topic of morality. because one persons ideas on morals are susceptible to influences from that persons morals.
and also because it is usually 'majority rules' in these debates / discussions.

I know every evolutionist who reads this is going to want to post about how 'unprovable, unscientific, religious nonsense' is not a good enough explanation.

anyway, now that I have expressed how doomed to criticism this will be. I am willing to give the Bibles answer to your question. an answer it has ALWAYS had.

Humans have a moral system, and nature doesn't, because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and animals didn't


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:40 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AE,

I know you said you were reluctant to talk about morality, but I do have one question. How would you explain the simple moral character of dogs and other organisms if they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 07:02 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

before I answer that could you please elaborate on what you mean by "simple moral character of dogs and other organisms"


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:15 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 07:15 AM on September 22, 2009 :
before I answer that could you please elaborate on what you mean by "simple moral character of dogs and other organisms"



Animal Morals


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:59 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the link Apoapsis, I didn't know that animals experienced that level of morality, or whatever you want to call it. But I guess that's why they said, "Until recently, humans were thought to be the only species to experience complex emotions".  AE, the information in the link is basically what I'm talking about.  



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 08:20 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know every evolutionist who reads this is going to want to post about how 'unprovable, unscientific, religious nonsense' is not a good enough explanation.

anyway, now that I have expressed how doomed to criticism this will be. I am willing to give the Bibles answer to your question. an answer it has ALWAYS had.


Such a criticism is far from "doomed". This is a discussion between multiple people who do not all share your brand of faith. Using one particular set of faith to prove itself is nothing more than circular reasoning that dodges the main reason we are all here on this forum. You're not engaging in a debate when you insist that evidence is irrelevant to your side and yet call it the truth anyway; what you are doing is admitting there is no persuasive reason for anyone else to accept your position. Pointing that out is not a "doomed" criticism -- it's the most revealing point to be made about your non-existent "argument."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:30 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am definitely starting to wish I never said 'creationisim can not be proven'
I should have been more precise and said the existence of god can not be proven

it is true that to believe in creationisim as a whole you need to put you faith in certain, unprovable, theological concepts (the existence of God).
but the rest of the theory must still be proven to coincide with the world around us

example.
although creationists can not prove God created the world, we can prove the world is less than a million years old.

so please. no more saying things like I "insist that evidence is irrelevant to [my] side"
evidence IS relevant. its just for some things no substantial evidence (both for and against) can be found.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:48 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:48 PM on September 22, 2009 :

but the rest of the theory must still be proven to coincide with the world around us


That is why there are theistic evolutionists.



example.
although creationists can not prove God created the world, we can prove the world is less than a million years old.


OK, start proving.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:34 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

example.
although creationists can not prove God created the world, we can prove the world is less than a million years old.

OK, start proving.

I was more meaning that that is one of the things that can either be proven or disprove by science

there are multiple threads on this site dedicated to the topic, so you can expect me to try my hand at it at some stage.
in fact I did touch on it for a bit in the "Evolution theory" thread


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:15 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And based on the evidence, science concluded that the earth was millions of years old in the 1700's.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:51 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Quote from Quelle at 09:17 AM on September 19, 2009 :

How does an impersonal and amoral universe give rise to morality.  Where does this moral sense come from...how does evolutionary theory explain it?


The universe did not give rise to morality. Morality does not exist. It is a mental construct of rules that humans and other neurologically sophisticated mammals (dogs, dolphins, other primates) use to ensure survival. The moral "sense" we feel is a result of our honed genetic instincts: As it so happens, killing other humans tends to reduce our chances to survive extinction, so over time our genetic makeup has changed so that we feel bad about killing other humans. Our society itself also contributes to this "moral sense" by incessantly brainwashing us since birth to believe that killing and other actions we call "crimes" are wrong -- it is a sense that is passed down from generation to generation, growing more extensive and sophisticated over time.



Was Hitler wrong or was he just harmful--unfit to pass genes?  What if Hitler had exterminated all non-Arians?  Nothing wrong with that is there? It would have been beneficial for Arians.  So ethnic cleansing IS beneficial for society.  And all this time I thought the KKK was detrimental.  Silly me!!

If someone killed your best friend it would be okay with you?  Would you get furious and want revenge/justice? But why--your friend was just well arranged chemicals and their respective reactions and so was the person who killed him.

What about your reaction to personal mistreatment? You ever have a desire for fairness from your employer, from relationships, or from anyone who tries to impose on you?  Where does the desire for equity and justice come from if there is no right moral fair thing.

Why should I help someone?  Is it good to help someone?  Or is it all neutral--but isn't moral neutrality based on   someones judgment and what criteria did they use to make this judgment?

Without any objective standard, any objection to anything unfair or wrong is just your opinion.

If I protested the war in Iraq what entitles me to disagree with that war for there is no moral standard by which to make a judgment?

C.S. Lewis wrote:"...my argument against God was that the universe was so cruel and unjust.  But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

To claim the truth about the fact that there is no truth is self defeating--so there must be truth.  Do you know what it is?  I hope truth isn't that you did not even consider a single thing I said.

(Edited by AFJ 9/27/2009 at 01:00 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:55 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AF3 - what in the world are you ranting and raving about?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:30 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think his whole post is in response to when EntwickelnCollin said: "Morality does not exist."


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 01:38 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, I see.

Hmmm, isn't EntwickelnCollin just saying that morality developed as our social behavior evolved?  Which is a good thing, don't you think?

Some people would say that our morals were passed down to us by God, through the Bible.  But can we do better than what the Bible teaches us?  No doubt many people find comfort and guidance in the Bible.  But in many ways I think the Bible is more of a hindrance to our sense of morality.  There are complex social issues today that the Bible is ill-equiped to deal with.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:26 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 03:26 AM on September 27, 2009 :
Oh, I see.

Hmmm, isn't EntwickelnCollin just saying that morality developed as our social behavior evolved?  Which is a good thing, don't you think?

Some people would say that our morals were passed down to us by God, through the Bible.  But can we do better than what the Bible teaches us?  No doubt many people find comfort and guidance in the Bible.  But in many ways I think the Bible is more of a hindrance to our sense of morality.  There are complex social issues today that the Bible is ill-equiped to deal with.


In a way I agree with you, morality developed through society and evolution, and the Bible doesn't tell us what to do in every situation and you cannot turn to it for every moral problem. However, the Bible has standard things that apply in every situation, like do the most good possible and so on.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 07:55 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However, a strict adherence to Biblical teachings can lead to insensitive attitudes towards groups of people - such as women, homosexuals, (and historically towards Jews), etc.  That certainly causes conflicts in attitudes in our society today.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:54 AM on September 27, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was Hitler wrong or was he just harmful--unfit to pass genes?  What if Hitler had exterminated all non-Arians?  Nothing wrong with that is there? It would have been beneficial for Arians.  So ethnic cleansing IS beneficial for society.  And all this time I thought the KKK was detrimental.  Silly me!!


Wrongful to humanity does not mean universally wrong. The sun doesn't give a crap if someone like Hitler wipes out the human race, and neither does anything else in the universe outside of Earth.

If someone killed your best friend it would be okay with you?  Would you get furious and want revenge/justice? But why--your friend was just well arranged chemicals and their respective reactions and so was the person who killed him.


All of that is true. My friends are little more than a complex array of chemicals and electrical impulses, and so am I.

But your inference does not follow. You seem to think that if morality doesn't exist, I should be fine watching my friends die. Apparently you don't understand that humans form emotional attachments to one another. Whether or not it is universally wrong for someone to murder my friend is completely besides the point -- either way I would be quite furious as a result of just having been denied such a powerful emotional attachment in my life.

What about your reaction to personal mistreatment? You ever have a desire for fairness from your employer, from relationships, or from anyone who tries to impose on you?  Where does the desire for equity and justice come from if there is no right moral fair thing.


The desire for personal justice comes from our brains' addiction to self-benefit. I want food because my brain tells me I need food; I want sex because my brain tells me I need sex; I want sleep because my brain tells me I need sleep. Desire and morality are completely disconnected. A cat doesn't feel "wronged" when you deny it food, and a deer doesn't feel "wronged" if you shoot it -- what they feel is displeasure, and on the deepest level of human psychology, that is the driving reality.

Concepts like "justice" and "equality" arose out of humanity's need for complex social interaction and cooperation, without which we would not have survived. Our evolved genetics give us the capacity to learn about these social concepts, and societal conditioning has ingrained them into our heads in such a way that many humans actually believe they are inherent concept of the universe. Quite a baseless conclusion, but understandable why they would come to such a conclusion, at least.

Why should I help someone?  Is it good to help someone?  Or is it all neutral--but isn't moral neutrality based on   someones judgment and what criteria did they use to make this judgment?


It's not universally good or bad to help or hurt anyone. Others may believe helping people is good, of course, and if people with those opinions are aware that you helped someone, they will congratulate and perhaps even reward you. Others, like myself, understand that even though it is not universally moral to help anyone, altruism is a necessary part of our society, so we try to be altruistic and we thank others for being altruistic because it helps ensures the society from which our lives benefit will continue to exist.

Without any objective standard, any objection to anything unfair or wrong is just your opinion.


Correct. That is why, ultimately, humans try to either persuade others to make the same opinions about something as them, or they chose an alternative route and decide to conquer people and artificially impose their standards of morality on everyone else.

Think about just how powerful the opinion factor of morality really is. When you argue a case before a jury, you have to get lucky -- you need at least some people on that jury to have opinions on morality that are similar to your own, because if you don't then you will lose the case regardless of the facts you present. You may believe it is wrong to convict someone on purely circumstantial evidence, but if the entire jury disagrees, your client could very well be screwed. In that scenario, your only other option is to appeal the case and hope you can convince a different group of people that your opinions on morality are better than the other, and once again, it comes down to luck -- how persuadable these people are, and where their opinions actually lie.

If morality were universal, we couldn't barter it the way we do every day of our lives.

If I protested the war in Iraq what entitles me to disagree with that war for there is no moral standard by which to make a judgment?


Correct. You have three options:

1.) Argue that the war is universally immoral, even though you personally recognize that it isn't, and hope enough people agree with your position.

2.) Argue that the war is unwise for the well being of your country or the world at large. Whether anyone agrees that it's universally immoral won't matter, because almost everyone wants a happy life, and if you manage to convince them that the War in Iraq harms our ability to carry out that desire, many people will start arguing against the war with you.

3.) Argue by force. Start hurting and killing people who don't agree you.


Those are the three ways that every social conflict in humanity has ever been solved.

C.S. Lewis wrote:"...my argument against God was that the universe was so cruel and unjust.  But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?


The existence of an omni-benevolent God does not require the existence of morality. Benevolence can be measured without morality, you see. Am I benevolent to torture a mouse to death? Obviously no. Is it universally immoral to do so? Doesn't matter.

The point is that if God is in fact all benevolent, all knowing, and all powerful, then there is no logical way for a universe lacking in benevolence to exist. If God has the power and the knowledge to make the universe 100% pleasurable but does not, then God is not all benevolent. If God has the desire and the knowledge to make the universe 100% pleasurable but does not, then God is not all powerful. And if God has the desire and the power to make the universe 100% pleasurable but does not, then God is not all knowing.

In short, CS Lewis does not offer a relevant criticism of this particular objection to God's existence.

To claim the truth about the fact that there is no truth is self defeating--so there must be truth.  Do you know what it is?  I hope truth isn't that you did not even consider a single thing I said.


I've long considered the issues you talked about. That I dismissed them should not mean I don't understand them.







(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/27/2009 at 2:56 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:47 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

can we do better than what the Bible teaches us?
No. it is true that our current moral system is more complex than the Ten Commandments. but increased complexity increases the chances of loopholes and contradictions.
that being said, our current moral system is heavily based on what the Bible says



Quote from God at (about) 1440 BC
I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before Me.
this commandment may not be part of our morals now the way it was in the middle ages. But that does not make it less useful for today's morals, if for no other reason than that following this commandment will increase the likelihood of following the others.
and a universal religion would make the world a more peaceful place.

Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
this refers to the worshipping of idols. helping to reinforce the first commandment.
therefore the reasons for its usefulness are the same. a universal religion would help to make the world a more peaceful place.

Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD...
I find this commandment to be taken in one of two ways:
A) do not swear, curse, or use any abusive language. something that is already incorporated into our current morals to an extent.
(although it seems acceptable for adults to swear?)
B) do not lie (eg. "I swear by God that I am telling the truth"). honesty is also a big part of today's morals.

Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy
we already see the weekend as a break from the usual working week.

Honour your father and your mother.
a literal interpretation would limit this commandment to just your mother and father. so our current morals have expanded this to all elders and figures of authority.

Do not murder
enough said

Do not commit adultery
TV would become less interesting. but otherwise this is another straight forward commandment

Do not steal
possession is nine tenths of the law. therefore nine tenths of the law are derived from this one commandment

Do not bear false witness against your neighbour
it is a punishable offence to bear false witness in a court of law or other proceeding.
even today we credit the bible for such laws (based on morals), when we place our right hand on the Bible as we swear under oath that we shall speak "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. so help me God"

Do not covet your neighbour's wife
once again, a literal interpretation would limit this to just "your neighbour's wife". so today we see all forms of jealousy (but still usually in the form of romance) as bad


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:09 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:54 AM on September 27, 2009 :
However, a strict adherence to Biblical teachings can lead to insensitive attitudes towards groups of people - such as women, homosexuals, (and historically towards Jews), etc.  That certainly causes conflicts in attitudes in our society today.


Again I agree, and I think this comes from most people not realizing that a lot of the Bible is culturally based, and not understanding what is actually being said. For example the slave owners in America used the Bible to justify slavery, yet the Biblical version of slavery is really more like serfdom. Or that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but back then no one knew that it had a genetic component to it. Or that women are inferior to men, this was very common among every culture of the time and is most likely nothing more than culture. Not to mention some of the things Jesus said and did in the Bible put women on the same level as men.

Sometimes I think Christians forget the two greatest commandment that Jesus gave: Love God and love one another.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 8:52 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:09 PM on September 27, 2009 :

Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
this refers to the worshipping of idols. helping to reinforce the first commandment.
therefore the reasons for its usefulness are the same. a universal religion would help to make the world a more peaceful place.


So this is not meant to be read literally.

The Amish are the only ones I know of who adhere to this.  





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:06 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AFJ
What about your reaction to personal mistreatment?
Suspiciously similar to that of a monkey.
You ever have a desire for fairness from your employer, from relationships, or from anyone who tries to impose on you?
Yeap. And so do monkeys.
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html
A video too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY
Also, if you put a monkey to work for cucumber, he works fine. Unless he sees another monkey doing the same job for grapes. The first monkey then refuses to work.
So there.

Where does the desire for equity and justice come from if there is no right moral fair thing.
Where does the desire for eating sweets come from?
Without any objective standard, any objection to anything unfair or wrong is just your opinion.
Yes indeed. And your point is?
Why should I help someone?  Is it good to help someone?
That's opinion. Gandhi opined that building hospitals was bad because it interfered with people's karma. So there you go.
C.S. Lewis wrote:
(...) my argument against God was that the universe was so cruel and unjust.  But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
Sorry. Easiest answer: from our primate psychology.
Not that primates are the only group with morals. Other mammals have them too. Some we share, some we don't.
Sorry, Lewis. I'm sure you're a cool guy. Everyone asks dumb questions every once in a while.

If you claim that moral comes from religion, your argument is doomed right from the start. Humans from different religions or no religion at all share many of the basic moral ideas. If you claim that God handed them to humans your argument is doomed again, because other primates and mammals share some of the basic moral behaviors. Now if you say that God handed them to mammals then your argument can endure some attacks. It can still be debunked, but not that easily. And i don't think you'll say that anyway.

Besides, the lack of morality wouldn't be a serious evidence against God, just as its presence isn't evidence for Him.
Cheers.

anti-evolutionist
can we do better than what the Bible teaches us?
No.
Perhaps you can't. I sure can. Just by not stoning people to death for working on saturdays. =D
it is true that our current moral system is more complex than the Ten Commandments. but increased complexity increases the chances of loopholes and contradictions.
Robbery commanded
         Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
        Robbery forbidden
         Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
   
Lying approved and sanctioned
         Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
        Lying forbidden
         Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
   
Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
         2 Kings 14:7,3
        Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
         Deut 23:7
   
Killing commanded
         Ex 32:27
        Killing forbidden
         Ex 20:13
   
The blood-shedder must die
         Gen 9:5,6
        The blood-shedder must not die
         Gen 4:15

    The making of images forbidden
          Ex 20:4
        The making of images commanded
         Ex 25:18,20
   
Slavery and oppression ordained
         Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
        Slavery and oppression forbidden
         Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
   
Improvidence enjoyed
         Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
        Improvidence condemned
         1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22
   
Anger approved
         Eph 4:26
        Anger disapproved
         Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
   
Good works to be seen of men
         Matt 5:16
        Good works not to be seen of men
         Matt 6:1
   
Judging of others forbidden
         Matt 7:1,2
        Judging of others approved
         1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
     
Christ taught non-resistance
         Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
        Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
         Luke 22:36/ John 2:15
   
Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
         Luke 12:4
        Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
         John 7:1
   
Public prayer sanctioned
         1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
        Public prayer disapproved
         Matt 6:5,6
   
Importunity in prayer commended
         Luke 18:5,7
        Importunity in prayer condemned
         Matt 6:7,8
   
The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
         Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
        The wearing of long hair by men condemned
         1 Cor 11:14
   
Circumcision instituted
         Gen 17:10
        Circumcision condemned
         Gal 5:2
   
The Sabbath instituted
         Ex 20:8
        The Sabbath repudiated
         Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16
   
The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
         Ex 20:11
        The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites    
        out of Egypt
         Deut 5:15
   
No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
         Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
        Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in  
        the same
         John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
   
Baptism commanded
         Matt 28:19
        Baptism not commanded
         1 Cor 1:17,14
   
Every kind of animal allowed for food.
         Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
        Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
         Deut 14:7,8
     
Taking of oaths sanctioned
         Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
        Taking of oaths forbidden
         Matt 5:34
   
Marriage approved
         Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
        Marriage disapproved
         1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
   
Freedom of divorce permitted
         Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
        Divorce restricted
         Matt 5:32
   
Adultery forbidden
         Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
        Adultery allowed
         Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
   
Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
         Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
        Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
         Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
   
A man may marry his brother's widow
         Deut 25:5
        A man may not marry his brother's widow
         Lev 20:21
   
Hatred to kindred enjoined
         Luke 14:26
        Hatred to kindred condemned
         Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
   
Intoxicating beverages recommended
         Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
        Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
         Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
   
It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers    
        and punish evil doers only
         Rom 13:1-3,6
        It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the  
        good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
         Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
          Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35
   
Women's rights denied
         Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
        Women's rights affirmed
         Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9
   
Obedience to masters enjoined
         Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
        Obedience due to God only
         Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10
   
There is an unpardonable sin
         Mark 3:29
        There is not unpardonable sin
         Acts 13:39

that being said, our current moral system is heavily based on what the Bible says
That crap being said, the video i posted shows you're deluded.
Unless, of course, you say that those monkeys are acquainted with the word of the Lord Yahweh.

Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
this refers to the worshipping of idols. helping to reinforce the first commandment.
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt
    thou make them.
    - Exodus 25:18
Observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy
we already see the weekend as a break from the usual working week.
One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every
    day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
    - Romans 14:5
Honour your father and your mother.
a literal interpretation would limit this commandment to just your mother and father. so our current morals have expanded this to all elders and figures of authority.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and
    wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
    life also, he cannot be my disciple.
    - Luke 14:26
Do not murder
enough said
Oh, don't make me quote all the ordered killings in your sacred text.
Meh, i'll post some reasons:
kill people who don't listen to priests, kill witches, kill homosexuals, kill fortunetellers, death for hitting your dad, death for cursing parents, death for adultery, death for fornication, kill nonbelievers, kill false prophets, kill the entire town if one person worships another god, kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, kill followers of other religions, death for blasphemy, kill false prophets, infidels should die, kill anyone who approaches the tabernacle, kill people for working on the sabbath...

Do not commit adultery
TV would become less interesting. but otherwise this is another straight forward commandment
[color=red]But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-Numbers 31:18
Do not steal
possession is nine tenths of the law. therefore nine tenths of the law are derived from this one commandment
Each woman will ask her neighbor and any woman staying in her house for silver and gold jewelry, and clothing, and you will put them on your sons and daughters. So you will plunder the Egyptians.
-Exodus 3:21

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.  
-Judges 5:30


I got tired of quoting.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 03:12 AM on October 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Morals don't come from God

New research based on thousands of surveys reveals essentially no influence of religion on moral attitudes.

Good by nature

Thousands of people — varying widely in social background, age, education, religious affiliation and ethnicity — have taken the tests. Pyysiäinen and Hauser say the results (mainly still in the publication pipeline) indicate that "moral intuitions operate independently of religious background", although religion may influence responses in a few highly specific cases.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:22 AM on March 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The title should be "Morals don't come from religion".

Religious people can always say morals came from their particular god, whether atheists acknowledge it or not.

Now that i think about it... That's a contradiction. They use the slippery slope all the time to warn us about how dangerous it is to live without their particular brand of religious quackery. Do they not trust the moral tenets their god allegedly carved in our brains?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:17 AM on March 25, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.