Atheists....

[metal134]

in the absence of an all-knowing Being establishing a transcendant law, why should any moral law established by a human being be binding?

That's very simple: because we need it to be that way. Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.

Without a larger law above and beyond human opinion, we fall into the trap of having to allow other cultural practices that violate what we morally believe. And, since both cultures' laws were made by men, then neither has priority over the other. As such, we now must allow atrocity.

But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

[RobinHood3000]

I disagree with the contention that "humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work."

Animal populations have known this intuitively for years, at least insofar as primate social structures are concerned. The only thing that really happened along the line was that humans started to question why this was the case.

[Redzeppelin]

That's very simple: because we need it to be that one.

That doesn't make it binding beyond mutual agreement. Once another party decides to not agree, to what do we appeal to bring them back into line beyond sheer force? And how can we even "bring them back into line" if law was merely what we agreed it was? I'm not arguing that human-constructed laws have no power; I'm well aware of their necessity and that - in general - human law does a decent job of governing things. However: for much of history human law was constructed under the umbrella of Divine Law - and as such, human law held more authority - and authority is the real issue I'm talking about. Human law works, yes - but its authority is questionable because it is open to revision and rejection in ways that Divine Law is not - hence making Divine Law ultimately more stable.

Somewhere along the line, humans figured out that it benefits each individual to work together and they quickly figured out that if we allow people to steal from each other, murder, rape, etc., the whole thing wouldn't work. I don't see any reason why humans couldn't establish these morals among themselves knowing that the entire human race benefits from the following of these principles.

"Somewhere along the line"? That's kind of vague. And why should they figure out that these particular things - murder, rape, etc - are bad? To what standard were they appealing when they "quickly figured out" that these things were bad? Why should (not why are) these things be considered immoral at all?

But it already is that way. Because as it is, whether it's aknowledged that morality comes from divinity, cultures still differ on what those divine laws are. Christians say God wants one thing that Muslims find to be atrocious and vice versa so who's in the right? Placing a divine influence on morality doesn't come close to removing that cultural problem as you explained it. In fact, if anthing, it makes things worse.

No. Your response does not work because it is only radical Islam extremists who believe killing in the name of God is OK. Christianity and Islam do not radically differ in how they believe followers ought to behave to each other. The real problem is not between religions, but cultures. Once there is no larger framework that transcends human law that we can appeal to, we now have to allow genocide, slavery, female genital mutilation, child sex workers - you name it, because who are we to question the laws of another culture? You can't see that trap?

[metal134]

You're only making one religious comparision; it's not just Christians and Muslims. There is Judaism, Buddhist, Hindu, Janism, Taosim, etc. and while there are basic values across the board; don't murder, don't steal, etc., there is no shortage on issues of morality that are disagreed upon.
And why did they figure out that those things are bad? Because it meant chaos. If you allow others to murder at will, then you could be murdered, so peopled agreed that anyone who murders will be punished, therefore protecting each other. It's in my best interest to say murder is bad because if I say murder isn't bad, then I could be murdered. I have studied ethics in college and believe me, there are many theories on the origins of morality that work every bit as well as religion. Egotism, utilitarianism, relativism, etc. I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

[JGL57]

I am an atheist. I used to be a southern Baptist. I defy anyone to demonstrate that that is not an improvement.

[Wintermute]

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg. I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.

[Silvia]

I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit.
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

[Redzeppelin]

I just don't buy for a single second that religion is neccessary for morality to exist.

I don't believe my posts indicated anything of the kind. Morality can exist without religion - I've never argued otherwise. My point is simply about authority. The only point I keep sticking on is the authority behind the law. That $20 bill in your pocket is - by itself - worthless; it is only the guarantee of the US mint that makes it worth something - the authority behind the piece of paper gives it value. If you knew that the local judge would dismiss your case in your favor for that $20 bill, how seriously would you take the police? A bad, simplified example, but I think you get the point: it is not the police who are so powerful but the authority behind them. Sure: you can flee a cop, argue with one, assault and even kill one - but the authority behind that badge means that you have now brought a force to bear against yourself that will bring you to justice. My contention is that morality without a Divine Figure behind it (note that I did not say "religion") who establishes the "rules of conduct" is simply a man-made construction; as such, it cannot claim any authority over other men than what it can - by force - enforce. But if I create a bigger force, then I'm right - right? Why should the decisions of other men restrict my ideas as to what is "right" or "wrong"? Divine Law means that humanity cannot override what is "right" or "wrong" in favor of personal bias or just plain cultural wierdness because a Being beyond humanity (and, therefore, we assume, smarter than humanity) created that law.

[metal134]

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't buy that for a second either. Society is perfectly capable of taking the authority upon themselves because it's is in their best interest to do so.

Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) we have invested it with that power (which means we can also divest it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules.

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?

[metal134]

You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they might happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther is a divine influence.

[JGL57]

Care to qualify "that" since my post made a few points? Society does have authority - but that authority exists only because a) we have invested it with that power (which means we can also divest it of said power) and/or b) it has the "muscle" to hold me to its rules.

"Best interest" is fine and I get the idea. But: what happens when society begins to decide that certain things are ok that in fact, are not. Is Taiwan's child sex workers OK? Is African female-genital mutilation OK? Are Islamic suicide bombers OK? If you say "no" then what standard of morality are you appealing to? And, since that morality is culturally constructed, how do you intend to convince any other culture that what they're doing is wrong? Or are you content to let such atrocious behaviors exist and say "Well, that their morality"?

Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.
As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.

What in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?

[Redzeppelin]

You're saying that because you need that security of knowing that there must be some divine influence, a glue that holds it all together, that's what makes you believe. You say that because of the possiblity of what might happen if there was no divine influence, then it must be true. Those scenarios you mentioned are possibilties. Just because they might happen if there was no divine influnce doesn't mean ther is a divine influence.

Well, metal134, how would you know why I'm saying what I say? Only God would know such a thing (and maybe me, if I'm thinking before I'm speaking ). Your attempt to reduce my belief to a "security blanket" (and thus trivialize it) doesn't change the validity of my point.

What do you mean "possibilities"? Those behaviors occur in reality RIGHT NOW. And, without a higher moral law to appeal to ither than cultural agreement, on what basis do you condemn those behaviors?

[JGL57]

Be it theist or atheist, 100% certainty scares me--ask Heissenburg. I'd be willing to bet those zealots that burned the 'witches' in Salem, or the ego maniacs that crashed into the World Trade Center were 100% certain. Imo, anything is possible, nothing is certain. I'm an agnostic.

I am not an atheist.I think I am sceptical, or agnostic, which means that I don't know whether god does exist on not, but I choose not to believe in him.
When I was younger, I used to go to the Church and to pray before going to bed, but it was just an habit.
I realsed these things don't mean anything to me....and sometimes I feel quite sad about it.
I don't say I only believe in what I can see and touch....otherwise I should think Africa doesn't exist, for I have never been there..but, really, I can't believe in God!
Maybe it's just that I'm not interested in it or that I don't know enough...

I am an agnosic atheist. I don't know and I also don't believe.

Is that ok?

[Redzeppelin]

Whether god exists or not humans are social beings and will chose to have rules called laws. Anyone can argue anytime that a particular law is a bad one and needs to be changed or anyone can argue that a new law is needed.

Right. I have no argument with this - what have I posted that indicates I don't agree with this?

As time goes on, societies will change and modify their laws as needed. Some laws will established in dictatorships. The authority for those laws will be the dictator. Laws established in democratic republics are established by the people in a democratic fashion by their elected representatives creating the law, which will be enforce by the government selected.

Yeah.

in all of this do you not understand? It is quite straightforward. Law and morality is a matter of pragmatic necessity. No god is required. What about this simple fact do you not understand?

I understand it just fine. What do you think I don't get? My disagreement isn't based on confusion - it's based on a different opinion than yours. Do you understand that?

Neither you nor metal have answered my question: how do we interact with societies that condone behavior that we believe to be immoral? What gives us the right to "intervene" if their vision of morality is equally as valuable as ours (since both are human-created)? Deal with my argument rather than act as if I don't get your points. I get them fine.