This world is full of people who do evil things, but it's also full of people who do only good. God gave all of humanity the ability to choose his/her own way. Science, though needed, doesn't supply all the answers. Only God in his infinate wisdom knows everything.
If you believe and trust in him you'll eventualy find the trueth.
May God Bless you all.
Once again, go toOriginally Posted by Sk8ynat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
and click 2.8 the design argument
all the best.
Reading threads like this I come to the conclusion that atheists are the only optimists left out there. Are humans really so bad that without some outside force intervening and supplying us with "morals" we would be chomping at one another's throats? Can we not be credited with anything?
Isn't that sort of reasoning dangerous, when even ourselves, as well as others, become animal or thinglike?
and somehow a dog
has taken itself & its tail considerably away
into the mountains or sea or sky, leaving
behind: me, wag.
- John Berryman
Yes, it can look like a self-fulfilling prophecy at times - supposedly sinful desires are suppressed until finally they explode in a televangelist 'love' scandal or similar.
That's the flipside of this idea that we need a God to supply us with morals. Many of the morals supposedly supplied by her, him, whatever, appear arbitrary, illogical and painful rather than to spring from the real needs we see around us.
You mean the same morality that christians inherited from the ancient Greeks. Don't kid yourself that there is anything original about christian morality. There isn't.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Sometimes I hear believers say that without their faith, they wouldn't know what is the right thing to do. In fact, I've even heard a minister saying that the bible tells him what to do, and whenever he is unsure about how to act, he asks god for advice. That seems to me to be tantamount to admitting an ignorance of morality and having to live life from a rule book because of moral incompetence. If you don't know the difference between a right action and a wrong one, then you need to study ethics. The last thing you need is to have a list of do's and don't's like some automaton responding to command. Think about what is right, don't just respond because a book, some arrangment of words tells you what to do.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
interesting stuff folks.
i wonder why a benevolent god would give us the ability to think for ourselves and then have us neglect this gift and dwell within the confines of a rulebook he created. seems, um....sort of evil--- like giving a kid the sweetest toy ever, say the hoverboard from back to the future 2, and then commanding him that he can only use it as a place to sit while he reads.
Last edited by billyjack; 01-26-2009 at 11:53 PM.
I implied nothing of the sort. I asked where the atheist's idea of morality comes from. I'm still waiting for an answer.
The Bible gives good advice. Remember: we believe it's divinely inspired - as such, assuming that God inspired it, why wouldn't we seek counsel from a Being far wiser than we? Don't most people seek counsel from those wiser and more experienced?
And where does our "knowledge" of morality come from? What do YOU follow in making your moral choices? Weren't you taught it from somewhere?
Not everybody seeks the Bible's counsel because they are automatons: many of us consult it because we try to understand why so many of our own choices ended up causing such problems in our lives.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
if i might jump in since its not a secret. here's a few:
*secular law: cops, judges, prisons, fines
*enlightened self interest (treat well, be treated well)
*Kant's categorical imperative: Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.
*humanism: compassion and altruism for self and others
*rejection of moral absolutes (bc there are none)
*rejection of a creator and his word (frees us up from holy wars)
*rejection of the apacolyspe mentality bread by religion (makes our planet's health important to us, since we want it to last as long as it can, thereby makes us green to some extent)
*rejection of jesus' vicarious repentance of sin (personal responsiblity should be placed on oneself, not on another)
*not to mention the morals of some atheist philosophers: Hume, Bacon, Ayn Rand, Russel, Nietzche, Freud, Feuebach, epircurus, buddhist texts, lao tsu, chung tzu, socrates (he believed in spirits, but not a god), thoreau (i know he didnt believe in any idea of god), same could be said of emerson.
i think there's plenty more too, but its late
Last edited by billyjack; 01-27-2009 at 03:15 AM.
The atheists get it the like everyone else. It's inherent. Without an idea of justice, and ethocentricity societies could never congeal. Doesn't the uniform devlopment of the golden rule prompt you to believe that humans even prior to recorded history were already pretty much moral. Highly developed mammals also have morality so asking the atheists where they get their morals would be the equivalent of asking higly developed mammals. Its inherent to them. The individuals with a lesser sense of morality and social awareness were castigated and probably did not breed. You really have no need for a divine being to institute it.
Of course what I think you're saying Redzep is that being inclined to something good does that mean you have to by some absolute decree. I will have to agree with you in that case because for atheists or anyone for that matter you do not have to do whats best for your or society. You are only inclined to do so.
However even if God existed that doesn't you have to act morally as well. Technically you or anyone is not physically prohibited to harm others even with existence of God. I've never seen God stop a murder. Unless of course you want to qualify Him letting the murder proceed only to serve as a warning on earth. In that case what about the victim? Doesn't God owe him/her anything?
Basically that is what I meant, yes, that sin is doing wrong. Atheists as you said are not restricted by a belief system, so there could be an atheist which believed in anything, unless that belief would make him a pantheist, deist, theist, etc.
You ask why does anyone die? Why do they suffer? Do you know they actually die?
But would you argue with the existence of suffering against ANY other good thing, any other holy or sacred thing such as love, family, happiness, virtue? To use the argument of suffering against the existence of the divine is very similar to use it against the existence of anything such as love, virtue, goodness, etc. The divine does not exist because we NEED the divine to exist, although we do. The divine is the complete whole of the universe... we think of it is as spiritual only because we find some spiritual or mystical nature to that which is infinite to us, to that which is perfect to us in all respects - the complete whole, the natural universe, which to us is entirely supreme. We don't know anything outside it. If we do then it is still not farther than reality from us, so it is included in "reality". This means that we cannot know if there is a super-being or not, but we do know that there is an "infinite reality." The understanding of this reality comes in infinite forms, and they are all equally valid, they are just part of reality. No part needs to be justified, no part needs more power, less suffering, no part needs to be any more or any less, because all is part of all.
Then you seem not to have been paying attention. I gave an answer at the bottom of the previous page.
Yes. When I was about six or seven, I asked my Dad (an atheist) why we couldn't just imprison or kill the people he was always grumbling about while reading the newspapers. He explained that if you could imprison or kill people just because you disagreed with them, then at some point someone who disagreed with you might have the power to do the same to you.
I would say this was the beginning of my moral education, and that it was, in some ways, in conflict with the moral absolutism of religion. The democratic code that recognises a diversity of opinion, must, by definition, allow a diversity of moral codes to coexist. The governing principle is something like JS Mill's idea that individuals ought to be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - which, as my dad's explanation shows, is, in a large measure, a matter of practicality. We agree this overall code as a society - and enforce it when it breaks down - as a means of allowing the greatest possible benefit and freedom to the greatest possible number.
To be fair, similar ideas are found in certain versions of religious morality: Augustine's 'Love and do what thou wilt.' and the Wiccan, 'an it harm no one, do what thou will.' There seems no reason for this code of freedom to come into conflict with religion in practice (though it frequently does), but, likewise, there seems to be no requirement for religion to derive the principle since it's based on a practical assessment of what will be fair and cause least trouble.
No, it's to do with having a god as the higher authority. Of course there are/have been atheists who submit to authority - even for moral guidance and whether this is a good or a bad thing is a different question. But an atheist submitting to god as moral authority is being incoherent.
I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral. It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?
Where would god get her or his morality from?
Just to be clear, I never said anything about atheists submitting to god as anything at all.
Well, I agree it might be a little early to consider the question settled. I can't help pointing out however, that it was you who said you couldn't imagine how one could have morality without god. Ergo, you were denying non-religious moralities. I'm glad to see you've changed your opinion.I can see prefering an moral code that people worked out for themselves but I don't see any reason to deny that any other kind is really moral.
It's a big question. I would say volition is a key component of morality - not necessarily that all morality must be innate, but that, in committing moral acts, one must, at least, understand the reasons for them. This is not just because, without that understanding, it's hard to really qualify the acts as moral.It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine an authoritarian dictator of morality who makes perfect moral choices for his subjects and ask is that good?
Last edited by blp; 01-27-2009 at 10:52 AM.
Well, b, that may be true. The other option available is that I saw your post and did not find that it sufficiently answered my question. I'll let you decide which one is true.
Your father was very practical in his outlook. So what philosophy does his answer point to? From where I'm standing, his answer suggests that the only thing that controls our behavior is fear of retaliation. But isn't that fear predicated on the idea that the other has the power to retaliate? What if I'm stronger? Then what need I fear? Why do the right thing if the other whom I wrong doesn't have the power to return evil upon me? Now what stops me?
While there will certainly be cultural norms that come into play, once we entertain the idea of "a diversity of moral codes" we now step into ethical quicksand because not all moral codes will agree - and without a transcendant moral code that exists beyond human establishment and manipulation, how do we adjudicate conflicts between moral codes? If they're all equal, then who are we to criticize those inflicting genocide in Darfur, female genital mutilation in Africa, piracy in Somalian seas?
Doesn't Mills idea require that we have some sort of frame of reference in deciding what "harm" is? Just because someone says they're "harmed" by my behavior, are they really? And, conversely, just because someone tells me their behavior really doesn't hurt anybody, can't that also be denial in action? How do we decided the nature of "harm" and whether or not it's legitimate?
But that's part of the problem, b - how do we - selfish and self-interested humans - fairly decide on our own what is "fair" and "causes the least trouble"? History has shown that human law can be bent to serve the will of a tyrant. Without the higher law of nature/God, who can look at the legal slaughter of people under Hitler and Stalin's regime and challenge it? They were LEGAL as judged by society. That is the ultimate end of humanly established law and morality - it can be tweaked to serve power.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Posting Permissions
