Jump to content


Restarting the Morals Debate

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
60 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_gnojek_*

  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2005 - 05:38 PM

I promise there was no misunderstanding.  In the mind of good philosophical atheists, there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong.  Right and wrong are strictly determined by societal standards.
I didn't say they contradict each other, they contradict themselves.  Philosophical contradictions demonstrate inconsistancy in a persons argument.
What's a fundamentalist?  What fundamentalist claims atheists are drones?


View Post

Nowhere is it written what "all athiests" must consider right or wrong.
Surely there are many athiests out there that have very rigid ideas about what is right and what is wrong.

But, to correct you, the average athiest does not ascribe right and wrong to societal standards but usually to individual standards.

A fundamentalist is one who practices fundamentalism:
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Example: A Young Earth Creationist.

If murder motivated by personal greed is morally wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, then a moral law exists outside the human race.  If a moral law exists outside of the human race, then there must be a moral law giver.

We can thus conclude the following:
1) A moral law giver outside the human race means that someone has set standards for the human race.  This is an argument for the existance of God.
2) Morals, having been instituted by God, are not a consequence of evolution.


View Post

If If If.

Animals cannot commit murder.

You agreed that murder on the basis of greed was wrong independant of human opinion.  That means that remorse has nothing to do with morality.

How someone feels after having commited murder has nothing to do with it being right or wrong.  Remorse comes after the fact, so it has little, if any, value in an evolutionary context.

Having a conscience at birth, given by God, to know not to do such things is beneficial to perpetuating the human race.
Commiting murder for greed has nothing to do with survival.  It has only to do with greed.


View Post

Of course animals can commit murder.
Hmm, well that depends on what your definition of murder is.
If murder is a form of killing that is "wrong" then animals that don't have a concept of right and wrong don't murder. But if there is one type of animal out there (non-human) that does have a sense of right and wrong, then your statement is totally false.

Says who that murder in the name of greed is wrong regardless of opinion?
Nowadays there aren't many people who believe that murder for greed is right, but long ago it was perfectly acceptable, especially if it was carried out by a King's orders (or the Church's). But there were whole societies that lived mostly by plunder (Vikings, Huns). It was glorious to murder for greed.

Committing murder for greed has everything to do with survival.
Animals fight to the death for food, the more food the better (greed?).
Killing off competition for resources better assures your survival.
It's that simple.

What about hitler? It MUST HAVE benefitted him somehow....

View Post

He sure felt "it" would benefit him, and he thought it would benefit Germany and humanity as a whole. By "it" I suppose you mean war and the final solution.

When people attempt to be their own god, they go wrong.
This is revealed to us every day in secular society, groups like the ACLU who advocate distribution of child P*rn, people trying to reform God's institution of marriage by making it ok for same s@x's to marry, people thinking that its ok to do whatever they want, by convincing themselves that there is not a God to be accountable to.

These are all examples of wicked things that can and do happen when fallible man tries to be his own god.
God set the standard on morals for all mankind, if followed man would do much better.

The infallible word of God, the Holy Bible is the blue-print in which man should live by, it has all the answers that can't be proven wrong.
From lifes origin to morals to future events leading to the destruction or eternal life of all life.

God bless <><
Louie Buren <><

View Post

I'm sure you have some example, but really when has the ACLU advocated child P*rn?

Contemporary Christians rework God's word all the time.
Do you wear poly/cotton blends? work on the sabbath? eat shellfish?
There are numerous examples of God's law that our present culture just ignores because it's not part of our, dare I say it, more secular societal norms.

I should have said that thought is not a purely materialistic process.  Its clear that in our reality that a material medium is required for the storage and processing of information.  However; information does not arise in matter by itself.  There is no known law or process where energy or matter can give rise to information.

To use human thought as an example is begging the question.  That would be like saying the fact that life exists proves that life arise from non-life.

Here is a primer to what Dr. Gitt is refering to as information.

There's no point in quibbling about the definition.  There are numerous definitions of information that all have certain advantages and disadvantages.  Dr. Gitt's definition is valid, and it has the result that information requires an intelligent source.  Morality is behavioral information for the human race, and thus requires an intelligent source.

Consequently, evolution did not produce morality....  :)


View Post

Nice exercise is assertion.

Here, I'll do it too.

There is no known law or process whereby a god can arise from non-god, so god doesn't exist.

Consequently, morality evovled. :)

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users