Religious beliefs

[Nuusku]

How does this follow from the statement above?

"Any evil in the world is a deprivation of His will"

[Kaplan]

For all you atheists and agnostics out there, I would pose the following argument, called the Moral Argument.

1: Absent God, objective moral values and duties do not (and cannot) exist.
2: Objective moral values and duties do exist (some actions, like, say, rape of children, or the Holocaust, are really, truly wrong, objectively (i.e., regardless of how anyone feels about them).
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a deistic God) exists.

This is quite easy: Morality is a human invention. Societies promote certain moralities and institutions within that society promote certain moralities, but there is no one objective morality. You can't see it, you can't measure it, and most importantly none of us could even agree to what it would look like. It varies from society to society, from era to era, from person to person, and from religion to religion. So what? We can still decide on our own morality (which we do anyway) and make moral decisions and moral judgments. Our evolution has geared us in a certain way to respond to right and wrong, but it is up to society and our parents and our own personality and experiences to shape the concept we call morality.

No matter how badly you want to believe in an objective morality (and presumably to be in the right with regard to moral standing), you can't wish it to be so.

[Kaplan]

Continuation:

Thus, if naturalism is true, it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good. It does not matter what values you choose--for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist. That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

Ha, most religions not only don't condemn war and oppression, most have in their history and their teachings promoted those things. So clearly religion is no guide to morality. As well the Judeo-Christian religions do not promote or praise things like brotherhood, equality, or love as good. Neither in the Bible or in general practice. He makes the assumption that these are objective morals, but I'm curious how he came to that conclusion. Where's his evidence? And if he got it from the Bible, then that's hardly support--not counting all the contradictory moral lessons he conveniently ignores. If something's objective, then he should have been able to see it or test it. Clearly that is not the case.

[CzechCzar]

"Any evil in the world is a deprivation of His will"

Ah, got it. I would say no, since, as a Christian, I believe in free will. We are free to do the wrong thing, and thus, to introduce evil into the world.

This is quite easy: Morality is a human invention. Societies promote certain moralities and institutions within that society promote certain moralities, but there is no one objective morality. You can't see it, you can't measure it, and most importantly none of us could even agree to what it would look like. It varies from society to society, from era to era, from person to person, and from religion to religion. So what? We can still decide on our own morality (which we do anyway) and make moral decisions and moral judgments. Our evolution has geared us in a certain way to respond to right and wrong, but it is up to society and our parents and our own personality and experiences to shape the concept we call morality.

No matter how badly you want to believe in an objective morality (and presumably to be in the right with regard to moral standing), you can't wish it to be so.

This is what I was hoping for - an atheist who is willing to follow his arguments to their necessary conclusions! Under the coherent philosophy you espoused above, things seem wrong, but there is nothing objectively wrong about them. So, if I were to go out, and steal, kill, and rape, that would be against social convention, but there would be nothing objectively wrong about it, per se. Maybe I'm just differently-evolved than you?

[wa3zrm]

Wrong thread, bud. This one's about religion.

Not if you believe Obama is a Godless infidel!

[Thunder_Snus]

Again, you’re begging the question here, by stating that we do, in fact, know that objective morality exists. This means you agree with my conclusion, but the question is, how do you get there on an atheistic basis? The evolved morality you speak of could have turned out differently if we were to rewind the evolutionary clock and start all over. So, contradictory morals could evolve, which means the morals aren’t objective.



I don’t think that I am… I never mentioned legality. Pretty much the only alternative to God-based morality is that over the course of human evolution, one of the traits that emerged as advantageous was a sense of morality. Whether this morality is developed in a cultural, national, or religious context, is of little importance. The crucial point is that the morality we sense as objective is actually the result of a long process of evolution.

This view has multiple problems:

In this view, morality is only perceived
as objective. If we were to rewind the evolutionary clock, a different
set of morals might very well emerge. Since contradictory morals could emerge
from the evolutionary process, these morals are in no sense objective as the
theist uses the word.
Moreover, what makes this set
of morals binding upon all members of society? One cannot use this theory
to convince someone whose moral feelings disagree with yours that he is wrong,
and ought to behave differently. Nor can he convince you. If you made such an
argument to a sociopath who took this position on the sources of morality, but
who had a taste for human flesh, he could say to you: “your rules are
just the outcome of a long process of totally contingent events, each of which
was governed by nothing but happenstance. Every one of them might have turned
out differently. The same goes for me. My rules are different..” And he
would be correct. Because under this theory, the rules of society are not
really moral, in the sense that they are not objectively binding on us; they do
not oblige us.



This question that atheists throw about with such abandon as if it were a defeater for theism was actually answered, I believe by Augustine, over a millennium ago. The answer is, briefly, that God’s moral commandments necessarily flow from His nature: He IS the Good. Any evil in the world is a deprivation of His will.

Again your arguements show no proof of god...morals exist so so does god. Morals are pretty much doing what you know is right. I could stab someone but would i like it if someone stabbed me? No. therefore my morals say dont stab people. Some people feel its ok to kill as they wish and do whatever...thats there morals and they are different than mine. It's ok to have your train of thought but to say it is proof of an all powerful being is probably the most obscure thing I have ever heard

[texastorm]

So in the days around when the bible (Old Testament) was supposedly written about (not in the days it was written) It seems morally right to kill people for what today are rather small sins.

So if these morals as passed on from god to man and written and copied by man are correct, then why today do ALL christians not practice with that set of morals?

Women can do things today that where morally wrong only 200 years ago.

The trouble with the morals argument is answered simply by me stating that almost everything moraly wrong is something that would hurt my feelings if done to me, to you, or to your uncle. And thats like saying god exists because I have feelings and animals dont... animals do... they just cannot express them in language we can understand. But they do show us, for instance dogs get mad and fight.

If you say these animal traits are instinctive and not moral then you are right.

Your morals are also instinctive and therefore not proof of god. Humans just have the wonderful ability of langauge and therefore can communicate these feelings and compare them with others, and then come to a consensus about what is moral, and what is not.

If god created morals, would they not be absolute? If they change with the times, does that mean your god changes with the times? If your god changes with the times... then why? Was he not already perfect to begin with? If your god was imperfect why in the heck would you worship him... he would be a mere man.

And with that answer I leave the thread alone.

[Grim]

Actually I chose to remove the post I wrote because this is a can of worms I have opened before and I realized that you cant talk Politics or Religion without someone getting hurt.

[spinyeel]

Something created everything. I just haven't seen,heard or spoken to it yet. I'm not holding my breath.

[Thunder_Snus]

Actually I chose to remove the post I wrote because this is a can of worms I have opened before and I realized that you cant talk Politics or Religion without someone getting hurt.

It always opens a can of worms because someone wants to spin some wacky idea off as proof of existance. Morals exist so so does god? Everyones looking for an answer and sometimes looking for that answer means you follow a train of thought that is completely illogical because you like the sound of it. I'd rather there be people who listen to weird batshit insane people debate about religion with the most obscure arguements ive ever heard than have all those people be these dumbshit kids my age that talk about "swag" and "yolo" though, so i guess i can't complain too much. The fact that people think they will be punished for their wrongdoing is probably the reason a lot of people arent serial killers.

[wa3zrm]

Actually I chose to remove the post I wrote because this is a can of worms I have opened before and I realized that you cant talk Politics or Religion without someone getting hurt.

No need to worry about that Grim... those that have reached that point can just contact PP for his special Xanax laced snus

[Nuusku]

The good thing about science is that it's true wheter or not you believe in it.

[wa3zrm]

The good thing about science is that it's true wheter or not you believe in it.

Is that why there are no atheists in foxholes?

[Nuusku]

Is that why there are no atheists in foxholes?

What does that mean?

[devilock76]

What does that mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...ts_in_foxholes

Ken