Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how do those who believe in God justify their actions of killing? Where is the difference there between moral values and duties and changing the state of matter? The results are still the same. Death.
Agreed. But if God exists, killing is really wrong. You can't say the same with atheism.
I tend to give history as much credit as science for undermining the basis of belief in the assertions of organized religion. The field of Biblical scholarship, starting with Dr. Albert Schweitzer and continuing on through the development of the Q concept and the works of scholars such as Bart Ehrman, have done an awful lot toward allowing us to understand the mentalities of the world of Jesus and the manner in which religious movements arose and either failed or gained purchase.
One of the greatest barriers to overcoming whatever religious indoctrination you received is how well established Christianity or Islam seems. Because those faiths have been around so long and have become such deeply ingrained institutions, the tendency is to assign them far more legitimacy than they merit in terms of having presented the facts in an accurate or relevant manner. Biblical scholarship gets past that established legitimacy and shows us that religions rise from the political and cultural environment of their places of origin. It shows us how one faith or one version of a faith can triumph over a rival version via making the right political connections or having the good fortune to found to have a practical application in a current political situation.
The best way to understand what Jesus was really about is to read Josephus and other Roman histories of the era. A very different view emerges when Jesus is placed in the context of Judean/Roman conflict.
I recommend you to read Martin Hengel works, specially the ones he wrote with Maria Schwimmer.
1) That is a question that has been answered at some length by physicists. It is complicated one, which can really only be expressed with 100% accuracy via mathematics. But it basically comes down to the fact that "nothing" doesn't exist. Nothing isn't really nothing at all, but a zone of quantum fluctuations that spontaneously generate something out of nothing continuously. Something coming from nothing isn't just something that happened at the beginning of the universe. It something that is going on all around us, right now and all the time, at the subatomic level
2) Our morals don't come from God. Our morals come from the claims we humans make on each other. We are social animals. We need to coexist and cooperate for our own survival. We could never have come as far as we have had it not been for our capacity to do this. That is where morality really comes from.
3) Why are the values written down in some "holy" book more "real" than the ones we design ourselves? If I kill, does God reach down with a noose and hang me Himself? Of course not. God doesn't say, "This is MY law." People say, "This is God's law," and ask you top believe that on faith. And frankly, there's no evidence that religious people behave, on average, any better or worse than anyone else. If anything, they sometimes behave worse.
1-There is no way to proof or get any good evidence that this quantum fluctuations created our world. You can say it is possible. But it really seems to me a hard work to not believe in God.
2- Read The Abolition of Man, by C. S. Lewis. Quick and brilliant analysis on that topic. One of the best non-fictional books from the 20th century.
3- I agree that atheists can be good. No doubts about that. But you can never get moral values with atheism. Human beings never did. What standard of moral values are in an universe of just particles?
In other words, if there was no God you wouldn't think killing somebody was wrong?
Like when you say "if there WAS NO GOD". I appreciate it.
The answer is: it doesn't matter if I would think killing is wrong or not. I just wouldn't be.
Agreed. But if God exists, killing is really wrong. You can't say the same with atheism.
You just haven't studied meta ethics, ethical theories mostly don't need to rely on god for justification. Morality is reasoned separately from religious justifications and this process is important even if you are religious, because some ethical dilemmas can't be resolved easily through scripture and need to be formally addressed through philosophy to help you get a better grip on which moral argument is most compelling to you so you can figure out what to do in tricky situations.
Anyways, even if this weren't the case, it's irrelevant to the question. There is a right or wrong answer to the question "does god exist?" This is a question about the nature of reality. The answer to this question does not depend on what would be nicest for us humans. The answer does not depend on what would make us feel happiest and most secure in our existence. The answer to the question does depend on our feelings any which way, so talking about things like God has to exist or murder is okay is not a legit argument because it does not address whether or not this thing actually, objectively exists in the real world. The consequences of it not existing has no bearing on whether or not exists, so they shouldn't be brought up in this situation lest they tempt us into intellectual dishonesty.
Agreed. But if God exists, killing is really wrong. You can't say the same with atheism.
Only if God says so. If God says it is justified, then it is ok. It is human morality that goes beyond that. It is human morality that tells us what is good in the bible and what is evil, but justified. because, if God was the only arbiter of an absolute morality, then whatever God ordered would be good, because he approved it.
You mentioned the origins of the universe. The fact is that it is hard for humans, used to everything having a cause, to imagine a complex universe not made by hands, but this is not only possible, but feasible and there is a sort of hypothetical mechanism for it, which is more than we can say for a god doing it all by magic.
I have to say that I find it easier to regard a gradual emergence of what we call 'matter' from what we call 'nothing' than to propose a cosmos sized invisible being that never needed to be made or come from anywhere.
As to 'meaning', there doesn't have to be one. Like a flexible morality, this is actually better for humanity than a 'meaning' imposed by a god who, to judge by the Bible, could benefit from a human committee- review of his morals, aims and objectives.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-19-2013 at 05:17 AM..
Agreed. But if God exists, killing is really wrong. You can't say the same with atheism.
That is some pretty stupid logic, actually some really stupid logic.
You don't have the right to harm anyone, and no god or man-made law is necessary to make it 'wrong'. It is alarming that you obviously believe that without your belief about this god, that you feel that killing is OK.
That is some pretty stupid logic, actually some really stupid logic.
You don't have the right to harm anyone, and no god or man-made law is necessary to make it 'wrong'. It is alarming that you obviously believe that without your belief about this god, that you feel that killing is OK.
exactly, it's as if sociopathy were our only disposition....while using god to justify it at the same time.
Scenario 1:
You are standing near some train tracks and there are 5 men working on the tracks. You can see and hear a train coming, but the men cannot see it or hear it. There is a lever near you and if you push the lever, the train will go onto a siding where a single man is standing and will be killed. Do you push the lever saving 5 men and killing one. Almost every person says they would pull the lever.
Scenario 2:
You are standing on a bridge looking down at some train tracks and the same 5 men are working on the tracks. There is an obese man standing near you also looking down. You realize that you can save the 5 men by pushing the obese man onto the tracks killing him. Do you push the man? Almost every person says no they would not push the man.
The analysis of the math is the same in both cases. You are saving 5 men and killing one, but in the second case, you actively push someone to their death and most people cannot do this.
Simply because in Scenario 2 it is the obese man who has the choice between watching the 5 men die or sacrifice himself to save them. His choice not yours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
