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.
I'm wondering about this issue of rape and murder being wrong. We could use the Golden Rule and say that anything that I wouldn't want done to me is wrong. But then by that standard homosexuality is definitely wrong. As would be eating broccoli. And if I were a masochist, that would screw up the whole idea big time.
The issue of Animals doing it has problems as well. Anyone who thinks animals don't rape hasn't watched enough chickens. Anyone who thinks animals don't murder or have genocidal tendencies has never seen the aftermath of a coyote in the chicken coop. Anyone who thinks animals aren't sadistic hasn't watched a cat play with a mouse. Anyone who thinks animals don't have homosexual tendencies hasn't watched enough cows or dogs.
I'm not sure I buy the whole "harmful to society as a whole" argument, either. Haven't there been societies where rape and murder were beneficial to that particular society? Mongols and Romans, for example, helped spread their empires by murder and rape, didn't they?
There are other things that would seem to be worse for society than murder and rape. Alcohol and drugs, for example. Diseases? Promiscuous sex helps spread some diseases. Broccoli. I'm sure broccoli is way bad for society.
I don't think this is a simple issue.
So tell me, then, exactly why is it that murder and rape are wrong, whereas homosexuality and eating broccoli aren't.
You bring up an interesting point about the spreading of empires. I say that because Christianity mainly spread because Rome made everyone have that religion, and it was brought to America's shores and other places through violence.
For your question, I could ask you the exact same thing. Why is murder and rape wrong?
Because god said it's wrong? OK...but what is it about the action of murder or rape that is wrong?
So tell me, then, exactly why is it that murder and rape are wrong, whereas homosexuality and eating broccoli aren't.
Murder and rape are obviously wrong because we've evolved the idea of human rights. Obviously, eating broccoli isn't wrong as broccoli isn't sentient.
Now, you can get into the whole argument of where morals come from and I'll go ahead and assure you that we atheists have an argument for that as well.
We have impulses and inclinations. We want something we grab it. If anyone gets in our way, we put a fist in his eye. If we can grab his women to spread the gene -pool, we do. We protect our own women from the outsiders. We protect the tribe. We compete for resources. That is how Evolution has made us and we see it pure and simply in the playground. Naked as nature made us, selfishness and lack of thought.
But we can think. We can learn better. That is also where we first encounter ther 'How would you like it if it was done to you?' idea. And sometimes it is, done to us, I mean. We first begin to see things from others' points of view. If you don't like it done to you, so those others don't like it done to them. The basics of the Golden Rule.
We can either try to live equably with others or give in to the 'Superman' impulse - to be the strongest and stuff anyone else.
So we evolve moral codes to try to give everyone a fair shake (while ensuring that the laws uphold the authority of those making the laws).
So the general thread of equable treatment is 'Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you'. which is just recognising that you don't do to people what they don't want done to them.
That, rather than some God - given 'Right or Wrong' code is the 'moral compass'. If you don't want to be murdered or raped, then neither do others and that's all there is to it. You don't do to them what they don't want done and you can assume they don't because YOU wouldn't.
There is a rider. If they DO want it done to them, then you have no right to say they can't do it. Think about that.
So I say that, in addition to the Golden Rule, there is the Platinum Rule devised during the Hippy era: 'Do your own thing - providing that it's not messing up anyone else's thing.'
This, rather than Hillel's dictum or Crowley's Majikal loopiness, is the whole of the Law and all the rest is commentary. Learn it.
Murder and rape are obviously wrong because we've evolved the idea of human rights. Obviously, eating broccoli isn't wrong as broccoli isn't sentient.
Now, you can get into the whole argument of where morals come from and I'll go ahead and assure you that we atheists have an argument for that as well.
Wait.... Eating brccoli is WRONG.... I mean, its name ....coli...is only an "e" short of being deadly..
But in a more serious manner...
Animals do express morality, and in many ways. Many members of the great apes show alturism, and even dogs try to help each other when they are injured. There has been lots of psychological research in this arena, and many, many examples can be found. Recently, there was a youtube flick about a bunch of water buffalo running from an attacking preditor, which almost caught one of their young. The water buffalo returned and, as a group, protected the youngster, and killed the predator. They understand the value of living, and even put themselves at risk to do good for their community.
So, in a short statement: You don't need to be human to have an ethical system and to work for the common good.
...as to rape and murder...
all killing is not murder...but murder is decidedly wrong...even if a society accepts it...
...all non-consensual sex is not rape--except perhaps under the rules that many modern societies choose to live....but, never-the-less, anytime someone touches another, and the "other" doesn't want to be touched, is an unwanted act. Each unwanted act, once it is understood as such, is an ethically questionable event. Not everysuch event is immoral, as people who get arrested seldom want to be handcuffed (touched) by the police. However, the severity of the act, as determined by its potential consequences, dictates the level of violation, and hence the level of immorality.
My thesis is NOT: there never has been a "rule maker" i.e. "God."
My thesis is: The existence today of a god, (or the God, if you wish) is not a necessary condition for the existence of morality nor for moral actions.
...but one question: Is it a sufficient condition? I think the answer to that question may be "Yes," but could there be other sufficient conditions?
...and my "thesis" from the beginning post has been that OBJECTIVE moral values cannot exist if there is no God.
For whatever reason, you seem to lack the intellectual integrity to admit the obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
...oh, by the way...is your whole viewpoint based on homosexuality?
By virtue of recent events in the societal arena, I think the issue serves as an apt illustration. Mere mention of the word seems to insight controversy and, at times, I'm greatly tempted to 'stir the pot.'
...and my "thesis" from the beginning post has been that OBJECTIVE moral values cannot exist if there is no God.
For whatever reason, you seem to lack the intellectual integrity to admit the obvious.
By virtue of recent events in the societal arena, I think the issue serves as an apt illustration. Mere mention of the word seems to insight controversy and, at times, I'm greatly tempted to 'stir the pot.'
I lack yhe integrity to admit the obvious??? What, in your opinion is "the obvious?"
Well, that was an interesting little mini research project. AREQUIPA mentioned Hillel's Dictum, and AREQUIPA and Maia160 mentioned evolving Moral Codes and Human Rights. I went and reviewed the History of the Code of Law and such, and I think there's a lot to it, but there are a couple of things that don't add up yet.
The golden rule (or Hillel's dictum, in positive wording) has problems because people like different things. Instead of "Don't do unto others anything you wouldn't want done to you" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would have to become "Do unto others as they would want you to do unto them". One of the problems is the difference in people's attitudes. My trailer trash neighbor down the road who feels like the world owes him a living, and doesn't want to find a job and prefers to mooch off neighbors and live off welfare, would love it if I gave him half my paycheck every month. On the other end of that scale is the farmer up the road who is way too nice, and would like it if I accepted fresh produce from his garden every week. It isn't possible to do unto all of my neighbors what they would have me do unto them. And how about my children? They would love nothing more than to eat junk food all day and play video games and watch television. It'll be a cold day in Arizona before I do unto them what they would have me do unto them. So then you have to modify the rule to be "Do unto others what is best for them." But then who gets to decide what is best for them? This is not a simple problem.
The Platinum rule evolved in the Hippy era: Do your own thing as long as it doesn't impede others doing their own thing? Well that's all fine and good except that with finite resources, you eventually find it impossible to avoid conflicts with people doing their own things. The classic example is when I got busy being a dad and the weeds in the back half of the back yard didn't get mowed. Some neighbor guy decided he didn't like his property values being affected by my weeds, so he called in a complaint to the county. I got a nice little letter informing me that if I didn't cut down the weeds, they would do it for me and bill me for it. Was I doing my own thing impeding him doing his own thing, or was he doing his own thing impeding me doing my own thing?
So that's where we have the Rule of Law, to decide when doing your own thing is impeding someone else doing their own thing. Someone has to decide that Murder and Rape are wrong. And whether Broccoli or homosexuality are OK. But then who makes the laws, and who interprets the laws? The Chief? The King? The Emperor? The Senate? God? The Prophet? The Koran? The Samurai? Human DNA? The Cleric? The Founding Fathers? Congress? The City Council? The Supreme Court? The Dad? The United Nations? Society as a Whole?
So the idea of evolving Human Rights leads us of course to the United Nations decree on Human Rights. Most of those are pretty good ideas, but there are some situations and some conditions that are still going to have issues. Is it really a Human Right that we should have the right to work reasonable hours, and have protection from losing our jobs? What if we really suck at our job, or go to work drunk? What if the economy tanks and the business can't possibly afford to pay us? And at what point do we forfeit our Human Rights?
There are people in the world that have impeded the Human Rights of others so badly that we have to curtail some of their Human Rights just to stop them from getting worse. Article 3 says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 13 says that "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." We imprison murderers because they have deprived others of their article 3 rights, so we deprive them of their article 13 rights. If they have deprived enough people of their article 3 rights, it's debatable whether they should have their own article 3 rights deprived. (Capital Punishment)
Anyway, the reason this whole thing relates to the topic of God sending rain to parched lands is this: How do we know what God's priorities are? I expect some of them we can infer from observing reality. I expect some of them we're supposed to get from reading scripture. In either case, assuming God's ideas of Human Rights are the same as the United Nations ideas of Human Rights is probably not going to match up. In order to answer the original question, you have to try to figure out what God's priorities are, and see if there is a good enough reason for him to send rain, or if he will adhere to the Prime Directive and just let people die.
I totally understand some people's point of view. They only say that God does not exist because there is sufferings in this world. What many people do not know is that GOD has given us MAN the key to living in a world where there is no sufferings. GOD is GOD and he does not think the way we think. We don't understand evetyrhing about him and if we did then he will no be GOD.How fair is it to blame him for the problems that we have caused ourselves. How can we say that someone or something does not exist just because you don't understand the way the thing works. Some people just look at Christians and laugh because they do not understand the Almighty GOD. This is a something that I want everybody to think about: If we Christains are wrong, then we have nothing to worry about, but what if you're wrong, you have everything to lose. So please consider this more closely. If you really want to find God, he will reveal himself to you.
Last edited by Lydia Gyau; 01-24-2011 at 12:43 PM..
Reason: misspelling
LYDIA GYAU
I totally understand some people's point of view. They only say that God does not exist because there is sufferings in this world. What many people do not know is that GOD has given us MAN the key to living in a world where there is no sufferings. GOD is GOD and he does not think the way we think. We don't understand evetyrhing about him and if we did then he will no be GOD.How fair is it to blame him for the problems that we have caused ourselves. How can we say that someone or something does not exist just because you don't understand the way the thing works. Some people just look at Christians and laugh because they do not understand the Almighty GOD. This is a something that I want everybody to think about: If we Christains are wrong, then we have nothing to worry about, but what if you're wrong, you have everything to lose. So please consider this more closely. If you really want to find God, he will reveal himself to you.
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.
God Exists
