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.
Humans are no different in the respect; we have common behavioral tendencies and behaviors outside our norm are labeled as "immoral" by the majority.
Where is god in all this? Maybe he's taking a nap on Kolob when he should be working? Maybe he's smart enough to know that NOTHING is absolute (especially morals) and lets things happen naturally?
Clearly however, there is no "absolute morality" functioning in the universe above and apart from us, only yet another human claiming to "know the mind of god."
You are making my point.
If you believe humans just have "common behavioral tendencies" and there is no "absolute morality"
then on what basis can one say that any behavior by any individual should be punished especially if it is within the laws that are set by that culture.
If a Nazi Germany decides that exterminating Jews is legal. If a culture decides sacrificing children to the Volcano is ok, on what moral grounds do you say they have no right to do so without infringing upon their rights and being hypocritical by projecting your own moral convictions on those who do not share them?
If you believe humans just have "common behavioral tendencies" and there is no "absolute morality"
then on what basis can one say that any behavior by any individual should be punished especially if it is within the laws that are set by that culture.
If a Nazi Germany decides that exterminating Jews is legal. If a culture decides sacrificing children to the Volcano is ok, on what moral grounds do you say they have no right to do so without infringing upon their rights and being hypocritical by projecting your own moral convictions on those who do not share them?
Sounds like you're talking about the Old Testament God.
Sounds like you're talking about the Old Testament God.
So let's use the argument from outrage that is often used by atheists regarding their disapproval of behavior that God either allowed or commanded.
Where is the basis of this outrage beyond their personal feelings? And how do they balance that outrage with outrage of behavior in general without contradicting the concept of moral relativism.
So let's use the argument from outrage that is often used by atheists regarding their disapproval of behavior that God either allowed or commanded.
Where is the basis of this outrage beyond their personal feelings? And how do they balance that outrage with outrage of behavior in general without contradicting the concept of moral relativism.
No, let's not.
Let's just read the OT with an open mind, in light of knowledge gleaned in the 21st century, and realize there's some interesting stories there, but no more interesting than The Odyssey or Lord of the Rings.
Let's just read the OT with an open mind, in light of knowledge gleaned in the 21st century, and realize there's some interesting stories there, but no more interesting than The Odyssey or Lord of the Rings.
And certainly no more believable.
And what knowledge would that be? What facts (not philosophical interpretations) have led you to this conclusion?
What is listed in the OT that is any less believable than the fairy tale of evolution?
So let's use the argument from outrage that is often used by atheists regarding their disapproval of behavior that God either allowed or commanded.
Where is the basis of this outrage beyond their personal feelings? And how do they balance that outrage with outrage of behavior in general without contradicting the concept of moral relativism.
What you deem outrage is a misconception. We atheists think the whole idea of god is stupid and illogical. The way we may mock or ridicule this man made god has no bearing on any perceived hate or outrage. The only ones taking offence and seeing it as such are theists when confronted with these challenges and make it personal. Why is this?
As you try and excuse (apologetics) the actions of this man made god with mental gymnastics, we merely do a SMH or silently smile.
The reality is that most atheists know more about the bible than theists as we actually studied it and church history in detail. It is thus like a post graduate arguing with a kindergärtner. Even your best internet apologists are idiots when it comes to biblical textual criticism, church history et al.
I keep posting on the mathematical improbability of Exodus happening, no one has had a counter b/c the math does not lie so they simply ignore the reality that this was myth yet still proceed to believe in other cherry picked portions. Exodus is one of THE legs that the xian belief rest on. Likewise the flood which NEVER happened and another cornerstone/leg in the xian belief/dogma; also simply ignored. Then it all traces back to genesis which is a borrowed myth from the Sumerians for which we actually have artefacts. Add Jesus into the mix and there are the four pillars on which the whole theology rests from a "historical" standpoint. You are basically left with a one legged barstool.
Lastly, their is zero extra biblical evidence Jesus ever existed. He is a conglomeration of many earlier man-god myths and the wise teachings also used by many others. Christians fail to see the huge influence Greek mythology had in the invention of Jesus.
You have been indoctrinated as to what to believe (just like I once was) None of it is real.
The only concept that theists offer is experiential "evidence" or ad populum fallacies (always so/so many people believe in god so I must be right) and only the latter bears some credence but only to demonstrate how gullible humans are/were.
Outside of your bible and what you think god is in your head, there is no evidence anywhere for your god. Your god IS REAL, but only in your head, you made him up just like all the other theists have.
If you ever studied history, you would know that folk believed that gods controlled the weather, volcanoes were angry underworld gods. I am sure you would know that we now through science have dismissed these silly beliefs, Zeus, Thor and Hades do not exist anymore in the Greek pantheon, they are merely a legacy to ignorance of the human race and now exist as statues preserved to illustrate man's evolution mentally. Your Jesus came out of this same era when folk still had no clue how the weather worked, stars that guided magi to the birthplace etc. These are all silly ideas as stars do not move as suggested. If you ever drive at night, look out the window at the moon. It appears to move in unison with you but it is "standing still" and only its distance gives it the appearance of motion as you drive, something like chasing rainbows.
All these things we now understand, thanks to science. So why does the bible not include the scientific findings that negate these ancient assertions? Pretty simple, the church wants you to wallow in your ignorance, your apologists will do their damnedest to try and offer an explanation and they always fail. People feared eclipses of the moon and the sun, we now know what causes this.
It really is us looking at you lot and smiling while you try and fit square pegs in round holes.
My take on all this is that Religion -derived morality is a chimera. Human morality is of course different (a higher standard) to that of animals, because animals do what they do through evolved instinct. So do we, because we are animals - primates, to be exact (1) but we have reasoning powers and have developed society so we can think of others, not just ourselves (2) and we have developed complex societies that need complex rules.
It is this development of moral codes that was thrashed out between human groups but often remarkably similar between cumtures with little connection and certainly different Holy Books that we use. Thus the morality is not derived from the book, but the books based on the human codes - but adapted to favour the group who wrote the Holy Books. In your case, first the Hebrews and then, in the new Testament, the greek Christian and the jews got damned!
Let me make to you a case. Some kids mock an old man's baldness and God sends a bear to tear them to pieces. Is that a good act on the part of God?
You are actually making an appeal to mathematical probability regarding the Exodus yet you dogmatically hold on to a belief system with mathematical odds that are so exponentially unlikely that that are for all intents and purposes considered a statistical impossibility.
Moderator cut: Orphaned
You want to talk about people who hold on to beliefs when you have just traded one belief system for another. And I guarantee that you have not given a fraction of the scrutiny towards the completely UN-scholarly Jesus Myth hypotheses and copy cat accusations as you have towards the system of faith itself
Not to mention that's all a clever diversion away from the fact that there is no basis for saying humans should be held to a higher standard than any other animal if humans are merely the byproduct of nature just like every other animal.
You see here you make a stupid leap from what you think I believe. Yes I do believe in evolution and do not know origins (neither do you, you merely argue from the concept of complexity, hint it is not complex if you have a scientific acumen) Abiogenesis has more plausibility than a godunnit scenario. You simply need simple answers for irrelevant questions.
Nice deflection though. I suppose you will now offer irrefutable proof of creationism, the flood, exodus, Jesus actual existence outside of your bible? I save you the trouble, you can't, there is ZERO proof.
Meanwhile back in reality...
Creationism. A single pair (or three pairs if you believe the silly fludd) cannot breed into existence the diversity of the human race simply b/c of genetic constraints. You lot argue that DNA was purer back then and that is simple BS. DNA has no purity and most of it is dormant genes. It is why they discourage you marrying your 1st cousin. We also know this interbreeding causes genetic problems in closed societies like the Amish, Mennonites etc. Bear in mind when they arrived in the US, there was probably a tad more than 3 pairs and there are still problems.
The flood never happened, similar reason as above plus huge geological evidence globally that it is a myth. The dating of this flood is disproven by living trees older than the myth, remember the waters were there for over a year according to the myth.
Exodus never happened. The laws are borrowed from other cultures and mostly made up by men; there was no mount Sinai deliverance of laws by some fire and smoke god. Your only single artefact that could prove this is true is now conveniently back in heaven
As far as Jesus goes, his lineage traces back through these supposed historical events that never happened all the way to Adam who never existed. It is a myth based on an older myth.
Not to mention that's all a clever diversion away from the fact that there is no basis for saying humans should be held to a higher standard than any other animal if humans are merely the byproduct of nature just like every other animal.
I like to come back to this. I am not so sure that what you are saying is entirely inaccurate. Lets think about animals for a second. In a wolf pack there are defined roles. There are conventions and rules. Yes the Alpha is in charge, but he can and will be deposed when his decisions have a very negatively impact the group or when he is old or injured.
There a re similar social rules in primate groups. Gorillas have a different set of rules governing interactions, what is acceptable or not than wolves or bonobos. A different "morality", if you will.
If we look at human morality, we see a set of rules that govern interactions. It isn't all that dissimilar to animals. Early in our history, primitive man developed these moral rules in the isolation of his own tribe or family group. The morality may often have been centered around how to treat other members of your group. even the Old Testament displays this ethnocentrism. There were different rules for member of the tribe. As different groups encountered each other, traded, interbred, and fought, these moralities were sometime eradicated and some times syncretized into a new moral code that incorporated a variety of ideas.
The question of which moral code is objectively true appears to me to be a meaningless question, because we have no way of objectively measuring the truth of a morality. We might be able to judge its effectiveness in a limited number of ways, but that isn't the same thing.
So we each have to make up our own mind, through a combination of the evolutionary shaping of our instincts and thoughts, our societal conditioning, and our own reason about what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Then we, in turn, influence our societal mores. It is imperfect and certainly not objective, but it is all we have.
So let's use the argument from outrage that is often used by atheists regarding their disapproval of behavior that God either allowed or commanded.
Where is the basis of this outrage beyond their personal feelings? And how do they balance that outrage with outrage of behavior in general without contradicting the concept of moral relativism.
Let's say that it was just personal feelings. Why isn't that enough? I think I understand the basis of your argument and it is the usual one in theism - believing in God a priori. And a God that gives us aspiration, intelligence and morals. Otherwise, where do they come from?
If we cannot produce a fixed authoritative moral code frm nowhere Aka evolution, then we have no explanation and god given moral absolutes must be the default answer.
That incidentally answers this Q.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparksy
iit would seem that the original question, as posed, is not *really* the question?
what exactly, is *really* being asked here?
What is really being asked is the rehetorial evangelical package question, 'How can there be morality without God (incorporating Atheists have no morality)?'
We don't see it like that. Since God - given morality turns out to be relative- indeed, bad is ok if God says so - and the basis we either approve something in the bible or try to explain it away as 'that was man doing that' or 'God had to go with the mores of the time' is that we are using man - made moral codes to evaluate the morality of the Bible.
So if not from the Bible, where does our moral code come from? The basis is survival. We say it is wrong to kill us because it is an evolved survival trait. We devise legal systems to prevent people killing us or harming us or robbing us. All because of evolutionary survival traits. And as other people use them too, we understand a moral and legal code in which everyone (theoretically ) is equal.
Our argument is that a God -given absolute morality derived from the Bible is a fallacy - we use human morality to decide what's a good or bad act in the Bible. We can suggest ways in which human morality developed -evolved instincts made more complex through sociakl evolution and developed problem -solving.
If that seems inadequate explanation, that is too bad. It is the only one we have since a morality derived from the Bible or even God does not answer.
As to the question whether this is cropping up more often,
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Is it just me, or is this question getting flogged an awful lot lately?
And the answer, invariably clear and concise, totally ignored?all these stock questions come up in turn. And we have to give the same answers, often to the same people.
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.
) is equal. 
