U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2013, 10:49 PM
 
259 posts, read 197,028 times
Reputation: 101

Advertisements

Why should mankind not be held to same standard of all other animals of the animal kingdom?

Atheists have no problem applying this to sexual behavior. Human beings don't have to be monogamous or heterosexual because we can see these behaviors in nature.

So given that, why do they hold human beings to other standards?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the life of another human being?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the possessions of another human being?

Why can't a human being eat another human being?

Why can't a human being physically assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another animal?

We see all of these activities in nature.

On what basis should we be held to higher standard?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2013, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
3,923 posts, read 2,725,939 times
Reputation: 1829
Unless you do such things, you already know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2013, 11:13 PM
 
259 posts, read 197,028 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Unless you do such things, you already know.
I know because scripture holds mankind to a higher standard than animals

But if you believe man is just a common animal, why should he be held to a higher standard?

Why don't the laws of the fittest survive apply for humans? What arbitrarily makes human beings held to a different standard if there is no external force holding them to that standard?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2013, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
12,899 posts, read 18,442,586 times
Reputation: 13734
We make our own moral standards. Morality is a human invention and we practice morality because we're human. The same answer explains why Zebras run in herds or why peregrine falcons mate for life or any other trait exhibited by any species. It's part of our innate behavioral "game plan", is just as natural for us as walking on 2 legs and is the end result of millions of years of evolution.

What works for other species works for other species but that doesn't make it right for us and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

If you extended that thought process you would essentially be saying that we should start nuclear fusion in our bodies because stars do it or stand in one place our entire lives and grow tall because trees do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:29 AM
 
259 posts, read 197,028 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
We make our own moral standards. Morality is a human invention and we practice morality because we're human. The same answer explains why Zebras run in herds or why peregrine falcons mate for life or any other trait exhibited by any species. It's part of our innate behavioral "game plan", is just as natural for us as walking on 2 legs and is the end result of millions of years of evolution.

What works for other species works for other species but that doesn't make it right for us and it's silly to suggest otherwise.

If you extended that thought process you would essentially be saying that we should start nuclear fusion in our bodies because stars do it or stand in one place our entire lives and grow tall because trees do it.
The problems with those weak analogies is that we don't have the physical capacity to start nuclear fusion in our bodies or grow like trees

We do have the physical capacity for cannibalism, assault, theft, murder, etc

Yet it is decided that those behaviors are *gasp* morally impermissible for anyone to participate in.

Yet what obligation does one have to those standards if we are just like the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom and we have the physical capacity to perform the same behaviors? And in those behaviors found in nature are even often used to justify human behavior and change perceptions of systems of values?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:47 AM
 
8 posts, read 10,236 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC View Post
Why should mankind not be held to same standard of all other animals of the animal kingdom?

Atheists have no problem applying this to sexual behavior. Human beings don't have to be monogamous or heterosexual because we can see these behaviors in nature.

So given that, why do they hold human beings to other standards?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the life of another human being?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the possessions of another human being?

Why can't a human being eat another human being?

Why can't a human being physically assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another animal?

We see all of these activities in nature.

On what basis should we be held to higher standard?
Simple. Society. We are social animals that have artificially constructed a massive society based on what could be fairly described as a social contract. In nature, our species survived, overcame our relatively weak physical design, and became successful by working together to achieve that which could not be attained alone. As we developed more a advanced social hierarchy, we needed to form rules and regulations that would allow this cooperation to succeed. All morality and all of our "Standards" actually stem from a few simple baselines; what benefits other people in general, what benefits the specific individual, and treating others the way one hopes to be treated in kind.

After all, you don't like having your possessions taken, do you? I'm sure your neighbor doesn't either. What happens if a large enough portion of society gets together and decided that they hate being stolen from? They could enforce regulations declaring thievery as bad for people. Assuming this portion is a powerful enough majority capable of enforcing this new rule, it becomes law and part of our "higher standards".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:47 AM
 
17,853 posts, read 11,749,501 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC View Post
Why should mankind not be held to same standard of all other animals of the animal kingdom?

Atheists have no problem applying this to sexual behavior. Human beings don't have to be monogamous or heterosexual because we can see these behaviors in nature.

So given that, why do they hold human beings to other standards?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the life of another human being?

Why can't human beings arbitrarily take the possessions of another human being?

Why can't a human being eat another human being?

Why can't a human being physically assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another human being?

Why can't a human being sexually assault another animal?

We see all of these activities in nature.

On what basis should we be held to higher standard?
The evolution of empathy.

Unfortunately, rigid fear based religious beliefs often hinder the development and expression of empathy in some humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 12:59 AM
 
259 posts, read 197,028 times
Reputation: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
The evolution of empathy.

Unfortunately, rigid fear based religious beliefs often hinder the development and expression of empathy in some humans.
Empathy developing by arbitrary mutations gives it what authority in human endeavors?
What distinguishes feelings of empathy from other derivations that may include humor and apathy?

If the ultimate goal especially is reproduction of offspring why should one be held at all to standards such as the strong helping the weak which is the complete opposite of survival of the fittest. You're helping others who can compete for your ability to reproduce
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 01:55 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,146,313 times
Reputation: 1785
I am sure the OP wants to discuss gays so lets deal with the list of strawmen he wants us to demolish

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2013, 05:06 AM
 
34,446 posts, read 8,865,664 times
Reputation: 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATTC View Post
The problems with those weak analogies is that we don't have the physical capacity to start nuclear fusion in our bodies or grow like trees

We do have the physical capacity for cannibalism, assault, theft, murder, etc

Yet it is decided that those behaviors are *gasp* morally impermissible for anyone to participate in.

Yet what obligation does one have to those standards if we are just like the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom and we have the physical capacity to perform the same behaviors? And in those behaviors found in nature are even often used to justify human behavior and change perceptions of systems of values?
None. There is no objective reason for us not to behave like animals or rather (since we are animals - primates, and we instinctively behave as such) no objective reason to behave in a better way for all our sakes. And that is the answer. We do have the capacity for a lot of acts and we sometimes give into them. We also sometimes prohibit certain acts on the basis of agreed moral codes and then find out that they need amending.

This process is going on right now -notably with the church having to get in line with the rest of humanity. This is eloquent evidence that we do not get our morality from God - the churches get their morality from us - eventually after a lot of resistance.

Thus morality is not objective, not absolute and not god -given. It is man - made, relative, consensus and based on a lot of evolutionary instincts (which are not necessarily therefore good or useful) and it is pragmatic and flexible.

There are dangers in that of course, but it is foolish and obviously false to claim that without some sort of divine authority for moral codes we should simply ignore them and have civilization fall on our heads.

There is no celestial CCTV to keep us in order and no hellthreat to prevent us doing wrong if we think we can get away with it. If we then follow the rules it is without fear of punishment or hope of reward. That is why we say atheist morality is more meritorious than Christian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top