Moral argument for the existence of God (agnostics, protestant, divorce)

[TheDusty]

I have to disagree that absolute morality is a thing.

I know big examples are things like murder, rape, and pedophilia; these are all things that if you wandered America asking if people thought these were ok, you'd get a consistent 'no's. But there are places (be it modern day or historical) that do things that we would consider very immoral. In various parts of the Middle East, arranged marriages allow grown men to marry 8 years old. I just found out about a story where an 8 year old girl died because of damage done during sexual intercourse with a grown man. If that happened in America, the man would be condemned as a terrible human being, but in some parts of the world, it's not really given much thought.

Morality is entirely objective. It's weird to think about, but we don't know if rape is wrong or not. We think about it and say to ourselves that no one should be able to force someone to have sex. That makes sense. To us.

So let's talk about murder. We would all agree (I assume) that an individual can't decide rather a person should live or die; that it's wrong to kill others. Is though? Should we have the right to kill people we don't like? Do we actually have any obligation to care about the well being of others, especially if we have no value in them?

The thing that bugs me about religious people and their absolute morality is that it's not entirely absolute. The Bible is clear: don't kill people. So why does it happen all the time in the Bible, sometimes even by God? And rape? Rape occurs a lot, and their methods of handling it are... bad. According to Biblical law, a man who rapes an unmarried woman is not punished. The woman must marry the man and the man pays the woman's father a small fine. If a man rapes a married woman, both the man and the woman are stoned to death.

Speaking of that, the Bible is pretty sexist. I don't mean that to offend anyone, but it's very clearly saying that a woman should submit to the wishes of a man. Very few Conservative Christians would really force this; but they will force things like absolute morality and traditional marriage. Why?

And I don't have an answer to that. It really doesn't make sense to me. When people deal with absolute morality from the Bible, they rarely look at the whole thing; rather just bits and pieces that fit well with their argument. That's to say, they will bring up that God made man for woman and woman for man to argue against same sex marriage, yet few would every say rapists should be required to marry their victims (or rather rape victims marrying their rapist).

So, in conclusion, I don't think there is absolute morality. There's logical morality. We shouldn't kill because we wouldn't want to be killed. To me, that's how morality would work best. If you don't want people to do X to you, you won't do X to them.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by TheDusty

Speaking of that, the Bible is pretty sexist. I don't mean that to offend anyone, but it's very clearly saying that a woman should submit to the wishes of a man.

Not to worry. There have been more than a few eyeball-rattling sexist posts on this board. Caused by eyeball-rattling sexist religious beliefs.

Welcome aboard (I'm already enjoying your posts) and buckle up.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

If there is an understanding of goodness in your DNA it is a product of evolution, not god....

A question for the religious....Do you consider the genital mutilation of children moral?

(I suspect that this question will go unanswered)

Something that evolves had a beginning, a source. What is the source of goodness?

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by manderly6

I guess god didn't do a great job of implanting everyone's DNA.

God gave us free will.

[rifleman]

1. DNA's well-documented but non-lethal mutations have obviously and "bio-trackably " (Oh my!) provided the necessary genomes to be tested.

2) Those that might also facilitate essentially positive influences on a species' ultimate survival will flourish and thereby further promote the survival of later generations.

3) Those later-surviving generations will, obviously and logically, "tend" to pass on positive survival attributes that are DNA based.

ERGO: The effects of ongoing genetic mutations has the possible continuing effect of evolving (i.e.: facilitating) a species' future success.

Where am I wrong?

[manderly6]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

God gave us free will.

Nice argument.

Morality comes from god. Any evidence that would counter that is explained away by free will.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

Something that evolves had a beginning, a source. What is the source of goodness?

That question has already been answered...It's not my failing if you don't understand the answer.......How about answering my question..Is mutilating children's genitals moral?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Vizio

Please give me an example of when it would be ok to torture babies for your personal pleasure.

Why is it you people always go for the example of attacking, torturing or raping children? There are so many other possible examples you could use but it is almost invariably this one. You theists really are obsessed with the concept of interfering negatively with children.

However as I pointed out already, what you are doing here is cherry picking a point of mass consensus and using that one cherry picked example to try and contrive a position that it is an "absolute". It is a manufactured canard. No more.

Consensus != Absolute. Once you learn that tiny fact most of the errors you are making on this thread will correct themselves and you will cease to be so wrong, so often.

Originally Posted by Vizio

I've repeatedly said no, there isn't. And an atheistic worldview cannot account for such moral absolutes.

Because there is nothing to account for. You have simply made something up out of nowhere, based on zero evidence, and demanded we account for it's existence. Until you prove X actually exists then our "worldview" does not have to account for X.

If however all you can do is make stuff up and run away then I am unsure what you feel needs to be accounted for.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

But it does leave the possibility.

As was pointed out to you already... no one is dismissing the _possibility_. But possibility != Credible. And possibility != Likely. And possibility != Substantiated.

You would also have to concede that it is _possible_ that a pink VW microbus could materialize out of nowhere later today and fall on you and kill you. But acknowledging it is _possible_ in no way suggests it is likely, credible, or that we should take it even slightly seriously.

The same is true of the god hypothesis. You can call it "possible" until you turn blue and fall over. At no point in that process however has the idea there is a god become credible, likely, substantiated, or a proposition for which there is even a modicum of a reason to take seriously. It is just something you have made up out of nowhere.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

There had to have been an inate understanding of good vs. evil for morality to develop.

Why? Because you say so? I see no reason that it "had to have been" this way. At all. Making things up and declaring they "had to have been" that way does not an argument make son.

Originally Posted by jimmiej

Something that evolves had a beginning, a source. What is the source of goodness?

Once again you make the error of acting like "goodness" is something that actually exists. There is no reason to think it does. You, like your cohort Vizio, are simply making things up out of nowhere and demanding we account for them.

"Goodness" is just a label we use to identify things we find conducive to the successful outcome of the project we call society. It is a label. The label is not meant to indicate a thing that actually exists.

It seems to be a linguistic problem for you. Language is made up of many labels for things that do not actually exist in any way. Words like "cold" and "Hole" define things that actually do not exist but they are useful labels to us all the same.

Similarly "Good" "Bad" "Right" "wrong" "evil" are all just labels we use which have utility but do not indicate things that actually exist in any way.

Our species wishes to avoid pain. Therefore the vast majority of us wish to live in a society built around the concept of avoiding it and not perpetuating it. We LABEL things that match that goal as "Good" and "Right. We LABEL things that go against that goal as "Wrong" and "Bad" and "Evil".

At no point however are we suggesting that "Good" and "bad" and "Evil" actually exist. That is just something you theists do in order to manufacture a contrived conundrum which you feel stumps atheists when in fact it does nothing but make you look desperate.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Well I've been right on topic and you've ignored every post answering your question.

People who are used to preaching to a captive audience don't like it when you drag them off script.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Vizio

and once again, you CONTINUE to try to drag this off topic. God did not command Abraham to torture Isaac, for his pleasure or anyone else's.

So it wouldn't be pleasing to god if Abraham followed his command and really didn't mean to tell him to kill his son in the first place? Looks like an example of God acting despite his knowledge of what is moral. This is really strange - if these alleged moral absolutes can be violated at will even by a perfectly moral being, what in the world does absolute even mean?