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 can't see any way to respond to this post. It appears to have nothing to do with my post that was quoted.
You state that there is a concept of morality that we all know of without God. You seem to suggest that it has something to do with not harming others...and that it's just a natural thing. IF there is no God, and that we're all just animals, why do you excuse a lion for eating a zebra, but you find fault with human beings for harming another?
You state that there is a concept of morality that we all know of without God. You seem to suggest that it has something to do with not harming others...and that it's just a natural thing. IF there is no God, and that we're all just animals, why do you excuse a lion for eating a zebra, but you find fault with human beings for harming another?
You state that there is a concept of morality that we all know of without God. You seem to suggest that it has something to do with not harming others...and that it's just a natural thing. IF there is no God, and that we're all just animals, why do you excuse a lion for eating a zebra, but you find fault with human beings for harming another?
Killing for food following a natural instinct vs harming a human being?
Is there a comparison no matter what belief system you have?
You state that there is a concept of morality that we all know of without God. You seem to suggest that it has something to do with not harming others...and that it's just a natural thing. IF there is no God, and that we're all just animals, why do you excuse a lion for eating a zebra, but you find fault with human beings for harming another?
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
"I never said that a person can’t behave morally without a belief in God. Not sure why atheists keep making this claim. I said that without a belief in God a person has no objective standard for morality."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
You will please explain how or why a person without a belief in good "has no objective standard for morality." I don't understand this notion...
Hi LearnMe. If a creator God exists, who created humans and who has moral standards for how he wants those humans to behave, then those moral standards are said to be objective, in that they apply to all humans and supersede all cultural or subjective individual standards of morality.
From an atheistic worldview perspective, for instance, the view is that people/cultures agree upon standards of morality based on biological or socially advantageous reasons, but these reasons are not objective standards, in that they can change depending on the culture or historical context.
Really? I wonder what this history was all about then...
The Monkey Law
In 1925, a high school science teacher named John Scopes was arrested, tried, and convicted of the crime of teaching evolution to his class in a public school in the state of Tennessee. Under a law known as The Butler Act, Tennessee had put an outright ban on the teaching of evolution in public schools. The Scopes Trial, as it became known, lasted just eight days, at the end of which the jury reached their verdict in less than ten minutes. But that week produced one of the most memorable, landmark legal cases in U.S. history, made the American Civil Liberties Union a household name, and forever changed how the American public viewed science education.
The Butler Act remained intact for almost another fifty years after Scopes, only to be repealed in 1967 after being challenged by another young science teacher: Gary L. Scott, who had been fired for teaching evolution at a high school in Jacksboro, Tennessee. Having challenged the constitutionality of the law and succeeded, once the repeal in Tennessee was signed, other states that had similar legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools followed suit. But there was never really any reprieve: even today, almost a century after the Scopes trial, the fight to teach evolution in public schools is far from being over.
Hi LearnMe. If a creator God exists, who created humans and who has moral standards for how he wants those humans to behave, then those moral standards are said to be objective, in that they apply to all humans and supersede all cultural or subjective individual standards of morality.
From an atheistic worldview perspective, for instance, the view is that people/cultures agree upon standards of morality based on biological or socially advantageous reasons, but these reasons are not objective standards, in that they can change depending on the culture or historical context.
But you have yet to prove that to tens of millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other established belief systems.
Further, there are few objective rules/laws even in the bible, and especially as noted in the vast differences in tone between the god of the OT and the god of the NT.
OK...let's go slow. You said that people have morality without God. How is that?
That's not what I said. I said that people behave with the same morality even if they live in places where God isn't part of their religious culture. That's an observable fact. Are you denying that people in India, Japan and China behave morally?
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.
