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.
So what? If there is no purpose for them to exist . . . they are accidents. If accidents are incredibly cooperative and competitive or the opposite . . . what does it matter?
Matter to whom? To the species that gain a survival benefit from cooperation, it matters a great deal.
Quote:
Why should existence or non-existence matter for accidents in the grand scheme of things?
Which specific "grand scheme of things"?
Quote:
Does this mean you believe there IS a purpose for our existence?
Purpose in what sense? I'm guessing any answer we give is going to be met with "but that's not a real purpose compared to believing in the god I saw in a dream".
Matter to whom? To the species that gain a survival benefit from cooperation, it matters a great deal.
So what?
Quote:
Which specific "grand scheme of things"?
The existential one.
Quote:
Purpose in what sense? I'm guessing any answer we give is going to be met with "but that's not a real purpose compared to believing in the god I saw in a dream".
Wrong . . . but predictable. You know . . . as I SAID a raison d'etre.
In your "response" you simply pointed out the obvious need for a code. I do certainly agree that society needs a moral code. Christianity provides the basis for such a code.
Eh, no. Christianity doesn't bring anything to table of morality that didn't already exist long before the Christ myth and its cult was dreamt of. In fact history demonstrates that much of what we today consider moral and just had be gained in CONFLICT with Christian and Biblical morality.
Yes, Christianity does provide the basis for a code, but there isn't anything terribly unique in the Christian version than anyone else's including societies which are completely apathetic to the concept of an omnipotent god.
Quote:
Again, what would be the basis for your required code?
Once again, the law, tradition, and social indoctrination.
Quote:
In the absence of a transcendent and eternal being, upon what foundation would you establish a moral code for society?
Reason, pretty much the same way that all moral codes have been formulated including the Abrahamic narratives.
You've just nailed the reason for the wide chasm between Christians and atheists.
What, that atheist are articulate and Christians are not? Even as an atheist I find that hard to believe, so I prefer to think that in this case it is just one lone Christian who can't articulate their point.
What, that atheist are articulate and Christians are not? Even as an atheist I find that hard to believe, so I prefer to think that in this case it is just one lone Christian who can't articulate their point.
Yes, Christianity does provide the basis for acode, but there isn't anything terribly unique in the Christian version than anyone else's including societies which are completely apathetic to the concept of an omnipotent god.
This conversation is going totally over your head. You are either totally missing the unique feature or pretending not to understand.
The presence of law implies the existence of a law giver.
Christianity has a law giver...in other words, a transcendent basis for the establishment of an absolute morality applicable to all humans.
Please explain what the atheist's equivalent is or would be. Unless you borrow moral capital from the Christian faith, you have no basis for impugning Christianity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Once again, the law, tradition, and social indoctrination.
In the absence of a transcendent eternal being all laws, traditions and "social indoctrination" would by necessity become relative.
This leaves atheists floating in a sea of relativity with no absolute basis for a moral code.
With respect to your OP, people living in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Reason, pretty much the same way that all moral codes have been formulated including the Abrahamic narratives.
Again, the question is not how does one postulate a moral code but what would provide the basis for such a code in the absence of a transcendent eternal being.
Being that you are "fighting the war against stupidity," you may want to go on record here by pointing out the great flaw in the moral argument for God's existence.
This conversation is going totally over your head.You are either totally missing the unique feature or pretending not to understand.
What an original theist argument...
Quote:
The presence of law implies the existence of a law giver.
The city council, the state legislature, the Congress? I suppose in an absolute monarchy there would be one "law giver" but in a democracy the law is arrived at collectively, thus the absence of a "law giver".
Quote:
Christianity has a law giver...in other words, a transcendent basis for the establishment of an absolute morality applicable to all humans.
So you claim.
Quote:
In the absence of a transcendent eternal being all laws, traditions and "social indoctrination" would by necessity become relative.
Well that of course begs the question as to why Christian morality is ever changing, relative, and anything but absolute?
Quote:
Please explain what the atheist's equivalent is or would be. Unless you borrow moral capital from the Christian faith, you have no basis for impugning Christianity.
Here is the funny thing about the supposed monopoly on morality that Christians falsely assume. Go to any society on the planet and you will find proscriptions against murder, bearing false witness, honoring one's parents and elders, and outside of those few societies which don't recognize the concept of private property you will find similar proscription against adultery and theft, all without the benefit of ever reading or hearing about the Moses, the 10 Commandments, the Bible or Heaven and Hell. Now if you don't find that remarkable, I don't know what does.
Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucian thought, animist of all stripes and colors live by a set of basic core moral codes that any human would immediately recognize. That being the case, then the claim of some God given Christian morality loses its exclusivity and with it, the claim of moral superiority.
Quote:
This leaves atheists floating in a sea of relativity with no absolute basis for a moral code.
Just like all of rest of humanity, Christians included, who have never adhered to an absolute code of morality but one that has constantly been shaped and revised ever since we first dragged our sorry buts out of African plains and will continue to be revised and reshaped long into the future.
Quote:
Again, the question is not how does one postulate a moral code but what would provide the basis for such a code in the absence of a transcendent eternal being.
Once again, we think, therefore we reason. Morality is a rational collection of rules and codes of conduct.
Quote:
Being that you are "fighting the war against stupidity," you may want to go on record here by pointing out the great flaw in the moral argument for God's existence.
Thank you for the opportunity.
For the Record
There is no moral argument for the existence of god.
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.
