20 Apr 16
Originally posted by whodeyIt didn't change because Christ entered the world, Christ created the world. God changes
After Christ entered the world, morality changed in large part. Charity was then seen as a virtue. Helping the weak and poor became "good" instead of crushing them for personal gain. Of course, people continue to destroy the poor but at least the general morality within society sees this as "wrong" even if they are not religious.
all of our "reasoning" into seeking Him verse coming up with what feels good at the time.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI think some people think a kind of Law of Good Behavior or Law of Right and Wrong naturally was created somehow by matter. This explanation excludes anything outside of the universe being the source of such a principle in man's conscience.
Assuming life arose from non-life with no supernatural intervention, and according to the survival of the fittest principal, why have humans created the concept of right and wrong? And why do people feel guilty if they have done something wrong?
I don't know how they would explain how matter could create a Law. I don't know how atoms would arrange themselves suddenly to bring about a moral law as to how men and women ought to ethically behave.
What do you think Fetchmyjunk ?
20 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd I think if there was such a Law worthy of a capital letter, then it would be obeyed instead of the rather bad behaviour we have seen from you in this thread. Clearly no such Law exists.
I think some people think a kind of Law of Good Behavior or Law of Right and Wrong naturally was created somehow by matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
20 Apr 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat we all do not fully live up to the "Law of Good and Bad Conduct" or what have you, does not mean that such does not exist.
And I think if there was such a Law worthy of a capital letter, then it would be obeyed instead of the rather bad behaviour we have seen from you in this thread. Clearly no such Law exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Whether in small or capital letters, we should all recognize that we do not live up to all the OUGHTS that we have in our consciences. The next issue would be, why that is so.
And if you didn't believe in some kind of Law of Good Conduct you would not being attempting to point out that I have violated it. I think your complaint (whether valid or not) betrays that such a law or Law exists for you. And you also assume I agree. Therefore you point out an assumed failure concerning what we supposedly agree about.
And I don't think such a l/Law of Good Conduct or decent behavior is a material matter in the physical realm. I think a Materialist would hold it to be physical.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipLogically if life arose from non-life, morality should be a matter of personal preference. There would be no absolute right or wrong. Another question would be how should you differentiate between right and wrong if right and wrong even exist. Is it by feeling?
I think some people think a kind of Law of Good Behavior or Law of Right and Wrong naturally was created somehow by matter. This explanation excludes anything outside of the universe being the source of such a principle in man's conscience.
I don't know how they would explain how matter could create a Law. I don't know how atoms would arrange them ...[text shortened]... ral law as to how men and women ought to ethically behave.
What do you think Fetchmyjunk ?
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke'Survival of the fittest' still lurks in humanity, but it no longer has most of us clubbing a neighbour over the head to steal his dinosaur steak.
A conscience is arguably mankind's greatest achievement, that we have evolved into beings with the mental ability to analyse and reflect, empathize and regret. Why anybody would want to handover this great achievement to a fictional deity is beyond me.
'Survival of the fittest' still lurks in humanity, but it no longer has most of us clubbing a ne ...[text shortened]... f to one of my slices of toast. I found the dog hiding in the bedroom looking terribly guilty).
If I clubbed you over the head for your steak, why would it be absolutely wrong if I am exercising my right to survival of the fittest?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs I say, 'survival of the fittest' still 'lurks' in humanity, so your right to club me over the head for my steak has be superseded by the progress of our intellectually derived morality that has allowed us to empathize and put ourselves in the place of the person being clubbed. We are now more likely to buy or share the steak.
[b]'Survival of the fittest' still lurks in humanity, but it no longer has most of us clubbing a neighbour over the head to steal his dinosaur steak.
If I clubbed you over the head for your steak, why would it be absolutely wrong if I am exercising my right to survival of the fittest?[/b]
As an atheist, I don't deal in absolutes.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by sonshipAnd that has been explained above as a result of evolution. I see no equivalent explanation coming from theists that fits the observed facts.
Whether in small or capital letters, we should all recognize that we do not live up to all the OUGHTS that we have in our consciences. The next issue would be, why that is so.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, you are confused about what morality is. What we feel we ought to do, is instinctual rather than preference, and or what we actually do, might be a matter of personal preference, but both those are is distinct from morality. Morality is the concept of how we treat others, and as such is as absolute as the concept of love or the concept of happiness. We may disagree on who we love or whether we love or why we love or what we do for love, but the concept itself is not a matter of personal preference. Different things may make us happy, but the concept itself is not a matter of personal preference.
Logically if life arose from non-life, morality should be a matter of personal preference.
21 Apr 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe act of clubbing someone over the head is not "absolutely wrong". If you were attacking me and me family and the only obvious way to defend outselves was to bask your head in, then that would be considered acceptable defensive force. It's circumstantial. However he Jehovah's Witnesses here may hold a different view as they don't believe in self defence; an attitude expressed in their alledged pacifism.
If I clubbed you over the head for your steak, why would it be absolutely wrong if I am exercising my right to survival of the fittest?