01 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendPrimates (other than ourselves) show hierarchal organisation, have rules (laws, anyone?) and even have a primative (boom boom) system of policing themselves. Many animals follow rules of this type. It's a basic cost-benefit scenario, which completely pervades all of biology. Primates don't have god as a concept.
Without God, how would one define 'good' or 'bad'? Everything would simply be my opinion or yours. How would any group of people define right from wrong?
And I don't believe collective agreement is a possibility. It might work for where your office mates are going to go to lunch, but without laws, how is one suppose to stop the big guy from just doing what he wants?
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionYeah, well, isn't the christian philosophy to 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'? I reckon god must get a few smacks in the mouth based on how crap he treats everyone else.
And does anybody notice that the 'big guy' seems to be doing pretty much whatever he wants anyway?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo one proclaimed your lack of morals. Everyone has some set by which the adjudge themselves righteous. I judge no one, save myself. However, I cannot imagine a world where God does not exist, and therefore, cannot imagine a world where His rules do not exist. You can take this to mean the rules of nature, or the rules of society. Either of them are shadows of God's character. Were you to find a functioning society which did abide by the main aspects of the laws of divine policy, then you could rightly claim morals are possible without God.
Ah, so THAT'S your moral standpoint to judge all us athiests as immoral, or at least amoral, is it? You can't imagine not believing in god, and since you deem yourself to be moral, all us athiests must be amoral. Excellent.
01 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI guess the billion and a half chinese population (and 121 million Japanese) will have to do it for me then. They seem to do little worse than any other country, yet are predominantly non-christian.
No one proclaimed your lack of morals. Everyone has some set by which the adjudge themselves righteous. I judge no one, save myself. However, I cannot imagine a world where God does not exist, and therefore, cannot imagine a world where His rules do not exist. You can take this to mean the rules of nature, or the rules of society. Either of them are s cts of the laws of divine policy, then you could rightly claim morals are possible without God.
[edit; btw, what IS a "law of divine policy" exactly?]
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGood thing you added the edit. Very simply, they are the rules by which a society must live, in order to maintain its proper function.
I guess the billion and a half chinese population (and 121 million Japanese) will have to do it for me then. They seem to do little worse than any other country, yet are predominantly non-christian.
[edit; btw, what IS a "law of divine policy" exactly?]
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendPremise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules. You have given no reason to think that these rules must come from some external authority like God. It is perfectly possible that such rules may come from considerations of what is in our rational best interest, or from natural sympathetic sentiment, or....
Premise 1: before a group of people can live together peacefully there needs to be an agreed upon set of rules governing their actions
If there isn't , or if the rules are suddenly lifted, we get what we saw in New Orleans after Katrina. It quickly becomes might-makes-right.
Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they ...[text shortened]... (like the animals). Thus they came from someone above him. And that someone is God.
DF
There is no reason to believe premise 3. Even if we grant the tendentious claim that mankind is currently civilized (have you read any history books recently, or turned on the T.V.?), it doesn't follow that mankind must have at any time agreed upon some common set of rules. In fact, it is much more plausible that humans have endorsed different sets of rules, but that happen to have a moderate degree of overlap. Further, the rules we have in fact accepted seem to be justified in different ways by different people. You think it is wrong to murder because God says so. I think it is wrong to murder because one should cultivate compassion as a virtue. If we agree on not murdering (or other rules) we can get along pretty well, even though we disagree about the source of morality.
Anyway, it is false that all men's opinions are equal. If you opine that P is the case, and I opine that not P is the case. Then one of us must be right (i.e., our opinions aren't equal because one of them is false). Further, if you opine that P but can only provide really silly reasons to think that P is true, while I can provide good reasons for thinking that P is false, then our opinions aren't equal (because yours is unjustified and mine is justified).
So, what's your next argument?
(1)....?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is interesting in itself.
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Does this mean Eve did not know it was wrong to disobey God (by eating from the tree) - yet mankind is still being punished for her "mistake"?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageJudge, in the sense of 'who goes to heaven, who goes to hell,' not the 'who should be castrated using rusty scissors and then left bleeding in shark-infested waters' type.
Can't have been you referring to Muslims as "sub-human vermin" then. Or wasn't that a judgement?
No one goes to hell for anything they have committed, no matter how reprehensible the act(s) may be to individuals. However, for those heinous acts, we should be as "creative" as possible in our reward system.
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by dottewellNay. It means she knew she would die if she ate the fruit. First spiritually, then physically. And, we are not 'punished' for her arrogance; we inherited the sin nature from Adam, and are imputed with Adam's original sin. The woman was tricked into eating the fruit, whereas Adam chose the woman over God, thus partook of the fruit to be with her.
This is interesting in itself.
Does this mean Eve did not know it was wrong to disobey God (by eating from the tree) - yet mankind is still being punished for her "mistake"?
(We're kinda silly that way.)
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHShe knew it would have negative consequences for her; but many things have negative consequences for me that are not wrong (sometimes they are right).
Nay. It means she knew she would die if she ate the fruit.
So how did she know it was morally wrong to eat the fruit?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionBut how did those rules get started? How did we go from a might makes right "society" to what we see today? Why was one set of proposed rules accepted by the people over the currently in place set?
[b]Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they must agree the rules come from an authoritative source.
Why must people accept that rules have come from an authoritative source?
...
The authority that we site for our social rules is usually the law. But the law is an agreed upon set of rules created by ... us. That is, w ...[text shortened]... ve created the rules by which we live.
(Well not me of course, or you, but our forbears.)
...[/b]
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGood point. But which of those primates (or horses or ...) are in charge? The largest/strongest of them. They live in a might-makes-right society. If you don't like it, you can challenge the big guy.
Primates (other than ourselves) show hierarchal organisation, have rules (laws, anyone?) and even have a primative (boom boom) system of policing themselves. Many animals follow rules of this type. It's a basic cost-benefit scenario, which completely pervades all of biology. Primates don't have god as a concept.
I believe civilized peole are beyond might-makes-right.
DF