WP: What Atheists Can't Answer

[alexey]

The golden rule is only as good as the person applying it. It's not morality at all, it's a sliding scale saying "be as big a dick to everyone as you yourself are willing to tolerate." By that standard a person that doesn't believe in honesty when sex is concerned is morally justified in lying his/her ass off to get laid. By that standard a person that believes "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying" is morally justified in cheating everyone he does business with because that's how the game should be played in his mind.

Congrats on getting to a rule that doesn't govern morality at all - it's only a basic description of social interaction.

I am not talking about individuals applying these rules as they see fit. I am talking about a guiding principle on which the whole thing would reside.

In other words, you understood me to talk about the lowest common denominator while I was talking about the highest common denominator.

[Destino]

For any society to hold together there has to be a level of mutual respect. For the earliest societies to function and survive it seems reasonable that early humans had to evolve behaviors that allowed co-existence.

Self interest allows co-existence and it certainly doesn't require respect. I'll work along side a murderer rapist if we happen to be stranded somewhere and need eachother to get out alive. Moment the situation changes however, he's screwed. Survival and the need for companionship of any kind allow for human co-existance. It does not however lead to peaceful advanced society.

A moral standard and punishment for breaking the codes (read: law and justice) are required for humans to form beneficial societies. Without laws stopping people from killing eachother how long do you think it would take for morning rush hour to become a massive murder scene? 1 day? 1 year?

[Corcaigh]

Congratulations! Worst argument of the thread so far. :applause:

Also, sidenote, 2 of the 3 were DEVOUTLY religious.

His argument must be that traits developed through evolution must be strong enough to overcome psychopathic behavior. :laugh:

[chomerics]

Is it necessary to assume that God came first? I submit that it is equally plausible in the context of this morality discussion that belief in God is a byproduct of a natural evolution toward harmony in a species that relies on the health and well-being of the group. The lawless groups that murder and steal from each other with impugnity do not last, and the ones with rules do. The rules come about, and later God develops as the "answer" to a question that humans do not have the capacity to answer.

You have it backwards here. . .God is developed to take up the need of the unknown, and to explain the universe for people who do not have a grasp on it. The rules seen in the bible are Draconian and a joke. Just read Leviticus for a great example of how backwards god's rules are.

Religion is a way of humanity coming to grips with things such as death and life. It is a way people can honor those that came before them, and remember their spirit. It is no however a morality code for social behavior, that comes from social evolution, not a fable written 2000 years ago.

[DCsportsfan53]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

I don't know about that, Destino. Isn't it already pretty much entirely opinion? I don't think you can find two people in the entire world who have the exact same view and understanding of morality. It varies from person to person as it is. I think it's ridiculous to claim that morality as we know it would break down entirely without religion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which church? Your church or one of the thousands of others?

Church universal, of course by that I mean Christian faith, but then I know I'm biased here.

Believe it or not, many have come before with different explanations. Yours is just in it's Britney Spears circa 2000 stage. Soon enough, it'll be Britney 07 and a new, hot young religion or sect of your own religion will come to replace it.

LOL, yeah, 200 year old branch of a 2000 year old sect of the Jewish Faith not to mention the thousands of years of the Abrahamic faith, yeah, we're a real blip on the historical radar. Get a history book.

[DCSaints_fan]

Ok, lets go, what's conflicted, you can't honestly think that we're gonna let a comment like that slide.

Well if you are speaking of the Abrahamic God, then would you think genocide is acceptable? Or how about simply killing all the male inhabitants of a civilization and taking young maidens as concubines?

Sure it does, because it is the only theing that explains the why.

No, not really. At present, nothing in my opinion explains the 'why' of human behavior to a satisfactory degree. Psychology/sociology/biology are not there yet. I think that within the century genetics will be able to explain quite a bit, but then you also have the environment to deal with as well.

[DCsportsfan53]

What are the constants of morality that have existed throughout history? Everyone wants to pick on particulars of culture, instead of focusing on the constants. Also, the thing about morality as a religious endeavor is that it requires devotion and use of will, whereas atheistic morality would suggest that all behave in moral ways simply as a reaction to their human evolutionary development.

Ok, just answer this question. If morality is determined by God and he gave it to us, how is marrying a 22 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl COMPLETELY horrendous and unnaceptable today but worldwide commonplace 200 years ago. Did God change his mind or did morality adapt to the changing conditions of the human experience?

[Destino]

The idea that morality is evolved is ridiculous on it's face. Remove the laws and system of justice from the US for one year. Someone want to tell me it would still be a happy place? I mean our sense of morality is evolved right... so it's not like we'd see a massive upswing in rape, murder, theft, and just about every other immoral and violent act. right?

Nonsense. A human is always at war with his more primal instancts. A system of morality and a system of laws and justice above that keeps people civil and advanced. Strip away rule books and leave humans to their own devices relying on their "evolved" traits to guide them and the world would turn into a decidedly immoral place.

[PleaseBlitz]

Church universal, of course by that I mean Christian faith, but then I know I'm biased here.

Well, according to the Pope, only the Catholic church is a real church.

[DCsportsfan53]

Church universal, of course by that I mean Christian faith, but then I know I'm biased here.

LOL, yeah, 200 year old branch of a 2000 year old sect of the Jewish Faith not to mention the thousands of years of the Abrahamic faith, yeah, we're a real blip on the historical radar. Get a history book.

In the grand scheme of things, **** yeah you are. Civilization is still but a blip on the history of mankind, let alone the histroy of our planet. :2cents: 200 years is nothing, nor is 2000 or 5000.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Congratulations! Worst argument of the thread so far. :applause:

Also, sidenote, 2 of the 3 were DEVOUTLY religious.

LOL you're funny, first of all because Saddam used religious language does not mean he was religious, in fact many claim he had no faith at all. Oh, and by the way my point was that they have over-riddin their evolutionary moralitiy to do the horrible things that they did. Sorry, you didn't understand.

[Corcaigh]

Self interest allows co-existence and it certainly doesn't require respect. I'll work along side a murderer rapist if we happen to be stranded somewhere and need eachother to get out alive. Moment the situation changes however, he's screwed. Survival and the need for companionship of any kind allow for human co-existance. It does not however lead to peaceful advanced society.

Short term I agree, but not long term. Short-term survival with a murderer rapist is hardly a definition of a society.

A moral standard and punishment for breaking the codes (read: law and justice) are required for humans to form beneficial societies. Without laws stopping people from killing eachother how long do you think it would take for morning rush hour to become a massive murder scene? 1 day? 1 year?

I agree that morals and laws are important for a functioning society. I just don't agree that these morals and laws have to be given by a supreme being.

[Destino]

I don't know about that, Destino. Isn't it already pretty much entirely opinion? I don't think you can find two people in the entire world who have the exact same view and understanding of morality. It varies from person to person as it is. I think it's ridiculous to claim that morality as we know it would break down entirely without religion.

Doesn't really matter what your view is, you never made the choice to raise yourself a certain way. An athiest raised in a war torn region of the world in a society that doesn't value women at all, is not going to have the same moral view as an american athiest from the middle class.

All moral opinions differ, but where you got your sense of morality is never your choice. That's why those claiming they don't need a certain rule book when they are very clearly influenced by it is such a fraud. It's cherry picking based on what they WANT the rules to be, but it's certainly not the same thing as doing away with moral concepts entirely.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In the grand scheme of things, **** yeah you are. Civilization is still but a blip on the history of mankind, let alone the histroy of our planet. :2cents:

History of mankind, how do you figure? especially when my faith predates "history" properly stated.

[PokerPacker]

Again this article is trying to talk about why we have this common sense, where it comes from

Does it come from evolutionary behaviors and chemicals in our brain or does it come from a higher being?

I have met plenty of atheists who I say are far more moral then many of the religious people I have met. It doesn't matter if you believe or not, but where does this internal instinct come from?

maybe because of our complex understanding of cause-and-effect. If you aren't bound by official law and you go around killing people, what will that get you? that'll only make more people who are out to kill you. if you form a group (say, a tribe?) of people with the idea that you will protect each other from being killed by other people, you are more likely to succeed. thus, those who live in tribes live on to reproduce and the tribe grows. as the tribe grows, laws are put into place to make sure everyone is doing their part in the tribe.

The people themselves aren't evolving, but their society is evolving for the betterment of all of them. each of these individual formed societies will have different morals, and the people raised by these societies will share the morals of their own given society. right and wrong are ingrained in us as we are little and becomes a huge part of who we are.

[chomerics]

Also, the thing about morality as a religious endeavor is that it requires devotion and use of will, whereas atheistic morality would suggest that all behave in moral ways simply as a reaction to their human evolutionary development.

You need devotion and will to know you should not kill someone? You need religion to tell you that sleeping with your friends wife is wrong? If you did not believe in god, would you all of a sudden become a rampart serial killer? Would you cheat on your wife and sleep with your friend's wife? Of course you wouldn't so where does that morality come from? Not from an invisible man, but from social evolution.

[alexey]

The idea that morality is evolved is ridiculous on it's face. Remove the laws and system of justice from the US for one year. Someone want to tell me it would still be a happy place? I mean our sense of morality is evolved right... so it's not like we'd see a massive upswing in rape, murder, theft, and just about every other immoral and violent act. right?

Saying that morality has evolved is not the same as saying that morality has evolved to the point where laws and enforcement of laws is not needed. Your example shows that we are not "there" yet, but it does not show that morality failed to evolve.

Nonsense. A human is always at war with his more primal instancts. A system of morality and a system of laws and justice above that keeps people civil and advanced. Strip away rule books and leave humans to their own devices relying on their "evolved" traits to guide them and the world would turn into a decidedly immoral place.

You are giving an example of "we are not there yet" and trying to derive "we have not moved at all" from it. :2cents:

[PokerPacker]

You are looking at this issue on way too personal a basis. The question isn't can YOU make moral choices without God. You were raised in a society that has adopted moral concepts from somewhere, in this case Judeo-Christian concepts of morality. So while you can choose not to be religious at all a sense of morality has already been provided.

Now zoom out and look at it from a larger social perspective. Where does a society get it's sense of morality if there is no mostly agreed upon template. Suddenly there is no objective morality at all, it's entirely opinion. What's the effect of that over the years. What does it look like 10 generations from now.

you can't start with a giant society and strip it of values, societies start small and personal. the simplest of things are agreed upon first. as the society grows, so do the concepts of what is moral and what isn't. it doesn't all happen at once. this is, once again, social evolution.

[Bliz]

LOL you're funny, first of all because Saddam used religious language does not mean he was religious, in fact many claim he had no faith at all. Oh, and by the way my point was that they have over-riddin their evolutionary moralitiy to do the horrible things that they did. Sorry, you didn't understand.

Hitler was the second one, not Saddam. Although in looking for a link to back it up, apparently a lot of pepole think he was only paying lip-service to Christianity. But here's an article about it anyway.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm

You're right, I don't understand your point. It applies equally regardless of whether morality comes from evolution or from God, so I fail to see how it's actually a "point" at all.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You need devotion and will to know you should not kill someone? You need religion to tell you that sleeping with your friends wife is wrong? If you did not believe in god, would you all of a sudden become a rampart serial killer? Would you cheat on your wife and sleep with your friend's wife? Of course you wouldn't so where does that morality come from? Not from an invisible man, but from social evolution.

Pick up and read the newspaper, watch the news, apparently not everyone shares your highly developed evolutionary morality, because the things you describe are rampantly occuring in this "godless" society.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You're right, I don't understand your point. It applies equally regardless of whether morality comes from evolution or from God, so I fail to see how it's actually a "point" at all.

The point is that if morality is an evolutionary development then how in the world did those men and so many others violate that morality so horribly? This is the question that atheists cannot answer, the theistic argument of a fallen nature can and does.

[Bliz]

Pick up and read the newspaper, watch the news, apparently not everyone shares your highly developed evolutionary morality, because the things you describe are rampantly occuring in this "godless" society.

Your arguments are ridiculous. They're no better than me pointing to burning of "witches" by puritans, the crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, or any of the other atrocities carried out in the name of God by devout "moral" Christians

[Corcaigh]

The point is that if morality is an evolutionary development then how in the world did those men and so many others violate that morality so horribly? This is the question that atheists cannot answer, the theistic argument of a fallen nature can and does.

I'll make my point again ... these men were psychopaths, much like other deeply religious men such as the BTK serial killer.

A god-given morality, or a religious faith, or an evolutionary trait, will not overcome a psychopathic condition.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your arguments are ridiculous. They're no better than me pointing to burning of "witches" by puritans, the crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, or any of the other atrocities carried out in the name of God by devout "moral" Christians

Again perfect examples of people who got it horribly wrong, which should be impossible for "social evolution" or evolutionary morality. Remember it would be against their DNA or their hardwired brain to do these horrible things. I can explain their actions, but atheism cannot because the very point that morality is developed by evolution is found lacking when evolutionary developed people so horribly violate their evolution by acting so terribly.