hey athiests! i'm chatting with a person from liberty university on yahoo

[Japher]

@Rogan Josh

Reminds me of the scene in Jay and Silent Bob Strikeback:

What the Fvck is the internet!

[MrFun]

He was a famous man who died a year or so ago.

He educated children in the corniest way possible on lessons for children through his own televised show called, "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood." Or some title like that, anyway.

But the point is, you were just being an assh*le.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MrFun
But the point is, you were just being an assh*le.

Hmmm... I thought it was you being an *******?

Anyway, I thought you liked *******s?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Hmmm... I thought it was you being an *******?

Anyway, I thought you liked *******s?

I am not going to play along with your game.

Instead, I'm just going to ignore you, so I can respect the wishes of the moderators on this particular day.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The first one is fair enough as a definition though, but what makes you think that other people want the same things out of life as you do?

Observation over time. Deal with someone that way you'd like to be dealt with. Observe result. Adjust game plan accordingly. In time, you can be 'good' to people without forcing your definition of 'good' on them.

Do you mean that you think morals are somehow transcendant? That they are not manufactured, but fixed laws of nature? hmmmm. I had always thought the atheist viewpoint would be that they come from man (e.g. a consequence of evolution - everyone benefits if we have a code to order ourselves by, so it is evolutionarily programmed into us).

I have no problem with morality being the 'whim' of God.

I do hold that morals are manufactured by culture with a foundation based on our nature as a species.

The question was about where morality comes from for a religious person. If morality is the 'whim' of God then morality is a useless concept. If God were to command the death of all redheads, most people would, rightly, say that is immoral. However, if 'good' is whatever God says it is, that morality is His 'whim', then the genocide of redheads must, be definition, be a moral thing to do. Ah, but some would say, God is good and therefore would not command such a thing! Irrevelant. By 'good' being whatever God says is good, then saying God is good adds nothing to the argument. You're just repeating yourself. With morality being the 'whim' of God and good being dependent on what God says is good, than any action becomes morally permissible if God so commands it. Such as morality is meaningless as it allows for even the most horrific acts to be considered 'good'. By having your morality rest soley on the thoughts of another, no matter how powerful or wise that other is, you give up your right to be an autonomous moral agent and thus cannot be considered a moral person.

Ah, but what if you hold my position and say that morality is the result of cultural interaction with evolutionary factors. I used it to get out of the arguement so surely you can. No. The belief in God gets in the way again. Whether our evolution was guided by God or merely set in motion by God, He has played an influence in the moral system we must now work with. So if those morals we develop were made directly by him, we've got the problem laid out in he paragraph above. We can't be considered moral agents. If, however, morals exist independent of God and He merely used them as a template, well, there's no need for us to deal with God as we can get morality without needing religion. God is thus either amoral and a stealer of our freedom to be moral or unnecessary.

[Japher]

It ain't always better to give than to receive

[Rogan Josh]

I understand where you are coming from (I think) but why is it 'better' to take your morals from a universal law than from a God? What difference does it make (to your morality) that God is capable of free-will?

After all, the transcendent morality may be state that it is OK to murder redheads after 12pm tonight (while it had been immoral for all of time before) and you will wake up tomorrow with an inexplicable urge.

Why are you more 'autonomous' when the law is 'transcendent' than when it comes from God - you are still obeying arbitrary external commands which tell you right from wrong?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this is why California is probably the best State in the US. Are you converting your latinos into heathens as well ?

Spiffor, you speak only the truth.

[Japher]

I understand where you are coming from (I think) but why is it 'better' to take your morals from a universal law than from a God? What difference does it make (to your morality) that God is capable of free-will?

Good point. As, IMO, religion began as the "first" law todays law IS transcended from religion. Then, with all us atheists, muslims, christians, jews, etc. trying to get along in a country that came down from such religion we choose to not only ignore but denounce and spite our origins (more so the origins of the country itself)...

Laws, Commandments, Rules... whatever you call them they are still the samething and are still enforceable in their own unique ways. Yet, RJ, I wouldn't call them arbitrary. Rather they attempt to define "universal freedom" and "personal rights" as best to its ability... Most do stem from the golden rule idealogy.

I think the biggest problem with religion (or lack their of) is when the laws of it conflict with the laws of the land such that they cannot be ignore, and a small minority yells so loud about it that a democratic nation is forced to contradict themselves and lash out...

Man, I hate the ACLU...

Anyway, Religion and Law are the same thing. One is not better then the other, and they need to learn to get along better.

[MRT144]

i think law is better than religion for only the fact that lawyers dont go around killing people in the name of the law.

[Japher]

Death Penalty ppl would disagree...

IMO, Law is better because it reflects what the people want and is not determine through a "devine" anything.

Yet, religion is generally something in todays democracy that is not forced on someone, but is only found if sought.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
It ain't always better to give than to receive

I'd agree since BJs are a notable exception of where it is better to recieve.

[Japher]

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Starchild

So thank you Lincoln, for your part in helping further my personal belief system.

No problem.

[Lincoln]

Basing one's morality on the laws of nature reminds me of something I saw yesterday. A hornet was sucking the life blood out of the neck of another bug without mercy. That is the law of nature without all of the fancy justifications.

By the way when one is discussing the law of God he must remember that almost all the prophets argued with God and he even invited us to "come and let us reason together". He does have the last word of course but to say that he ignores the opinions of people who really want to do good is not true. Jonah more or less told God to get lost. Abraham also accused God of not caring. God did not strike either of them dead but he did invite them to prove that their morality was better than his. Many think that their particular form of morality is better than God's but they don't have all the information and wisdom that God has so they really cannot know for sure.