Atheistic forms of morality

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Elok
GePap (and others, for now; breakfast waits for no man): I'm not just talking about grand villainy here. There are plenty of minor evils: blackmail, forgery, spreading false rumors about one's competitors, promise-breaking, identity theft, bandwidth-looting, manipulating emotionally vulnerable women for sex, you name it. Some of them aren't even illegal.

As GePap has pointed out, societal norms dictate what is immoral, because culturally we're still apes living in small trust-bonded groups. Breaches of trust (or rather failing to punish breaches of trust) are discouraged at a really fundamental level of human behaviour. It doesn't have to be rational, it just has to work.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drogue



Where does God come into morality?

Judging by the god of the Old Testament and the god favoured by some extreme Christians, anywhere it feels like.

Mass murder, deliberate calculated infliction of cruelty, genocide- all is grist to the mill for the angry vengeful jealous god.

I much prefer the gods of the ancient pre-Christian civilizations, who seem and act human for all their supposed divinity, prey to the same temptations and follies and vanities.

But at least they're honest about it...

[Bill3000]

Monotheism is boring.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Bill3000
Monotheism is boring.

Less boring if you're on the sharp end of its 'missionary' and 'civilizing' activities.

Then it's interesting in the Chinese curse sense.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Judging by the god of the Old Testament and the god favoured by some extreme Christians, anywhere it feels like.

Mass murder, deliberate calculated infliction of cruelty, genocide- all is grist to the mill for the angry vengeful jealous god.

I much prefer the gods of the ancient pre-Christian civilizations, who seem and act human for all their supposed divinity, prey to the same temptations and follies and vanities.

But at least they're honest about it...

You seem to think that the true God has no right to be angry? The fact of the matter is that our lives belong to God and He will end them, prosper them, alter them, or do whatever to them as He so pleases. He continues to punish civilizations, its not just Biblical. We need only look at the Tsunami to see what happened in SE Asia recently. God continues to judge among the nations, and will continue to do so until the last day. God is active, interested, and watchful over all men. This is a world of plague and disasters because of the sins of men, don't blame God if He decides to judge them.

[loinburger]

Most of my "moral axioms" (or whatever) are built into language -- murder is bad because that's how it's defined, charity is good because that's how it's defined, etc. When language changes then moral axioms change along with it, and vice versa.

I can try to play games with language to try to get around the axioms -- e.g., "it's not really stealing if it's from a big faceless corporation," "it's not really murder if the victim is a violent criminal," etc. The degree to which I really believe my word games determines how guilty I feel. If enough people play the same word games, then the language/moral code may shift as a result.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

As GePap has pointed out, societal norms dictate what is immoral, because culturally we're still apes living in small trust-bonded groups. Breaches of trust (or rather failing to punish breaches of trust) are discouraged at a really fundamental level of human behaviour. It doesn't have to be rational, it just has to work.

This idea that we descend from the apes is total nonsense. God created the heavens and the earth. Evolution is a religion and is not proven. It looks at the evidence, and then hypothesizes an explanation of its own that fits together all the data- but ITS JUST ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE DATA. Creationism has developed its own equally plausible explanation of the data. Men's lives are informed by presuppositions, we assume what we want into the data to see it our own way.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


You seem to think that the true God has no right to be angry? The fact of the matter is that our lives belong to God and He will end them, prosper them, alter them, or do whatever to them as He so pleases. He continues to punish civilizations, its not just Biblical. We need only look at the Tsunami to see what happened in SE Asia recently.

Righty-ho. I did think that anger was a sin, though....

God is love indeed. Tough love, obviously...

Interesting that you think he 'punishes' civilizations. If god were to punish Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists, then a tsunami seems a rather inadequate way to do it.

A communicable painful disease with numerous vectors and disgusting symptoms seems a much better idea.

Has god run out of those ? Used them all up in Pharaonic Egypt and against the Assyrians ?

Evolution is a religion

Just plain bonkers.

[loinburger]

I would like it if Philosophiser would take his thread-jack elsewhere.

[BeBMan]

I thought its CivNation anyway.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by loinburger
I would like it if Philosophiser would take his thread-jack elsewhere.

Translation of the above quote: Everyone except Bible professing Christians have the right to tout their views.

Another Translation: I hate God. I don't want to submit to the rule of Jesus Christ. I don't want to believe. I'd rather pretend that my reason is good enough and can figure it all out.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Philosophiser


Translation: Everyone except Bible professing Christians have the right to tout their views.

Another Translation: I hate God so will even resort to smear tactics to get him out of my mind.

Translation: have soapbox and dogma, will rant and rave AND GET THINGS WRONG.

In no sense is the theory of evolution a religion. No priests, no sacred texts, no dogmas, no special meeting houses, no dietary requirements, no bans on clothing or washing, or burial of corpses, no sacrifices necessary, no tithing required, nothing in fact, that would in any useful way fit the description of a religion or religious practices.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Just plain bonkers.

Intelligent Design and Creation Science are as much science as evolution is science. If the evolutionists want to assume into their analysis that God does not exist that will taint every hypothesis and explanation of the empirical data that they come up with. Everything in our life is informed by our presuppositions.

[Philosophiser]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Translation: have soapbox and dogma, will rant and rave AND GET THINGS WRONG.

In no sense is the theory of evolution a religion. No priests, no sacred texts, no dogmas, no special meeting houses, no dietary requirements, no bans on clothing or washing, or burial of corpses, no sacrifices necessary, no tithing required, nothing in fact, that would in any useful way fit the description of a religion or religious practices.

Intelligent Design theororists and Creation Scientists (many of whom are from Ivy League institutions) look at the exact same evidence that the evolutionists look at, but simply develop a totally different explanation of it. What is the reason for this? Very simple- its called presupposition. We take our beliefs into everything we do and every idea that we come up with. If we presuppose and assume that God does not exist, then we will use our reason and look at the data, and it will invent explanations for how things came about without God's intervention. But, if we assume the word of God (the Bible) is true, we look at the evidence and use our reason as informed by those different beliefs, and a different explanation surfaces concerning the SAME FACTUAL DATA.

[Philosophiser]

bump