The irony here is tasty.

Irony? what irony? I totally include my self in the category of uninteresting posts in this thread lol. So I guess if that's tasty...

This reminded me of something funny I saw outside a church the other day. It was a big sign that read:



The signature is what killed me.

You think that the thread is more interesting if it is just vb and BG posting, and you post to say that.

One would think it's pretty clear.

Regardless, the BG/vb exchange isn't all that interesting.

It's interesting when two men make reasonable arguments against one another, both able to access their own positions and adjust accordingly.

That isn't what is happening here.

It is the same ol' same ol' "God made it so that if A is not B or C, and C is not D, then B is not C"... umm, your conclusion does not follow your premises. "Yes it does, even if it didn't it doesn't prove there is no God, you're so closed minded lol ,"

If you resurrected Aquinas and brought him in here, things would get interesting, because Aquinas actually had a mean grasp of logic, reason and rhetoric.

I think one of the functions of engaging in argument is to clarify your own position.

Thus, the point we are at now, where I'm really not sure what his position is (and he may need to think about it too) is actually an opportunity for progress.

ahhhhhhhhhh...cute.

dammit, did it again

In regards to position indeed one of the the functions of argument is to clarify, find faults with, find inaccuracies and contradictions in and possibly do away with altogether if too many of the former are found.

The problem is, in my experience, only people who are willing and able to base their thought construct on reason/evidence/logic are capable of this particular skill-set.

Faith usually makes this impossible, since it resists and often relishes in the resistance of these things.

Good luck though.

Heh.

Wow, good point that I missed.

Yea, if morality came from religion, than animals exibiting morality wouldn't follow, since they can't read.

I think I would say that religion and morality are seperate. Morality ie the rules of right and wrong, are independant of our religious codes, writings and teachings. In fact the Bible is nothing more than a users manual, pointing us to what is already in existance, telling us what God thinks, wants and does for us.

There already is a foundational right and wrong. Finding it through either thought process, reading, or experience doesn't change it's pre-existing condition.



And if something is found..then the method to find it wouldn't ever be the cause, except in this case apperantly.



If it never existed, how could it be formed? Especially alongside an evolutionary program that , regardless of crows desire to pretend it is directionless, is heading towards a goal of survival, food, shelter and adaptabilty, in a manner that doesn't leave much room for morality. imo

Yea, if God ever got royalties for things He supposedly said..he'd be ri...hey

I think I'm back on track.

I must admit it's easy to get sidetracked with random atheist dogma being thrown around like it's fact though.

But when you get your worldview from the likes Of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris, you gotta expect some angery misconceptions I guess.

Haha.

"Atheist dogma."

"Worldview from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris."

"Angeeerrry misconceptions."

Adorable drivel.

Difficult to get back on track when you were never on in the first place.

Even though chimps probably wrote the bible! <knee-slapping and laughter>



OK, so it seems that we agree that the actual rules of right and wrong are there to be discovered without needing the Bible.



I think you somewhat misunderstand/misrepresent crow here, but if you view morality as a solution to a problem (how to live well together in large groups and maximize the well-being of all those interacting individuals) then it becomes pretty clear how it develops over time as the social conditions of various groups of organisms change.

I feel like with this shift from what I originally thought you meant (that knowledge of religion was the source of morality) to what you seem to be saying now (god embedded morality into nature to be discovered) this discussion becomes one and the same as the evolution discussion -- how did complex biological or social phenomenon come to be the way they are.

also nonsensical. survival/adaptability are parts of the mechanism, not specific directions of change such as increased moral behavior.

anyway, you're implying that moral behavior can't possibly ever be a positive adaptation that leads to better chance of survival even in a species with social structures.
please elaborate : )

thought they just plagerized Shakesphere...




I think this is true. I hold that the Bible points us towards, clarifies and gives credit to God for, but they are seperate from the Bible




crow thinks if I don't use the exact label for an action, I can be critized for the misuse of the correct scientific term. It's exactly like a person who wants to think that spelling means your point is incorrect. It gets old. Plus he has never been nailed down on what an atheist is, what evolution means or how it all started...but if you get the label wrong..he'll let you know.




Would that be morality? Or would that be how to use morality to the most effective state?

For instance, God says don't have sex outside of marriage. The morality is to remain a virgin till marriage. The practicality of it is the prevention of diseases, unwanted children, social problems from mulitple partners etc.
Society can say all day that they want to remove the stigma of unmarried sex, but they have never removed the consequenses fully. And now we have STDs that kill you on top of everything else.

So the morality never changed, just the acceptance of the consequenses.





Well I wouldn't say God hid morality for us to discover. He did give Moses 10 commandments, He did give the Pentateuch, and He sent his Son to give us the most clear understanding through example.

So we have had direction, the Bible also says we have a conscience that tells us things are right and wrong. Religion is just the manner that has bene used for the last 6,000 years, you know, since the beginning.



Now from an evolutionary angle, there would not be a morality hidden in nature to discover...right?

and unless you want to make the case that there is a blueprint for what's best that evolution is stearing us towards..then the idea that evolution brings us towards a morality seems irrational to me.


Best to have an example to discuss;

How about the morality of a severely retarded child in society.

Caring for the elderly

Feeding the poor

Caring for a severly retarded child

Not polluting

I think the consequences of an action do change its morality. My position is that what is moral is what serves us best. So before condoms are invented its probably a good idea not to have unmarried sex, because then you have a whole bunch of kids running around with uncommitted parents. Nowadays with birth-control technology, not so much of a problem, and we have seen a shift in this value as a result. Fewer and fewer people think premarital sex is wrong at this point.

The moral rules codified by religion captured a snapshot of the best ideas of what worked best at a certain time in history. Some of the things (particularly the more general stuff -- do unto others) still apply, but much doesn't (think of the food rules in the Old Testament).



By "there to be discovered" I didn't mean to imply hidden, so let's not get distracted by that.

Some of "moral rules" that affect our genetic success most directly are hard-wired into our biology (e.g. don't have sex with your sister). Some of the things that are more socially-borne are instead embedded in the culture (e.g. don't eat with your left hand).



I think Christians and atheists alike can agree that is clearly immoral to allow retarded children into society.

I know what you are saying..a guy comes to your door to kill someone inside and you lie that he's not there so that the guy leaves. But isn't that action designed to allow the bending of a 'lesser' morality. I do admit that I have not suggested this in the past, the idea of grades of morality, but I am comfortable with the notion that we can rate moral actions, esp when they come into conflict. I am okay with abortion to save the physical life of a mother, but not to save her emotional health.
But this still leads to the notion that there is a greater good that must be sought, even if it means breaking a rule or two to accomplish it. Isn't that greater good a goal, a direction or foundational truth? The sanctity of life is of much greater weight than the sanctity of the speed limit.




Well I think that this clearly describes the secular position,' whatever serves us best...is best.'

'I am lawful to do anything that doesn't harm another.'

Taken to an extreme these can have disasterous effects. They are by definition imposed on another, after all, who are you to say this is what's 'best' let alone what 'best' really is.

A self focus, which is really what these are, will bring a society to ruin. As it has in the past. It will also bring down a religion, as it has in the past.

I think if I had to define morality in one sentance I would say;

"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit others without regard to yourself"

and I think secular morality would be:

"Morality is the ability to perform actions and designs that benefit myself and others, while regarding myself"

By definition, they cannot. If the effects of an action were disastrous, it wouldn't be moral.



No, they are not imposed on us by anyone, they are facts of our situation. The fact is that if we allow killing we are all going to live lives that we consider worse. Whether or not an action serves the collective well-being is an objective fact that arises from the realities of social life. It's not externally imposed on us (in fact it seems to me that religious morality is the kind that is imposed by an external source.) The kind of morality I am describing is inherent.



I, you, every human culture and ape-community agree that self-focus is not the basis of morality.



Sure, a rule like this benefits everyone, you included. Something like this is likely the endpoint of the search for what benefits us all the most.



That is absolutely not what I am advocating or describing.

The thing is, we both have a very similar idea of what is moral, just different ideas of why those things are moral. The why is important though since it helps decide future gray area cases.

can i make this my sig even tho it's a FYP? I'm not up on my sig etiquette.

my aquinas is a bit rusty, but i can play his part if necessary.



also, re: evolution--you have to be careful about ascribing morality to evolutionary mechanisms, or even some sort of overarching purpose, etc.. the only reason, evolution-arily speaking, why i don't want to **** my sister isn't that it's wrong or "bad" for the species, but rather that when people do that, genes get messed up, and the offspring that result, for whatever reason, don't survive that great in the world. it's not that there's a good or bad about it, just a sort of "fit" or "unfit," and i think that it's a mistake to ascribe any sort of moral compass to that.

i'm also quite drunk, so that could be very poorly worded. apologies.

Big shoes to fill.

Let's see it.

You as Aquinas vs vb on the concept of soul: GO!

I fear we will always end up with this result. I can perceive an argument that would counter what you say, as you can with my statement. I don't know if we can really make a statement of generalities about the entire spectrum of morality with any reasonable definitive scale of success...

I blame my shortcomings in finding a more focused approach.




Well I would agree to a point that religion is/does impose a morality, one that often is counter to the ones our sin nature strives to attain.
I also hold with you that we have an inherent morality inside of us all. Some have beaten it down farther through selfish desire, by external conditions, and by cultural necessity. But we still go back to the question of the origin.
By your definition, would you say there was a point when our morality didn't exist..then it did (through natural selection?)




And yet at the root, we all are self focused through that id thing and the other pysch thing about super ego...
Would you hold that we went from self awareness to community awareness, or versa visa?




I do agree that the seeking of this is a worthy life spent.



Well my why is that God said it's the correct way to live, for the best results in my life and the lives of others. And my role in life is to do the things that He asks, things that please Him. It is probably the most important change I found in myself when I became a Christian, a true desire to please God just to please God, without an expectation of rewards for the act, since I already am set up forever..no reward can increase what I already have to look forward too. And no punishment exists for me that can diminish the reward either. I am freerolling life.

I also admit that I approached this change after 6 years in AA, where a daily self examination revealed myself to be a fully self focused animal, who even twisted my good deeds into seeking man's approvals, impressing the babes, or placing myself above others who weren't as charitable as myself. So I do appreciate that maybe my worldview isn't accurately 'normal'. but I haven't found many examples where I was all that different thaneveryone else, just took to drugs and alcohol more than healthy.

What would your why be?

Then there are the Hawaiian and English monarchies who inbred as a rule...

btw Has anybody ever explored the number of people needed to reproduce without ever needing to inbreed?

The Christian perspective is that Adam and Eve were mechanically flawless, so their genes would allow inbreeding for a while before disasterous results...a devolution if you will.

This is a very interesting question to me.

My speculation is that we went from individual-mindedness, to thinking of ourselves as part of small groups (families/tribes), and now we are in the process of fighting that tribal group mind as we expand to a more global mind.

But this is one of the things I am currently investigating -- doing an experiment to try and understand what brain systems are involved in the way we empathize more with members of our small social group.... do we naturally empathize with everyone but learn to turn it off for those we hate? Or do we have to learn to empathize with those close to us? I think its the former, but we'll see what the data say.



I think it's best for all of us if we behave more selflessly.

The only way that individual selfishness - the pursuit of pleasure above all else, greed, etc. -- makes sense is if you envision yourself as totally separate from everything else, which is a mental illusion. If you recognize that you are part and parcel of everything and everyone else, you recognize that you have to treat them well - they are in a very real sense part of you. Thinking of my "self" as being totally contained within the boundaries of my physical body is a very narrow view of what I am. Everything is interconnected.

Yes, I think they have done this research in West Virginia.

Have I told you that I am jealous of your life..except the going to hell part I mean..




If evolution is true ( it's not ) then I think you may have a reasonable explanation of why morality means something.
Now how do you convince the other 6.79 billion people to live this way?

And then you remember what they (don't) pay me to do this....



By example.

And by carrying around large signs with ominous phrases threatening them with horrific consequences if they don't comply.

This is so crazy...it just might work....

RE: brvheart



I qualified it, for people like Aquinas. =P

it's not hard at all to visualize how empathetic behavior could be a positive adaptation for a social species.

fyp

fix your objectivity

Can't. I am firmly in the graps of faith's strangle hold on reason

Excellent. If this were the case all would be born equal, with everyone having access to their own moral compass. From there free-will allows us to listen to this moral compass as we see fit.

Now explain how people are born as sociopaths using the "God as a source" model. Who gets 'chosen' to be unable to connect to this compass and be condemned to hell?

That's easy..every single person born since Adam and Eve. We are all 'born into sin' Our sin nature is present in all of us.


I am sometimes surprises from you since you supposedly had a Chrisitan upbrining, how badly you seem to understand what the Bible says. Maybe this is why you fell away.


There is no one without sin, all deserve punishment.

Christ offered Himself to bear that punishment.

Because he did, we have a free pass into Heaven. Your tickets been paid, you cannot earn it, work for it, use a magic handshake, or pay your way into Heaven. No matter how good you are, how often you choose not to sin, no matter how many times you don't rape a baby, you cannot get to Heaven on your own. However you can go for free if you ask.

Something within the reach of everyone, the simple act of asking for forgiveness.

Something man has tried to hide behind church rules and dogma to control and sometimes enslave the masses. But ultimately the message Christ gave us is that we are all deserving of eternal seperation from God, but He was willing to pay your bill in full, even the bill of the people who haven't made their choice yet.



As far as the obligitory; "What about the people who haven't heard etc., or in this case "The people who have pyschological issues" I don't know. But God is a bigger God than my personal worldview and logic, I'm sure He has an answer that He isn't required to share with us because we demand an answer.

I do know that everyone readin this is without excuse though.

"God, who is perfect, made imperfect beings. Innocent and childlike, he left them with a baby sitter, Satan. After these imperfectly created beings (created by a perfect being) were duped by Satan (God's baby sitter) and ate from a tree, all of their inbred children and further spawn (all of humanity) were damned to be sinners as soon as they are babies fresh out of the womb. Crying, helpless, seemingly innocent little God Damned baby sinners.

God, being all-knowing, knew all of this before hand. However, he knew that it would be OK that he created this weird little set of events because he could just create a baby son who he can design to have slaughtered for the sake of a 'do over'. So yes, indeed all of this weird shit was done by the omnipotent God... but this big, sacrifice filled, designed shenanigans that ended up with you being Baby Damned has an easy way out. All you have to do is ask."

Ya, that makes perfect sense.




"Uh oh, something that even I can't warp into some kind of rationalization? Guess it's time to turn off the logic switch and turn on the God.

Whoo hoo, faith kicks reasons ASS in a crunch!"

I know you have a cadre of 16-21 year old boys who think you are special, but could you do your dance for them elsewhere. it's boring.

I'm no priest, I don't keep young boys around.

But if young men get to see how fucking stupid your cults story is and choose to treat it accordingly based on reading it, I have no problem with that.

Dont you know BG that the longer he is ignored the nastier his stinkbombs become.

I am so very enamored of this term. It gives me a little chuckle every time.

However, as per usual your statement is utterly false, unless you are allowing for random chance.

My stinkbombs (hehe) and their venom are solely dependent on the point I am making, whether it is a thread starter or a response to something I have read.

My eloquence is lacking the unmatched breadth, width and technique to accurately capture in words just how little your attention means to me.

Most everyone's posts here or where ever are simply fodder for my scathing and critical bouts of expression.

You are interchangeable in that regard and at no time need to address, acknowledge or type directly to me to provide the refuse (waste, garbage, rubbish, discarded trash) necessary for this noble or entertaining or boredom-crushing or frivolous outpouring of awesome.

I appreciate all of the above, however the bolded part is where it falls apart. Unless I really misunderstand Christianity, the asking for forgiveness must be genuine.

The sinner must regret their sin, must have remorse.

For a person who is born a sociopath this is impossible. They have no concious, no concept of right and wrong so they can never genuinely regret their sins, and as you say none are born without sin

Thus they are born with no chance of ever being saved. This is in contradiction to the claim that heaven is available to all.

Therefore the 'morals from God' model fails



EDIT: I was going to add more, but I'll do so later. I want you to focus on the above

I agree that the asking of forgiveness must be genuine for it to be effectual.

Your argument is that since there are people who 'can't' be reached with the understanding of their sin, this 'way to heaven' is flawed and therefore loses credibility?

Well, first I would say a person can be a sociopath and very much use deductive reasoning to make a choice about their life. They may not feel it, but they aren't required to feel saved, only ask. They learn to function in society, marrying fathering children etc without feeling anything...why can't they make a calculated decision about their actions with feeling right or wrong?


Second, do you not think that God can reach everyone at a level that allows that person to be given the full opporunity to accept/reject His plan of salvation? My personal opinion is that God has infinite knowledge, He probably has a handle on the kind of problems I can dream up in my finite perspective. To demand He reveal His plan for every extreme problem isn't a realistic expectation. If some guy on his death bed begins the sinners prayer but doesn't get past Dear God, does that mean his heart didn't qualify him to recieve God's forgiveness? He made a plan to give salavation to everyone, I am comfortable with the idea that He will judge with a wisdom that is beyond my ability to understand, with a fairness that He possesses.

No, they can understand their sin, but without morals they don't feel it is wrong. When you apologise for doing something that you don't feel is wrong are you being genuine?

I'm not saying that 'this way to heaven' is flawed. I'm showing you that your claim that morals come from God ultimately contradicts other teachings from the Bible.



Calculated => no remorse => no salvation.

If it doesn't feel wrong, asking for forgiveness will always be disingenuous.

All they need to be genuine is a moral compass yet if God is the source of this, then it is obviously his choice that these people can't be saved.




If, when finally pressed to a logical position that on the face of it defeats your argument, you play what is effectively the "God works in mysterious ways" card, you are admitting that there is no possible path the debate take that could possibly change your mind.

Therefore this was never a debate, it was you preaching.

As far as my wife is concerned I am..



hmm..I think you have made a connection that is dubious at best.





Again... you have invented the argument that you must feel a certain way in order to act a certain way. And if you are without feelings, then you can never perform an action with meaning.

If this is your position, than I think you are wrong.




Yea, that's what I did, God works in mysterious ways.

Sorry that I don't have a handle on all of God's motives, thoughts, plans and decisions.
I will pray that He reveal everything in the existance of the world so that I might better answer your strawman arguements next time in a manner that you find acceptable.

Or I can allow you to be wrong.

Hmmm tough choice..it would be cool to know everything...

nh




The meaning of repent is to feel sorry for your wrong doings, and again I'm sure the Bible says that repetence is necessary to be saved.

Of course I could just sit here and say "Jesus, forgive me my sins and save me" without believing in God or Jesus or that any of my sins are all that bad and Pascal's wager goes up in a puff of smoke.

That would really piss brvheart off

there aren't possibly enough of these to express how awesome this post is.

SS, by any chance have you ever had an IQ test?

Did you pass?

Well you are not the first person to delve into what does it mean to ask forgiveness? I know I struggled with it for a while, wondering if I did it wrong, because everyone else seemed to be sure about their salvation, and I wasn't.

I think the answer lies much more into the Bible passage the sys that God grants us the grace to be forgiven.
Ephesians 2:9
For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not of yourself, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.

If your intent was required, your conscience effort if you will, then the above passage should read 'not by most works'

Nor is it in the physical action of manipulating your vocal cords to physically create the vibrations in the air to say the sinner's prayer.

Many believe that the steps to salvation are: God puts a calling unto your life, you respond favorably, He grants you the grace to receive faith to ask for forgiveness, asking in a manner that counts.

So in effect, our input is simplying to look at the situation and desire it. I believe God puts the calling on all our lives, some just bury it completely the second it rears it's head, others hmm and haaa for years, others put it off till their death bed etc.

Arguing that a sociopath can't feel implies that God can't overcome a chemical/physical imbalance, which by definition means He's not God.