Many people here like to voice the opinion that religion is wrong for the world, that when the world is free of religion, it will be a better place. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris…they’re making a fortune feeding this to the masses minorities.

This view begs the question of how do you value whether something is right or wrong?

Why is one thing right and another wrong?

Why is stealing a car wrong, but helping a stripper off the ledge is right.

In fact the truth is that the atheist movement is denying their parasitical existence feasting on the morality in our society brought by religious institutions, from God. They like to claim that morality is a quality that exists separate from God, but there is no basis for this assumption other than it’s the only answer they got.

Hitchens is the guy that likes to make the case that morality ‘evolved’ on its own. That morals such as compassion, empathy, forgiveness and honesty are the traits that survived in the pod of people that eventually became Canadians, but the pods that failed to incorporate these traits died off. Thus morality became a surviving gene? Dna? Amino Acid? Or is the contention that society is a living organism that can hold to these morals, foster them, make them grow as they watch Oprah together?

I contend that this is worse than rubbish, it’s poppycock. Without a benchmark standard, there is no right and wrong. No one can judge anyone’s actions with authority because there is no authority.

At least Michael Onfray is honest about this. Of all the atheist apologetics, he seems to be the only one that admits that the consequences of atheism, is nihilism.


In fact history shows us that the normal ‘evolution’ of a civilization always passes it apex and begins it’s downward spiral of decay to eventual ruin, with decadence…or a refusal to accommodate morality.

Once a society begins to disregard the morality foundations laid down by religion, it begins to decay from within. Once the people in the society decide to ‘shuck off the shackles of morality’ they seal the fate of their society. And so far nihilism: 0, Morality: 100


So if morality exists, and we all agree it does…where did it come from if not God?

And who are you to tell me that your morality is greater than mine, or that any morality should be imposed on anyone by anybody?

I love this argument because it makes whoever uses it a child rapist at heart.

Ok, now that I've called you a child rapist, I'll explain.

Your argument is that there would be no morality without your particular Magic Space Zombie.

We'll put aside that every culture has had a set of ethics whether they believe in your Space Zombie or not.

Even before your particular Space Zombie was dreamed up.

Let's leave that aside.

Your argument amounts to, it is the same as saying, it is equivalent to: If there were no god I might rape babies.

You are saying that without your god you might do any old thing.

You are saying your god is the only thing that stops you from doing "immoral things".

You are a sick individual if you truly have no other compass other than your Space Daddy telling you "no".

Fuck you.

Well you knocked that straw man out of the park...luckily the park you create was small.

But if you want to continue to argue that nihlism always equals child rapist, than I will grant you this point from now on out.

Michael Onfray is going to be bummed...of course he's French so he might already agree with you.

Your way out of your disgusting argument is not going to be so easy.

You're going to have to explain all of the sick-ass, frightening impulses you apparently have that only fear of your god stops you from acting out upon.

If your god weren't there, what disturbing things would you be doing because of your lack of any personal morality?

You are making the argument that the motive for an action changes the value of the action.

If a guy sees a person bleeding on the street, and takes him to a hospital, he's considered to have done a good act.

If a paramedic responds to a call and picks the guy up and takes him to the hospital, and recieves a check for doing this, is his actions some how less morally correct?

If I don't lie to the IRS because I don't want to face the consequense, are those action worse than someone who doesn't lie to the IRS because he doesn't know how?



How about I admit that many people who hold to the flawed atheist belief system are of higher moral fiber than many Christians that I know?

Now where did morality come from?

I have talked about this before, but one of the most interesting idea's regarding this was presented to me years ago, apparently there is a guy who wrote a book about it, but for life of me I cannot remember who he is or the name of the book.


The concept is, as mankind was developing, somewhere after the neanderthal, that morality began to set in. It was the development of the subconscious. At this time, the primitive man could not discern the thoughts in their head from outside influences. So this eventually got interpreted as a God telling them what was right or wrong. Sort of speaking to them through their thoughts. Not realizing it was the development of their own subconscious, and with that a certain morality and ethics on a very basic scale developed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I always thought it was a very interesting interpretation of the development of the subconscious and a possible explanation of where the idea of God came from, assuming there is not one.

Of course this is conjecture, but reasonable conjecture as an explanation. But it's flaw is that at it's core, it holds no standards, which is kind of important in regards to morality.

It could be equally expressed that one set of complex chemical reactions secreting something that we falsely believe to be arguments to another set of complex chemical reactions who falsely believes that he is right.

In other words, it transforms morality into nothing but chance and condition. Which is stuck with a value set of nil.

Well, I'd say we were, remarkably, getting somewhere.

There is an intrinsic morality based on the propagation of the species.

It is more reasonable to work together than to work against each other.

This is basic and fundamental. It is reasonable and evident in itself.

People are stupid and ignorant often, so this basic understanding is often unheeded (by religious and non-religious alike), but that doesn't change the fact that it is there.

More later, I have to eat.

I have to go to work, but this is what I think you are flawed in.

Morality and evolution are opposed to each other

Information about rational or secular ethics (that do not depend on invisible authorities) is not hard to find. I literally can't imagine requiring someone else to tell me what is right and what is wrong, much less finding such a situation desirable. Why is it difficult to understand that it is in my best interest to treat others the way that i wish to be treated?

How pathetic that you require someone else to tell you how to behave in every context.

Oh. See I didn't realize that. Nice to have that resolved once and for all.

I argue it's older than that. It's ethical to care for one's young children. Right? This isn't self-interest at work. It's an instinct we share with many animals.

Morality is doing what is right not matter what you are told

Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right

This is where BG wraps up eugenics and trys to sell it as evolution.

It was Julian Jaynes and his theory is called bicameralism. (Although note that Guapo did not know of this when he independently had the idea, which is kind of interesting)

I have much more to say on this morality issue later. Good post BG.

That's right, you and I had a very long discussion about this in that past.

we don't agree morality exists in the sense you're talking about. what we call morality is an (often subjective) judgment of the benefit or detriment of
certain behavior for either individual, social group, or species, or by extension environment. your argument is hinged on morality being a "thing"
existing unto itself as an intrinsic component of behavior, which is easily demonstrated to be false if you're forced to define specifically what
you mean by the term.

I do not understand why anyone engages this clown in serious debate. He is just a hateful dunce with a large vocabulary,who does nothing more than throw intellectual stinkbombs and ad hominem attacks which cannot be seriously argued.

As the old saying goes, somewhat, never engage a pig in debate, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.


Wait, nevermind, I think this one enjoys it.

assuming you value life and social harmony, the right or wrong of those actions reduces to basic common sense.
presumably you don't need god to tell you it would lead to social chaos if stealing were tolerated.

Another child rapist rears his ugly head.

*shivers*

Anyhow, this concept theists have about morality having something to do with their space daddies directives isn't morality at all.

Doing something to avoid punishment or gain reward from a magic dragon in the 28th dimension isn't "moral".

I don't even know how you guys even confuse it for morality.

And the idea that you would be naked in the streets humping babies, cutting throats, stealing livestock and rolling around in shit if your zombie master didn't tell you not to is just stupid. If you thought about it for a minute you might realize that it is stupid.

It is a stupid argument that actually denigrates yourself.

You were born in a Christian based morality and therefore have a concept of right and wrong that you pretend is 'natural' but is in fact culturally based.


It's okay, you can use our morality without giving us credit. You use our hospitals, schools and churchs too.

Hear goes the definition dance...


How about you just say you don't want to argue unless we use your definitions?

Save us all time.

Some animals eat their young.

Stealing is an action, the moralty of stealing why is it wrong.

Evolutionary survival of the fittest says I should get the best mate and procreate. If someone weaker has a prime female, a superior male should take her from him and procreate for the betterment of the species.

Morality tells us that this is wrong.

They didn't both evolve side by side as some atheist try to claim.

Uhm, "Christian" sentiments that actually have to do with morality were around long before Christianity.

The golden rule is a direct rip off of Confucius.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Stunning. Simply stunning.

It would take years and training and books, not a post or series of posts, to correct your deficiencies in the areas of biology, logic and ethics.

But if you do something for the reward of a better species, a better society or a better family unit...that's not an action/reward motive?

Interested to hear you then explain why would morality evolve then.

Until then misdirection is getting boring...let's try to focus on topic and not go on a tangent that you created because you're sure you know what I am going to say next. It's really a poor attempt to deflect from the problem your side has with regards to morality.

Internally directed. Self motivated. From within.

Don't be silly, the point of discussion is whence morality comes.


From your Warbling Vortex Fairy, or from within.

Doing something to avoid punishment or gain reward from a magic dragon in the 28th dimension isn't "moral"

That is the point of contention.

Missing the point, whether intentional or simply a matter of inability, isn't going to work with me.

Stay on track.

Golden rule is a catchphrase snippet of the Chrisitan faith, but if you want to pretend that we broke a copyright then enjoy yourself.

I think you are right about 'not knowing what they are talking about'..just not who.


And Christianity is the fullfillment of Judism..an extension if you will. So if you want to look at our core..you would have to start 4,500 years before Confusius, give or take a decade.

Yeah, and some don't.

When a mother cat cares for her kittens, I don't think to myself, "Wow, this cat must have a personal relationship with God that she learned by reading the Sermon on the Mount." I'm assuming you don't, either. Does it seem bizarre to you that the cat behaves in a way that doesn't directly benefit it? If not, how do you explain this behavior?

What is the motivating factor in self that directs your morality then?

Oh..I get it, if an animal does something that we do, it's because we're all animals.
But if they do something that is contrary to what we do..then it's just an imperfect example.

you get to have your cake and eat it.

fwiw, this question has become sam's new focus, and we can expect to hear more from him soon on this issue. his point of view, that I largely agree with, is that ethical standards can be based on objective analysis.



Do you really think that killing was not considered bad before Christianity? Why is it considered wrong through the world by pretty much every culture (even before coming in contact with christianity?)



Short answer is yes. Some of it is biological -- compassion and empathy for example are wired into the basic way the brain functions -- but also cultural evolution contributes. Culture is a collective set of values and behaviors and it does indeed evolve over time. If you look at the way morality works across cultures you find that there are some basic categorical values that serve to allow large masses of people to co-exist.



If there is an objective reason why something is wrong we don't need an authority.



I agree that moral rules aid in the success of a civilization. But that is not an answer to the question of where they came from, (or more importantly where they should come from).



If we start by agreeing to some basic values like maximizing happiness and peace, everything follows rationally from that. And those values are inherent to us by nature, regardless of religion or culture.

Catchy.

Stupid

But catchy.

"..doing what is RIGHT no matter what you are told" Sounds like you have a code of what is right and wrong. Care to share it's origin since that is what this subject is about?

Reason. The intrinsic knowledge that human life is "good".

If one eats, breathes and shelters himself from the elements he is by necessity making this declaration.

If you can't reason from that starting point an ethical and moral set, your ability to reason is flawed.

This is so basic it gives the mind pause that it must be explained.

Also, we should just deal with the big elephant in the room: most rapes murders and child molestations in this country are committed by christians.

edit.

ef p

you didn't change anything.

I laughed.

I was reading a book that was in a rebuttal to some of Sam's work which is what promted me to start this thread I told you I thought could be interesting. If it keeps falling into a spademan style who can top who with an insult fest..then I will grow quickly bored.






Pretty much every culture I can think of felt killing someone from another tribe was totally okay. But let's say this is true. Did the morailty of not killing someone begin right at that level, or did it 'evolve' from "It's only okay to kill another if they have blue eyes" then advance foward from there?




I will try to allow you this point, even though I want to argue the 'Adam and Eve core branching out means there is a common ancestory, therefore why is it surprising that there is a common trait" line.

Cultures throughout history have shown a propencity to decade after reaching the level of being 'above morality' wouldn't you agree?
Doesn't this suggest that morality is a banchmark that exist seperate from cultures, and when ignored it is to the detriment to that culture?





If there is a toaster that says something is wrong, then we don't need a vaccum to tell us that it's wrong?

You are arguing that since objective reason tells us soemthing is wrong, we don't need a Bible to tell us this. What authority does objective reason have? In fact aren't you just calling the authority: "objective reason" and pretending that you aren't?






But it about the only true data we have on the reality and practicality of morality in history. The current atheist viewpoint is 100% conjecture with no data but wishes.



Maximizing happiness and peace?

So if molesting a child makes an atheist happy, they should be allowed too?

I knew it!

But at a much, much greater percentage of the time by atheist. Who make up such a tiny percentage of the population


So you are saying that with a massive number of people, there are a lot of scumbags..unless they are atheist, then you don't need as many people to find the scumbags

You are really missing the point, or you don't understand the point.

I'm not sure which yet, but I suspect your desire to show me how dumb I am in as few words as possible is letting you head down trails that make no sense.



If morality exists, then there is a right and a wrong.

If there is a right and a wrong, then there is an authority.

Where did this authority come from.

It doesn't matter if a person can find this morality on his own, because unless that morality that you assume is so obvious is correct, and correct by authority, then it doesn't matter if it's easy to find or not.


Eating breathing and sheltering oneself from the elements is done by the best of us and the worst of us. It is irrelevent to the discussion.

You know, those tired old things like a basis in reality and actual evidence of pragmatic effectiveness.



You're doing it wrong.

Everything you're arguing can be attributed to poor logic and anorexic reason.

Again, poor ability to follow a premise to a reasonable conclusion.

I was watching this show on Travel channel recently that Guap turned me on to about tribal peoples. In the episode I saw someone from one tribe had killed the chief from the other tribe. This was considered wrong by both tribes and they had a whole negotiation process to deal with reparations.



I don't know what you mean by this.



I think various cultures have strayed from what would be objectively best for them and have suffered as a result, yes.



Huh? Those would be two separate authorities. This only illustrates why "because someone said so" is a bad reason for considering something moral. We need a better reason for that.



It doesn't have special authority, it just happens to be one of our best tools for discovering what is objectively true. If it's true that killing babies is immoral we can discover that truth through reason.




Well obviously the unhappiness caused the child is what you are weighing against the 'happiness' achieved by the molester, but I think in this kind of case we can also see that molestation does not really even lead to happiness in the molester.

This is a better beginning for a debate, a more focused attempt at explaining why there is a right and a wrong.

I was just hainvg a little fun before.

Most of human history has shown us that happiness and peace are not likely results from life. So why would morality conclude that it is and strive for this? It's almost like morality had a plan and was going to make it happen regardless of what happened. Almost like a design...

I'm having my cake and also a piece of bread.

Social behavior is a survival strategy that some species have and some do not.
Flying is a survival strategy that some species have and some do not.

I'm not arguing that all species are the same, just that we can see ethical behaviors in some species other than humans.

I believe that natural selection could cause this. How do you explain it? Do you think God speaks to some cats but not to certain species of fish?