Is There Such A Thing As "Right" And "Wrong?"

[DriftingSand]

There are children's books that describe big bad wolves who huff and puff and blow houses down. So what?

There are also children's books that try to teach children that organisms **poofed** in to existence by pure mistake. Once upon there was a rock ... then, like magic, it gave birth to a fish.

A rock gave birth to a fish. That's as silly as ....well... fat naked babies playing harps, pearly gates, (or is it Golden Arches), winged horses cruising through the clouds and men in robes floating on the clouds.

Your belief is no less of a fanciful belief that appeals to your senses. You cannot prove what you believe because no proof exists.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So that's your answer as to whether there really is a "right and wrong?" If you actually DO believe in moral standard then can you tell us when and where it originated?

Area of the brain that processes empathy identified -- ScienceDaily

This will show you that empathy is located in the brain and was a product of the evolutionary process.
The quality of empathy was naturally selected because people that worked together had a better rate of survival.
Pretty basic stuff.
No magic, no "poof".
Just biology.
The human brain is several times bigger than an apes and that explains the increase in empathy and communal sense of right in wrong in humans in comparison to the animals.

The **poof** part has more to do with nothing **poof** exploding into something (without any particular reason). The other **poof** part has to do with another gigantic, gargantuan mistake -- inorganic material **poof** creating life for no particular reason. But I'm certain that if someone squeezes his eyes really tight and exercises his imagination he will come up with a "scientific" explanation as to how these events actually took place. Bottom line? To believe in either **poof** event requires faith in the finite, limited mind of some famous man.

This is a massive goalpost shift to a completely different topic of conversation and is a great example of very poor argumentation.
If you don't have something to say about my post that is cited with a credible source, just say so.
Don't invent a strawman to hide behind and then go running away like a schoolchild.
We were talking about the origination of right and wrong and how it might have developed. I have provided you with a perfectly easy to understand, biologically founded argument for the development of such ideas.
If you can't discuss it, be a man and say so.

 

[Hollie]

The **poof** part has more to do with nothing **poof** exploding into something (without any particular reason). The other **poof** part has to do with another gigantic, gargantuan mistake -- inorganic material **poof** creating life for no particular reason. But I'm certain that if someone squeezes his eyes really tight and exercises his imagination he will come up with a "scientific" explanation as to how these events actually took place. Bottom line? To believe in either **poof** event requires faith in the finite, limited mind of some famous man.

What part of the **poof** are your gods exempted from and why?

Cause and effect. For every effect there is a cause. There can only be one 1st cause. The first cause is un-caused -- otherwise it wouldn't the first cause. Therefore, the first cause is eternal and un-caused. Since the universe reflects masterful design and was caused it must have been caused by a Masterful Designer.

That's the usual, juvenile argumentation that defines every baseless claim for your gods and gods that preceded your gods.

To the back of the line for your gods.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I need to offer something that suggests that man was created? Genesis chapter 1.

I mean't something for grown up discussion.

Or perhaps for the more immature mind. There are children's books that describe the Genesis story too.

They're all children's books.

 

[Hollie]

There are also children's books that try to teach children that organisms **poofed** in to existence by pure mistake. Once upon there was a rock ... then, like magic, it gave birth to a fish.

A rock gave birth to a fish. That's as silly as ....well... fat naked babies playing harps, pearly gates, (or is it Golden Arches), winged horses cruising through the clouds and men in robes floating on the clouds.

Your belief is no less of a fanciful belief that appeals to your senses. You cannot prove what you believe because no proof exists.

My belief is equally as credible as your beliefs.

 

[amrchaos]

I think we are beginning to drift away from the related topic on where does morality comes from.

So let us keep the "poofing" to a minimal, shall we?

By the way, nothing conjures up the imagary of "poof" better than the Genesis story.

Think about it--

God says "let there be light"

poof

and there was light​

This idea that things just suddenly come into being without transitions is more of a metaphysical theme than a scientific one. Of course One could point to the Big Bang theory, but even that talks of transitions.

Likewise, if one was to theorize about how life came to exist, there probably would be some type of transition from non-living matter to something we could call a living organism(the stages between would probably defy both definitions of what one could call "living" and what one could call "just dirt").

I doubt a serious scientist would ever say "poof" life jumped out of a rock! A silly scientist, maybe--but not a serious one.

 

[DriftingSand]

Area of the brain that processes empathy identified -- ScienceDaily

This will show you that empathy is located in the brain and was a product of the evolutionary process.
The quality of empathy was naturally selected because people that worked together had a better rate of survival.
Pretty basic stuff.
No magic, no "poof".
Just biology.
The human brain is several times bigger than an apes and that explains the increase in empathy and communal sense of right in wrong in humans in comparison to the animals.

The **poof** part has more to do with nothing **poof** exploding into something (without any particular reason). The other **poof** part has to do with another gigantic, gargantuan mistake -- inorganic material **poof** creating life for no particular reason. But I'm certain that if someone squeezes his eyes really tight and exercises his imagination he will come up with a "scientific" explanation as to how these events actually took place. Bottom line? To believe in either **poof** event requires faith in the finite, limited mind of some famous man.

This is a massive goalpost shift to a completely different topic of conversation and is a great example of very poor argumentation.
If you don't have something to say about my post that is cited with a credible source, just say so.
Don't invent a strawman to hide behind and then go running away like a schoolchild.
We were talking about the origination of right and wrong and how it might have developed. I have provided you with a perfectly easy to understand, biologically founded argument for the development of such ideas.
If you can't discuss it, be a man and say so.

It's not a strawman nor is it a shift. It's basic or foundational to the topic at hand. If God is the first cause and eternal and intelligent and moral then it's not a big jump to believe that He instilled virtue in His creation.

If the universe and biological life forms are products of chaotic magic and just **poofed** into existence just for the heck of it then there is no basis for morality or codes of ethics. In other words, nothingness doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. It wasn't "thinking" when it decided to "create" the universe.

 

[DriftingSand]

I think we are beginning to drift away from the related topic on where does morality comes from.

So let us keep the "poofing" to a minimal, shall we?

By the way, nothing conjures up the imagary of "poof" better than the Genesis story.

Think about it--

God says "let there be light"

poof

and there was light​

This idea that things just suddenly come into being without transitions is more of a metaphysical theme than a scientific one. Of course One could point to the Big Bang theory, but even that talks of transitions.

Likewise, if one was to theorize about how life came to exist, there probably would be some type of transition from non-living matter to something we could call a living organism(the stages between would probably defy both definitions of what one could call "living" and what one could call "just dirt").

I doubt a serious scientist would ever say "poof" life jumped out of a rock! A silly scientist, maybe--but not a serious one.

But the Genesis story doesn't try to hide the **poofing**. It comes right out and states that God created everything by the power of His Word.

 

[thebrucebeat]

The **poof** part has more to do with nothing **poof** exploding into something (without any particular reason). The other **poof** part has to do with another gigantic, gargantuan mistake -- inorganic material **poof** creating life for no particular reason. But I'm certain that if someone squeezes his eyes really tight and exercises his imagination he will come up with a "scientific" explanation as to how these events actually took place. Bottom line? To believe in either **poof** event requires faith in the finite, limited mind of some famous man.

This is a massive goalpost shift to a completely different topic of conversation and is a great example of very poor argumentation.
If you don't have something to say about my post that is cited with a credible source, just say so.
Don't invent a strawman to hide behind and then go running away like a schoolchild.
We were talking about the origination of right and wrong and how it might have developed. I have provided you with a perfectly easy to understand, biologically founded argument for the development of such ideas.
If you can't discuss it, be a man and say so.

It's not a strawman nor is it a shift. It's basic or foundational to the topic at hand. If God is the first cause and eternal and intelligent and moral then it's not a big jump to believe that He instilled virtue in His creation.

If the universe and biological life forms are products of chaotic magic and just **poofed** into existence just for the heck of it then there is no basis for morality or codes of ethics. In other words, nothingness doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. It wasn't "thinking" when it decided to "create" the universe.

We were talking about the origin of ethics, not species.
You have to start with the assumption of this godhead to make sense of your argument. He is the "poofed" theory, not the scientific explanations.
I told you where this sense of right and wrong developed from.
Why don't you address it?
Nothingness DOESN'T care. That is an anthropomorphic concept. The selection of traits is natural, retaining what is beneficial.

 

[amrchaos]

Ahh--I think see what the real difference in opinion actually is.

Drifting Sands is of the opinion everything must have a well defined purpose. In other words, we live in a Philosophically Definitive Universe. Thus the concepts of absolutes such as moral principles and perfect beings(well one--God) that provide the definitions to everything in and of the Universe itself.


But I am of the opinion that the definition of somethings are relative to the observer. (relative in a philosophical sense--not scientific, mind you). I guess this viewpoint could be called a "Philosophically Relative" Universe. Some concepts involving absolutes and/or perfection are meaningful only to the person doing the observation. In other words, somethings and concepts lack consistent definition to me. Like "the meaning of Life", or 'God'.

Absolute Morality also comes to mind. For awhile I thought this could be associated with an underlining morality that dictates behavior in a society But it seems as if Absolute Morality are moral principles we humans must adhere to or be condemned by God.

I guess if you do not believe in God, Then you can not buy into Absolute Morality. That seems logical to me. I wonder if this is the point that Drifting Sands is trying to make?

 

[emilynghiem]

You're free to believe that. There's just no reason to accept it as true.

Hi Hollie OK
so what part of your conscience just signalled to you
"there was no reason to accept that as true"

What part of your brain tells you to accept or reject?

What do YOU call the mechanism in your conscience that tells you yes or no,
true or false, consistent or inconsistent?

Isn't that universal to all people, but some have better management skills
over impulses and interpretation/cognitive recognition and intuition than others?

First you need to define what this "conscience" thing is that you're referring to.

Are you suggesting that it is some god(s) implanted mechanism?

Isn't that universal to all people, but some have better management skills
over impulses and interpretation/cognitive recognition and intuition than others?

Nope. Not people with brain disorders or damage. Similarly, drugs/alcohol can alter the "conscience". Or, maybe the little god(s) on your shoulder telling you what to do have just taken a lunch break.

Hi Hollie thanks for replying and clarifying what the questions need to be.

1. it doesn't have to be some 'personified god.'
just to describe how things are the way they are by "nature" is fine.

so if it is "human nature" to have a conscience, some "combination" of rational of CONSCIOUS thoughts/memories/ideas/perceptions/concepts and emotional/intuitive processes that are unconscious impulses, can be agreed upon as existing by "nature"

2. and yes, it can be disrupted by
* drug abuse (or other physical or mental ill conditions that affect human response, perception and behavior)
* trauma, abuse, unforgiven and repeat conflicts or oppressive behaviors
that condition people to react negatively and prejudge out of fear as defenses
* mob mentality, cult programming, collective influence or connection with others,
whether religious, political, social, or what some may call spiritual but this can
be considered "collective influence" and not anything supernatural

any number of physical, environmental/social, emotional influences
can affect how people respond "by conscience."

3. what I was hoping to focus on is the underlying mechanism
of "positive vs. negative"
either "pain or pleasure" "wanting or rejecting" an option or idea

Hollie do you have a better way of describing this which I was
using "conscience' to refer to, which is "inherent in human nature"

Like where did our free will come from, our desire for seeking
what brings us "peace pleasure or satisfaction
and for avoiding what invokes in us associations of "fear suffering or pain"

what do you call that mechanism
and how do you describe why it exists, or how it operates and develops, etc.

Thank you Hollie!
I always appreciate your answers and honest objectivity.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The **poof** part has more to do with nothing **poof** exploding into something (without any particular reason). The other **poof** part has to do with another gigantic, gargantuan mistake -- inorganic material **poof** creating life for no particular reason. But I'm certain that if someone squeezes his eyes really tight and exercises his imagination he will come up with a "scientific" explanation as to how these events actually took place. Bottom line? To believe in either **poof** event requires faith in the finite, limited mind of some famous man.

This is a massive goalpost shift to a completely different topic of conversation and is a great example of very poor argumentation.
If you don't have something to say about my post that is cited with a credible source, just say so.
Don't invent a strawman to hide behind and then go running away like a schoolchild.
We were talking about the origination of right and wrong and how it might have developed. I have provided you with a perfectly easy to understand, biologically founded argument for the development of such ideas.
If you can't discuss it, be a man and say so.

It's not a strawman nor is it a shift. It's basic or foundational to the topic at hand. If God is the first cause and eternal and intelligent and moral then it's not a big jump to believe that He instilled virtue in His creation.

If the universe and biological life forms are products of chaotic magic and just **poofed** into existence just for the heck of it then there is no basis for morality or codes of ethics. In other words, nothingness doesn't care what is right and what is wrong. It wasn't "thinking" when it decided to "create" the universe.

Here's what I always wonder when religious types come to a conundrum of how morality can exist without a hard, factual standard for it:

Are you a sociopath?

Is the only reason you obey a code of conduct because of the fear of punishment for transgressions and the promise of reward for obedience?

In other words, if you found out that your God wasn't true. . . let's say, hypothetically, you found out that the God of the Bible was completely made up. . . would there be no end to the depravity of which you'd suddenly be emotionally capable?

If you could also eliminate the threat of societal punishment and act with impunity, would you, personally, rape every woman you found attractive who didn't feel the same about you?

Would you steal everything you desired?

Would you torture and murder everyone you don't like?

Or are you possessed of the same empathy as everyone else in possession of a working, human brain?

As a one-time Christian who, for lack of a better way to put it in few words, went agnostic, I reached the philosophical point I'm at by questioning each of my values over time. I'm sure you've done the same to some degree. . . it's natural for anyone with a brain to analyze random information at least -some- of the time.

You have to have considered and even discussed the obvious wisdom behind many of your Biblically based morals, yes? There has to be at least a few moral values espoused by the Bible that, even without God threatening/promising you into motion, you would follow simply because it's the logically proper way to conduct yourself? I know that, even though I lacked faith in the overall story, there were more than a few of the Biblical maxims that I found, and still find, highly compelling.

If you want the answer to this, examine yourself honestly. Try to imagine how you'd feel about your code of conduct and how you'd treat other people if you found out that your God wasn't real, or if you suddenly lost belief in Him for whatever reason.

 

[DriftingSand]

=Not2BSubjugated;9017036]

Here's what I always wonder when religious types come to a conundrum of how morality can exist without a hard, factual standard for it:

Are you a sociopath?

No.

Is the only reason you obey a code of conduct because of the fear of punishment for transgressions and the promise of reward for obedience?

Partially but not entirely. Here are a couple of other reasons:
1) I like the feeling of having a clear conscience.
2) I actually enjoy helping people and I feel badly when I witness people treating other people poorly.
3) I do believe that the soul of a human lives on beyond the death of our shell.
4) Living by a moral code of conduct lifts my spirit which, in turn, makes me feel better physically.

In other words, if you found out that your God wasn't true. . . let's say, hypothetically, you found out that the God of the Bible was completely made up. . . would there be no end to the depravity of which you'd suddenly be emotionally capable?

Prior to my belief in God I was an outlaw -- literally. It's because of my belief in God that I gave up drugs and alcohol and stopped treating women like they my personal pleasure toys. I began to see all humans as worthy of my love and kindness and chose to leave my path of destruction (including self-destruction). If I found that God was just a hoax and I was lied to then I would go get a bottle of Jack and a bag of weed.

If you could also eliminate the threat of societal punishment and act with impunity, would you, personally, rape every woman you found attractive who didn't feel the same about you?

I wouldn't need to rape them (never have in the past) but I would certainly start using them again. I never needed to force myself on women. A little booze and smooth talk and away we went.

Would you steal everything you desired?

Possibly. I likely would steal some things and probably while drunk.

Would you torture and murder everyone you don't like?

Never had the desire to torture anyone even before finding Jesus Christ.

Or are you possessed of the same empathy as everyone else in possession of a working, human brain?

Fear and darkness is the absence of faith and light. Jesus Christ is my light. Without Him I would return to darkness. Your questions are hypothetical so my answers are likely hypothetical as well. But I believe that a person who lives in darkness long enough especially when using drugs and booze can fall into total depravity. Surely you agree that there are lots and lots of depraved folks in the world. Would you rather them be depraved or productive Christians living a charitable and caring existence?

As a one-time Christian who, for lack of a better way to put it in few words, went agnostic, I reached the philosophical point I'm at by questioning each of my values over time. I'm sure you've done the same to some degree. . . it's natural for anyone with a brain to analyze random information at least -some- of the time.

You were likely influenced by a lot of folks who routinely attacked your faith. But the parable of the seed sower states that some seed (the Gospel message) falls on rocky soil. When the seeds begin to root it lives for a short time but then dies because it's roots never reach deeply into the soil. Other seeds are eaten by birds and never sprout at all while other seeds are overshadowed by weeds and thistles. I pray that you still have a seedling deep inside you striving to reach the sun.

You have to have considered and even discussed the obvious wisdom behind many of your Biblically based morals, yes? There has to be at least a few moral values espoused by the Bible that, even without God threatening/promising you into motion, you would follow simply because it's the logically proper way to conduct yourself? I know that, even though I lacked faith in the overall story, there were more than a few of the Biblical maxims that I found, and still find, highly compelling.

I believe that even non-believers are part of God's creation; thus, they have an ember of God's will hidden deeply in their souls. That being the case, many may recognize God's moral code written on their heart. They simply don't know that their sense of right and wrong are directly linked to their Father in Heaven. Perhaps those morals that you read about in the Bible were etched upon your mind without you even knowing it.

If you want the answer to this, examine yourself honestly. Try to imagine how you'd feel about your code of conduct and how you'd treat other people if you found out that your God wasn't real, or if you suddenly lost belief in Him for whatever reason.

When I examine myself honestly I find a man in need of a Savior. I'm a fallen man. I've sinned much in my life and still do from time to time. Even evil thoughts are sinful in Christ's estimation. Look upon a woman with lust in your heart and you've committed adultery. Thinking that you're better than someone else is the sin of self-righteousness. The list goes on. Therefore, left to my own devices I am nothing but a sinner who's righteousness is nothing more than filthy rags.

 

[oldfart]

Questions for Atheists, Christians, or anyone interested:

Do you believe in the concept of right and wrong?

Yes. Don't you?



No, there is no cookbook of lists of right and wrong. There is a process for determining what is right and wrong.



All moral agents must decide what principles guide them.


Balderdash and poppycock. All your quote demonstrates is that if you ask the wrong question, you get ridiculous answers. You are about 2600 years late to the party.

Thanks for your in-depth commentary. I feel enlightened.

You are welcome. What philosophical tradition informed you that all answers must be verbose and opaque? And which particular comments of mine do you disagree with or wish me to clarify? Non-response and sarcasm is not an argument. Somewhere a philosophy teacher is crying for you.

 

[DriftingSand]

Ahh--I think see what the real difference in opinion actually is.

Drifting Sands is of the opinion everything must have a well defined purpose. In other words, we live in a Philosophically Definitive Universe. Thus the concepts of absolutes such as moral principles and perfect beings(well one--God) that provide the definitions to everything in and of the Universe itself.


But I am of the opinion that the definition of somethings are relative to the observer. (relative in a philosophical sense--not scientific, mind you). I guess this viewpoint could be called a "Philosophically Relative" Universe. Some concepts involving absolutes and/or perfection are meaningful only to the person doing the observation. In other words, somethings and concepts lack consistent definition to me. Like "the meaning of Life", or 'God'.

Absolute Morality also comes to mind. For awhile I thought this could be associated with an underlining morality that dictates behavior in a society But it seems as if Absolute Morality are moral principles we humans must adhere to or be condemned by God.

I guess if you do not believe in God, Then you can not buy into Absolute Morality. That seems logical to me. I wonder if this is the point that Drifting Sands is trying to make?

There is a level of truth to what you say. Different people see things in a different way and all from a different perspective or point of view. Some have the ability to see what others cannot but those others have talents or abilities that the former individual does not.

From a Christian perspective these different talents or abilities are drawn together by the biblical "church" (not organized religion but the general body of believers in Christ). Together, these different members of the church make up what the Bible calls, the body of Christ. Some folks are great teachers while others are called to give. Some are administrators while others are healers. Together we form a community of believers that benefit the body as a whole.

I realize that that isn't the point you were trying to make but I simply see a similarity to what I believe.

As for there being a purpose, I absolutely believe there's a purpose. An evolutionist likely won't see any purpose since he believes that everything we see is one big mistake. A Christian, on the other hand, believes that the huge design we see was designed and planned out by a Designer. It makes sense that a Designer has a plan and a purpose.

 

[PainefulTruth]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

But the Genesis story doesn't try to hide the **poofing**. It comes right out and states that God created everything by the power of His Word.

The proof that you need is that the Bible is God's word. But all you have that has been verified is the history it contains. There's no evidence for any of the miracles or revelations, and massive amounts of evidence against it. You've been told that faith is a substitute for reason and facts. As such, for the faithful, science is worthless. Anytime the faithful appeal to science, they argue against faith.

Even if God were to come to you and prove that It is who It said It is, that would only be useful to you, without any evidence that was given to you to back up your assertion.

 

[DriftingSand]

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

Being self-aware is not synonymous with morality. That's not to say that non-believers don't have a sense of morality but it's not because they are self-aware. I believe and have stated that it's better if people in general (Christian or not) treat others kindly than it is when people (Christian or not) treat each other poorly. But I maintain that morality is an awareness that was gifted to mankind by a Creator. By an intelligence greater than ourselves. It's a piece of Him. It's more than an evolutionary process or a chemical reaction or based on ones level of intellect. Of course I can only really draw from my personal experiences. But when I"m faced with a moral dilemma I sometimes find myself conflicted. A part of me wants to do one thing (usually something that will satisfy a momentary whim) while another part of me steps back and looks at the bigger picture and asks what the "right" thing to do is. What would a perfect person with a perfect sense of love do? That's how my conscience works. I can't speak for others.

The proof that you need is that the Bible is God's word. But all you have that has been verified is the history it contains. There's no evidence for any of the miracles or revelations, and massive amounts of evidence against it. You've been told that faith is a substitute for reason and facts. As such, for the faithful, science is worthless. Anytime the faithful appeal to science, they argue against faith.

The evidence of the Bible's power is reflected in the millions of lives it has affected over at least a 2000 year period and beyond. Of course the Bible as we know it today doesn't span that far back but it's message does. The proof of the effectiveness of the Bible is evidenced in my personal life. I've found aid and comfort in it for many years. As for what I've been told? I pay little attention to what others tell me. I'm actually not popular even in Christian circles because I don't buy into many of today's false doctrines nor do I accept any of today's icons of idolatry. But that's another thread topic.

Faith and science are not opposing enemies. I'm faithful to Christ AND I enjoy good science. The word "science" simply means knowledge. That's it! Many folks today have deep faith in various "scientific" hypotheses that are based on conjecture and wishful thinking and scant "evidence" but it's still called "science" even though nobody "knows" for certain. If you really stop and think about it you will admit that MUCH of what is taught today has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt so it really does require a certain amount of faith to accept it as "true."

 

[PainefulTruth]

Being self-aware is not synonymous with morality.

Yes, but it is the source of morality and it provides us with the ability to recognize moral/immoral behavior, which is ONLY the violation of another's equal right to life, liberty, property and self-defense. All else is a matter of personal virtue. You could even say that understanding is God-given if/since God (if It exists) created the universe for the purpose of spawning sentient creatures with free will and thus self-awareness.

The evidence of the Bible's power is reflected in the millions of lives it has affected over at least a 2000 year period and beyond.

Millions believe in other religious writing, and some for longer than 2000 years.

Of course the Bible as we know it today doesn't span that far back but it's message does. The proof of the effectiveness of the Bible is evidenced in my personal life.

That isn't proof, only the result of your faith. Many others have such faith in other religions, some of which can only be characterized as evil--as parts of the Bible can be.

I've found aid and comfort in it for many years. As for what I've been told? I pay little attention to what others tell me. I'm actually not popular even in Christian circles because I don't buy into many of today's false doctrines nor do I accept any of today's icons of idolatry. But that's another thread topic.

That's very telling.

Faith and science are not opposing enemies. I'm faithful to Christ AND I enjoy good science. The word "science" simply means knowledge.

That is the root word, but today its broader meaning is the search for objective Truth, the pure form of which is knowledge.

That's it! Many folks today have deep faith in various "scientific" hypotheses that are based on conjecture and wishful thinking and scant "evidence" but it's still called "science" even though nobody "knows" for certain. If you really stop and think about it you will admit that MUCH of what is taught today has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt so it really does require a certain amount of faith to accept it as "true."

The difference is between unsubstantiated speculation and virtual proof, which means a theory which may not have all the answers yet, but all the massive evidence for it has stood up to reason and the scientific method, it possesses objective facts, and is opposed only with non-scientific "evidence" often leading off with, "well, the Bible says........", or other unfounded assertions. There is no way for you to communicate any objective biblical authority, which is why (blind) faith alone is promoted within the revealed religions so strongly.

And that begs the question, why doesn't God speak to us all equally and simultaneously, instead through a spokesman why is certainly self-appointed and probably self-deluded and/or corrupt. Paul screams to mind.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Here's what I always wonder when religious types come to a conundrum of how morality can exist without a hard, factual standard for it:

Are you a sociopath?

Is the only reason you obey a code of conduct because of the fear of punishment for transgressions and the promise of reward for obedience?

In other words, if you found out that your God wasn't true. . . let's say, hypothetically, you found out that the God of the Bible was completely made up. . . would there be no end to the depravity of which you'd suddenly be emotionally capable?

If you could also eliminate the threat of societal punishment and act with impunity, would you, personally, rape every woman you found attractive who didn't feel the same about you?

Would you steal everything you desired?

Would you torture and murder everyone you don't like?

Or are you possessed of the same empathy as everyone else in possession of a working, human brain?

As a one-time Christian who, for lack of a better way to put it in few words, went agnostic, I reached the philosophical point I'm at by questioning each of my values over time. I'm sure you've done the same to some degree. . . it's natural for anyone with a brain to analyze random information at least -some- of the time.

You have to have considered and even discussed the obvious wisdom behind many of your Biblically based morals, yes? There has to be at least a few moral values espoused by the Bible that, even without God threatening/promising you into motion, you would follow simply because it's the logically proper way to conduct yourself? I know that, even though I lacked faith in the overall story, there were more than a few of the Biblical maxims that I found, and still find, highly compelling.

If you want the answer to this, examine yourself honestly. Try to imagine how you'd feel about your code of conduct and how you'd treat other people if you found out that your God wasn't real, or if you suddenly lost belief in Him for whatever reason.

1. Li'l bit.

2. Pretty much.

3. Apparently.

4. That sounds like a LOT more work than it would be worth.

5. No.

This ain't the Friday Five Thread?!?​

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

I see a new idea emerging that intrigues me to a degree. PainefulTruth has brought up the idea that morality has evolved along with mankind's physical evolution (paraphrasing).

No. Life evolved, but morality suddenly came on the scene when man developed self-awareness. It allowed us to see and understand what we do to others as if standing in their shoes--and choosing whether to harm them or not (free will). The Eden story in Genesis is an excellent allegory for it, even to acquiring the knowledge of our ultimate death, which the animals can't comprehend, and is the final determinant of full self-awareness. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis back then, was a pure genius.

Suddenly?


Monkeys are only 10,000 years or so in to our shot at Sentience and the Stars, and even a sociopathic old atheist Monkey like me wouldn't consider our species 'moral' by pretty much ANY definition of the word....

yet.​

The first thing that 21st Century Monkeys should do is celebrate how much better 'Civilized' life is now than it was even just a few hundred years ago.

Next up is to keep working towards a fair marketplace, preparing the next generation to make the most of it, and equitable sharing of Earth's resources among Monkeys present and Monkey Spawn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/76268-perhaps-our-children.html​