sarek05 Wrote:I think he's mostly talking about the Old Testament. God wasn't as forgiving back then. You don't get the same warm fuzzy feeling from the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah or the great flood, and Leviticus and Deuteronomy aren't quite as poetic as the Psalms. The book of Revelation can also give some people pause...

He did say that excluding the four Gospels, the whole collection is a "rather weighty tome filled with fear". The reason I brought up the more poetic books is that they are easier to understand for someone with no previous studies than the more.. weightier stuff.

Laws regulations and teachings to a small people with a very different monotheistic faith living among potentially hostile larger nations, texts about their history, the apocalyptic scriptures, etc. in addition to the poetic ones.
It is easy to pick up single incidents out of context and make claims, but when you study the context it was written in and to what audience, is it about fear?

If a nation enforces laws by punishments for transgressions, is that nation governed with fear? If it is not governed with fear, does that mean that it has no laws and people are free to ravage, plunder, and rape to their liking without any consequences?
(the story of Sodom and Gomorrah)

bodhisamaya Wrote:Four pages on what to say to a Japanese store clerk. Who da thunk it? People must love 7-11!

Indeed. Language and culture, etiquette, philosophy of natural rights, social justice, strippers and the Bible! (I doubt I've seen "warm fuzzies" applied to retail, strippers and the Bible on the same page before.) Those crazy RTKers

alantin Wrote:If a nation enforces laws by punishments for transgressions, is that nation governed with fear? If it is not governed with fear, does that mean that it has no laws and people are free to ravage, plunder, and rape to their liking without any consequences?

I don't want to join this discussion on religion, but I find it interesting that among the handful of reasons for incarcerating criminals, deterrence apparently doesn't play a big role. It makes sense that most criminals assume they're going to get away with it. Crime is more effectively reduced by other means. [heh... adding 'criminal justice' to that list of topics]

Thora Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Four pages on what to say to a Japanese store clerk. Who da thunk it? People must love 7-11!

Indeed. Language and culture, etiquette, philosophy of natural rights, social justice, strippers and the Bible! (I doubt I've seen "warm fuzzies" applied to retail, strippers and the Bible on the same page before.) Those crazy RTKers

lol
You said it! ^^;

Thora Wrote:...I find it interesting that among the handful of reasons for incarcerating criminals, deterrence apparently doesn't play a big role. It makes sense that most criminals assume they're going to get away with it. Crime is more effectively reduced by other means.

I agree. incarceration is the action taken to confine the problem arisen for whatever reasons. I heard somewhere that the countries with the most laws also have the most criminals..

This is also a great theme that runs through the Bible and the ultimate solution to the problem introduced in the Old Testament can be read in the New Testament.


But.. Perhaps we should return to the original subject..
I did get some great answers already though! Thank you for everybody! ^^

alantin Wrote:Oh, please....!
"Do this or a big man in the sky with a big stick will beat you down" is the oldest line I can think of and I can't believe that people still throw it around! It is a distortion of the message of the Gospel and only serves to show how deep a persons ignorance is!

Really? I thought the 'How can morals exist without god?' line was a far older example of ignorance and stupidity. I just don't get how otherwise sane intelligent people can actually believe such rubbish.

Most Western religions are based on hate (not love as they claim), to quote the late great Frank Zappa 'Which book do you think has killed more people, the christian bible or the Kama Sutra?'

~Mex

If electricity comes from electrons... does that mean that morality comes from morons?

Mex5150 Wrote:Really? I thought the 'How can morals exist without god?' line was a far older example of ignorance and stupidity. I just don't get how otherwise sane intelligent people can actually believe such rubbish.

Most Western religions are based on hate (not love as they claim), to quote the late great Frank Zappa 'Which book do you think has killed more people, the christian bible or the Kama Sutra?'

Well.. I wouldn't call a person, who suggests something like this or actually tries to prove anything with it, neither sane nor intelligent..

What was Frank Zappa's field of speciality again..? Hmm..
He sure wasn't very informed about this and the same logic seems to suggest that if race is used as an excuse for discrimination, it is infact race that is at fault..

In your hurry to get to insult me, it seems that you didn't even bother to read what was said before.. You are welcome to go back and read my thoughts on this. Plus! I never suggested that "morals can't exist without God" as I don't believe so. Many atheists display high morals in their lives and even Jesus himself talked about this!

Still, I do believe, and have seen in the lives of many people (so actually I know it as a fact!) that faith and godly life result in high moral standards.
It also cannot be disputed that the christian morals have profoundly influenced the western culture and it's perceptions on morals have roots in the biblical moral standards. It shouldn't be unexpected when we think about how long christianity has influenced in the west..

bodhisamaya Wrote:If electricity comes from electrons... does that mean that morality comes from morons?

I do know that insults and personal ignorant opinions presented as facts come from morons!

SammyB Wrote:I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

phauna Wrote:Perhaps you could ask Confucius, who came up with this principal long before Jesus' time.

By the way, Jesus was quoting God's instruction to His people as recorded in scripture not "coming up with a principle".

"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18. Date: WAY before Confucius, though I fail to see why that is particularly significant.

phuana Wrote:People want to avoid suffering and pain. Obviously if I inflict pain on all around me, one day some people are going to gang up on me and return the favour. Kind of like the Golden Rule in reverse.

You didn't answer my question. What you've given is a practical reason not to hurt someone else, that being because they will probably hurt you back. That does not explain why someone might stop when they see a beggar in the street, ask them how they're going and buy them a meal? From a practical point of view this is a waste of time and money, that beggar is never going to buy you a meal later down the track... So why do it?

quana Wrote:When my three year old daughter wants to sit on the cat, I usually tell her 'the cat doesn't like that', and then say 'would you like me to sit on you?', then I pretend to sit on her. She understands this completely. I wonder how a three year old who has never heard or experienced any religion understands this concept? From natural observation of the reactions of other humans to my own actions it is easy to see what people like and what they don't. From this the Golden Rule is easily formed through a bit of deductive thinking.

Once again, a practical reason not to hurt someone/something else. Not a reason why we should act with compassion and love toward other people...

Quote:If you want it in evolutionary terms, we are programmed to be nice to our relatives because our relatives contain some of our genes. Genes try to propagate themselves, humans are just the vehicles for propagation... my genes made me follow a simple rule, people I know are related to me, so don't hurt them.

Yes, genes try to propagate themselves, which contributes to instinctual behaviour. This is not morals... If humans are 'just the vehicles for propagation' and nothing else... why then, if you see a man drowning in the water, do you feel inside that you ought to help him? Your "genes" certainly don't want you to jump in and save him, it's a major risk, you might die... So why do it?

Mex5150 Wrote:Really? I thought the 'How can morals exist without god?' line was a far older example of ignorance and stupidity. I just don't get how otherwise sane intelligent people can actually believe such rubbish.

~Mex

Well while you're at it, please relieve me of my "ignorance and stupidity" by explaining WHY humans get feelings of how they "ought to behave" in particular situations where it is neither 'practical' nor going increase their chances to 'propagate their genes' like they are supposedly programmed to do?

hey guys I'm don't want to "get involved in this" or anything. But I figured you might find these quotes from C.S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity" interesting as they pertain to your discussion on the nature of morality:

- "Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not."

- "If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind excepts those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win, but at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.”

-“We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked?”

There you go The only reason I posted this was because I thought it might alleviate some of the misunderstandings.

igordesu Wrote:- "If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind excepts those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win, but at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.”

This quote is logically flawed.

"...and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts..."

Based on this this assumption an argument must be built to verify the whole statement, however, it is contradicted by another assumption

"...when we are most conscious of the Moral Law..."

which implies there are more than "just those two instincts in the creature's mind."

And this is why I love this quote: It's illogical and contradicts itself just like human beings

Atheism is a non-prophet organization

The universe existed as it does long before we had science to explain it. The same goes for morality and religion. It was around much longer than before any of the major religions flourishing today could define it and will continue long after their demise. The only question worth asking is what morality really is.

You will see thousands of store clerks in your life. Speak kindly to them all and avoid actions that will cause them grief (like spending 5 minutes going through your pockets looking for exact change)

bodhisamaya Wrote:Atheism is a non-prophet organization

It took me a while to get that pun. I automatically read it as "profit."

SammyB Wrote:explaining WHY humans get feelings of how they "ought to behave" in particular situations where it is neither 'practical' nor going increase their chances to 'propagate their genes' like they are supposedly programmed to do?

They learn it... sociopaths do not feel obligated to help anyone. Mostly they're out for themselves. They're behavior is developmental. Much like the son of skilled classical pianist, who learns from his father, will very likely become a more skilled pianist, the son of dangerous criminal who watches his father work will likely be an even more dangerous criminal. We like to blame this sort of phenomenon on genetics when it's simple social upbringing at work. This is evidenced by professors who adopt children at young ages and these children exhibit tendencies for high level scholastic aptitude.

There are people born with a disposition to go in the opposite direction of what we call moral, though. We tend to call these individuals psychopaths. Other's pain gives them pleasure.

Are these people then the devil's children or just a random combination of genes? Are these two ideas mutually exclusive? Are science and religion really so different? Some would argue that the empirical nature of science makes it far different from religion.... to which some would say "I don't 'believe' you."

theasianpleaser Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:- "If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind excepts those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win, but at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses.”

This quote is logically flawed.

"...and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts..."

Based on this this assumption an argument must be built to verify the whole statement, however, it is contradicted by another assumption

"...when we are most conscious of the Moral Law..."

which implies there are more than "just those two instincts in the creature's mind."

And this is why I love this quote: It's illogical and contradicts itself just like human beings

Hmm, it seems that this quote is referring to a situation with All Else Being Equal. In that case, it would seem that one of the instincts is in accordance with the "universal moral law" and the other is a desire opposite to that law (hypothetically, the Judeo-Christian tradition would call that our inherited "original sin"). So, C.S. Lewis seems to be arguing for the existence of a universal moral law by saying that humans often illogically choose to go with the weaker of the two impulses, and he attributes that the to Universal moral law. The only thing is, I'm not entirely sure what *exactly* he means when he says "when we are *most conscious of* the Moral Law."

kazelee Wrote:Mostly they're out for themselves.

Sociopaths are beyond merely 'out for themselves'. Everyone on earth is 'out for themselves'. Sociopaths are unable to see how treating others fairly/nicely will benefit themselves, or simply unable to treat them that way even if they understand.

SammyB Wrote:Yes, genes try to propagate themselves, which contributes to instinctual behaviour. This is not morals... If humans are 'just the vehicles for propagation' and nothing else... why then, if you see a man drowning in the water, do you feel inside that you ought to help him? Your "genes" certainly don't want you to jump in and save him, it's a major risk, you might die... So why do it?

Well I answered that here, but you didn't seem to read it.

phauna Wrote:If you want it in evolutionary terms, we are programmed to be nice to our relatives because our relatives contain some of our genes. Genes try to propagate themselves, humans are just the vehicles for propagation. So my daughter has half of my genes, the genes inside of me have therefore designed me to naturally want to take care of my children. If I lived in an extended family type tribe, as we once did, my genes made me follow a simple rule, people I know are related to me, so don't hurt them.

Fast forward to the modern day, we live in big cities, however my genes don't know this (yet) so they continue to use the 'don't hurt people I know' rule. So even though my friends and acquaintances are probably not related to me, my genes don't know this. Similarly, even though most people use contraception when they have sex, the urge for sex remains from a time when it was the drive for procreation. My genes don't know that when I have sex I usually won't make a baby, they just know that more sex equals more babies equals more genes.

We would help a drowning man because we are social, tribal beings, and we help people we know. That person may have some of our genes. I don't think everyone would help a drowning man, but personally I would because I'm a strong swimmer and know how to save drowning people. So there is a small risk to my genes for a potential gain. If I couldn't swim then I probably wouldn't save him, and neither would a Christian who couldn't swim. We might want to save him but the risk outweighs the benefits to our genes. Instinct and morals are about the same thing when you remove religion.

To reiterate, we help strangers because we think they may have some of our genes. This is because in the past almost everyone we knew were related to us. So in order to help the genes in other related humans, which we may share, we help humans we know. In modern times we aren't related to everyone we know, like in our tribal past, but our genes don't know that, so we still want to help people we know. If you don't understand then I can explain it again, but it's straightforward. The sex analogy should bring it home, why crave sex if procreation is removed from the equation? The answer is that we were built that way long ago and haven't changed much since.

phauna Wrote:To reiterate, we help strangers because we think they may have some of our genes. This is because in the past almost everyone we knew were related to us. So in order to help the genes in other related humans, which we may share, we help humans we know. In modern times we aren't related to everyone we know, like in our tribal past, but our genes don't know that, so we still want to help people we know. If you don't understand then I can explain it again, but it's straightforward. The sex analogy should bring it home, why crave sex if procreation is removed from the equation? The answer is that we were built that way long ago and haven't changed much since.

I'd like to add that while evolution may have brought about the behaviors that humans label as altruistic and selfish, our cultural development has allowed us to impose a variety of embellishments to this moral scaffolding.

I don't help others because they might share my genes. I don't care about my genes, my genes "care" (in a very vague sense of the word) about my genes. This idea needs further explanation, it seems. But, I don't have time at the moment. I would suggest that everyone read Richard Dawkins' the Selfish Gene. It is quite possibly the most clear explanation on the evolutionary genesis of animal behavior I have ever read.

Anyhow, I construct my morality from observation, building upon my biological predispositions. I act right out of pride and integrity. Because it would benefit all life in the world if I act in such a way to reduce my harmful effects on my fellow living things as much as possible.

Humans do not need a god to tell them what is right. Just the same, we have outgrown the genetic drive for morality through our culture. However, I do think it would be safe to say that if those genetic predispositions were to disappear, our culture may die with them.