Religion, moral and values.

[Subotan]

I thougt the onus of proof is on the one who makes wild claims.

Yes, yes it is.

[HoreTore]

Got some proof?

I have as much proof that no god exists as I have proof that the Flying Spagethi Monster does not exist.

There is no proof of either existing, which is proof that neither exists.

[Samurai Waki]

It's utter delusion, to think that (given the history of religion) the faithful of the Judaic religions have ever really cared how their book tells them to act, only that they should, and at times by any means necessary.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I have as much proof that no god exists as I have proof that the Flying Spagethi Monster does not exist.

There is no proof of either existing, which is proof that neither exists.

Ah, now you are reaching too far.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[HoreTore]

Ah, now you are reaching too far.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It actually is.

Can't prove a man killed X? Then he didn't do it according to our laws.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I thougt the onus of proof is on the one who makes wild claims. If he said he lacked the faith to belief in a god, the burden of proof would be on me, but the claim that nothing like a god exists would require proof, and any fact requires proof, and he knows for a fact there is no god. I then ask is this his faith or does he know this for a fact, and if so, can he prove it is a fact? If not, then he would be agnostic and not atheist.

Burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion bro.

[Skullheadhq]

It actually is.

Can't prove a man killed X? Then he didn't do it according to our laws.

He might have done it, but there is just not enough proof to put him behind bars.

[Ironside]

He might have done it, but there is just not enough proof to put him behind bars.

But you usually goes with the negative answer without proof, at least until new evidence manifest, otherwise the existance of the Flying Spagethi Monster is about as certain.

And there's not one assumption about God but several:
The assumption that he is the creator of the universe.
The assumption that he has knowledge about earth. (We're less than bacterias compared to the universe, planet wise).
The assumption that this is recent knowledge.
The assumption that he cares about humans.
The assumption that he cares about praying and religion.
The assumption that he cares about induviduals. (See above, you don't care about induviduals when there's 7 milliards of them)
The assumption that he in any way resembles a god decribed in any holy text.
The assumption that he resembles God decribed in the Bible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral, then it is God that defines what moral is. If so, if God would have declared murder to be morally correct behaviour, then it would be. Yet I think most people, even those who are religious, would consider murder immoral. A religious person might say that God would never declare murder to be something good, beacuse God is good and murder is evil.

What does that mean? It means that moral exists independently of God.

If you base your moral values solely on religion, then it must follow that you consider any behaviour potentially morally correct. If some lost part of the Bible was discovered, that revoked the fifth commandment ("You shall not kill") and replaced it with "You shall kill", then a such a person would change his moral values regarding murder.

If you don't consider every kind of behaviour potentially morally correct, then you must accept that moral is defined by something else than God. Any other conclusion is illogical.

Who said anything about the Bible?

You are missing the point, and putting the cart before the horse. God creates the world and embeds morality within it, humans arise out of the world. We believe what we do today because of the basic morality encoded at the creation of the universe. If God believed murder was Good the universe would have been created differently and we would believe it was Good too.

So there is no contradiction.

Your argument as to '2' is nonsense.

From the Stanford University Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:



If you claim that morality cannot exist without God, then tell me which god. Because Odin's morality differs somewhat from that of Ganesh.

If you are asking for a detailed moral code, I don't have one. That was not my claim, however. In order for morality to exist as anything other than personnal preference it must be universal, and that requires an extra-universal valuator.

Enter God.

Or, you abandon any claim to anything approaching reality.

Rather like you have to abandon any claim to us being more than animals without some for of soul.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But if that is the case, PVC, why do a multitude of mutually incompatible moralities exist? And why do some people lack a conscience?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[

But if that is the case, PVC, why do a multitude of mutually incompatible moralities exist? And why do some people lack a conscience?

Some people and some societies are more moral than others, that's all.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In order for morality to exist as anything other than personnal preference it must be universal, and that requires an extra-universal valuator.

Why should that be the case?

[HoreTore]

Rather like you have to abandon any claim to us being more than animals without some for of soul.

Well that one is easy; we are simply another form of animal. One with a very high brain capacity and the ability(being on two legs) to effectively handle tools compared to other animals, but we are still animals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why should that be the case?

Universal values require a universal valuator. Siad valuator would be "God", how you define this "God" is another issue entirely.

Well that one is easy; we are simply another form of animal. One with a very high brain capacity and the ability(being on two legs) to effectively handle tools compared to other animals, but we are still animals.

That explains why you'll rutt with another male's female in defiance of morality then, wouldn't it?

It doesn't explain why you're involved in this argument, given that it is apparently totally pointless in your world.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Universal values require a universal valuator. Siad valuator would be "God", how you define this "God" is another issue entirely.

I don't see how that should necessarly follow.

Universal values require a universal valuator, fine, let's assume this is true. Why should this universal valuator be something outside of this universe? An omnipotent being, a creator of the universe?


'All tigers are striped. Therefore, there must be a painter who paints them' - that's not true, is it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Honest answer but it poses as many questions as it answers. Do other species know morality having arisen from the same universe? Which morality is actually the most moral? Is morality tied to a (lack of?) conscience? Does loss or development of same imply a loss or development of morality within an individual? (The elderly will surely thank you for your answer. ) What do our changing morals imply about our past?

By contrast, Louis' question hints at an alternative: that morality is simply the set of guidelines that evolved as the species did, that these guidelines allow an individual to judge and avoid conflicts with the wider interests in advance, and that the reason for different ideas of morality is simply the fact that they evolved in disparate colonies of the same species as part of a different culture. It also explains why morality changes and why morality in isolated colonies of humans tends to develop rather different from open societies which are more exposed to the wider world at large.

[Slyspy]

Universal values require a universal valuator. Siad valuator would be "God", how you define this "God" is another issue entirely.

In this case you should not capitalize god.

[HoreTore]

That explains why you'll rutt with another male's female in defiance of morality then, wouldn't it?

The 20's called; they want their view of women back.

[Paltmull]

Who said anything about the Bible?

You are missing the point, and putting the cart before the horse. God creates the world and embeds morality within it, humans arise out of the world. We believe what we do today because of the basic morality encoded at the creation of the universe. If God believed murder was Good the universe would have been created differently and we would believe it was Good too.

So there is no contradiction.

I was talking about basing your moral values on a specific religion, Christianity in this example. I was not referring to your statement regarding the existence of God as necessity for the existence of moral, but rather the claim that "it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values".

If you are asking for a detailed moral code, I don't have one. That was not my claim, however. In order for morality to exist as anything other than personnal preference it must be universal, and that requires an extra-universal valuator.

Enter God.

How about human biology? I'm certainly not an expert on this, but IIRC helping others and working together with others makes your body produce endorphines. Basic moral values may very well be a product of our genes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Basic moral values are inherent in any social creature.

A creature with no morals cannot properly interact within a group, so basic premises such as don't murder are inherently moral simply because of the necessity of the creatures to survive.

[Paltmull]

Yup.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see how that should necessarly follow.

Universal values require a universal valuator, fine, let's assume this is true. Why should this universal valuator be something outside of this universe? An omnipotent being, a creator of the universe?


'All tigers are striped. Therefore, there must be a painter who paints them' - that's not true, is it?

One assumes in this case that God's nature is inherrent in the universe, I don't like the inside/outside question because I think it's a bad descriptive analogy.

Basic moral values are inherent in any social creature.

A creature with no morals cannot properly interact within a group, so basic premises such as don't murder are inherently moral simply because of the necessity of the creatures to survive.

Rubbish, it is immoral to kill, but animals do it all the time without hesitation.

It is, in point of fact, immoral to kill a single babe to save an entire city, even though that is the more logical and utilitarian choice the destruction of the city is still preferable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Rubbish, it is immoral to kill, but animals do it all the time without hesitation.

So do humans lol. your point fails.

It is, in point of fact, immoral to kill a single babe to save an entire city, even though that is the more logical and utilitarian choice the destruction of the city is still preferable.

Even more lol. it is immoral to kill one. but allowing millions of deaths? preferable.

This is why i dont like the religious in my government.

[Ironside]

Rubbish, it is immoral to kill, but animals do it all the time without hesitation.

Predators is a work of the devil then? Even intraspecies killing are "regulated" and not randomly done.

It is, in point of fact, immoral to kill a single babe to save an entire city, even though that is the more logical and utilitarian choice the destruction of the city is still preferable.

Then you're killing an entire city to save one child. And that's even more immoral.

Sure, at killing a child for something that might save a city might be the most immoral choise, but your example goes into the tragic genocidal vallain territory (it's usually thier child).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So do humans lol. your point fails.


Even more lol. it is immoral to kill one. but allowing millions of deaths? preferable.

This is why i dont like the religious in my government.

This is philosophy, not religion.

Predators is a work of the devil then? Even intraspecies killing are "regulated" and not randomly done.



Then you're killing an entire city to save one child. And that's even more immoral.

Sure, at killing a child for something that might save a city might be the most immoral choise, but your example goes into the tragic genocidal vallain territory (it's usually thier child).

Let me expand the example.

An army besieging a city gives the governors of the city an ultimatum, kill one single child or see the entire city destroyed. The besiegers are trying to get the city to commit an evil act, the people who agree will be selfish, immoral. They want to save their own lives. If the whole city accepts sacrifice then they will all die, but they die clean and the besiegers lose. If they kill the child the besiegers win.

[Subotan]

An army besieging a city gives the governors of the city an ultimatum, kill one single child or see the entire city destroyed. The besiegers are trying to get the city to commit an evil act, the people who agree will be selfish, immoral. They want to save their own lives. If the whole city accepts sacrifice then they will all die, but they die clean and the besiegers win. If they kill the child the besiegers lose.

FTFY

[Kralizec]

There are two seperate questions here being conflated.

1. Can someone be moral without God?

2. Can morality exist in a world without God?

Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.

Your answer to two, of course, entirely depends on your definition on the word "morality". In my vocabulary morality is not universal; moral behaviour is what the vast majority of a given society considers to be right. While different societies have different concepts of morality, there's a fairly large amount of convergion because A) our evolution as social creatures B) societies wich would condone murder, for example, are inevitably dysfunctional and would either reform or vanish into history.

Two questions for you (and other theists, if interested)

1. Was it moral for the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites because the "author" of morality told them to do so?

2. In earlier days leaders of your religion have sanctioned slavery, murder and whatnot as being part of "God's will". Nowadays most members of your religion disapprove of those things. Christians from all ages and places may agree that morality is a universal code of conduct, but not about what it actually contains. In practical terms, how is your notion of morality not subjective?

[Banquo's Ghost]

An army besieging a city gives the governors of the city an ultimatum, kill one single child or see the entire city destroyed. The besiegers are trying to get the city to commit an evil act, the people who agree will be selfish, immoral. They want to save their own lives. If the whole city accepts sacrifice then they will all die, but they die clean and the besiegers lose. If they kill the child the besiegers win.

Even if by that decision, lots of babies in the city then die? Remember, most moral systems assign culpability for non-action against evil too - it is not considered moral to simply step aside.

[Shibumi]

I am a big fan of the monkeys who have dedicated their life to Jesus Christ and our Lord.

In the name of God, they look after monkeys who even are born retarded, even though it would be better for the tribe to abandon them. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

[Kralizec]

I think the point of the dillemma is that if the governor decides not to to sacrifice the child and the city gets massacred, the latter is still the doing of the besiegers, while the former would have been on the hands of the governor.

Another scenario would be that you're driving a bus, carrying 50 passangers across a bridge. The bridge begins to shake violently and is about to collapse. You've come to a halt, but realise that you still have time to drive the bus across the bridge to safety. However, in the chaos a motorcycle driver has fallen from his bike and now lies unconcious before the bus. Because of all the debris there is no space, and no time to move around him.

Personally I would both sacrifice the child and drive over the unconcious motorcycle driver. Both of them would die regardless of what you chose, chosing sacrifice is nothing more than damage control. Refusing to do so because you're unwilling to get blood on your own hands is, in my opinion, self-righteous cowardice.