Atheism

I'd have to dig deeper into that, but from what I've been able to tell so far, His principles seem consistent. It's the applications of those principles that have varied from time to time.

Hmm. Are we making the same point, just saying it in different ways?

 

I'm not trying to debate God's morality. When Fan01 talks about there being an absolute morality that comes down from on high, there is an implication that the rules are set it stone. (No 10 Commandment pun intended) Yet, we see in the Bible, particularly in the OT, that God himself operates in differing ways in different situations. We'll take it as a given that he is Perfection and Benvolence, therefore, all his acts must be moral.

I think that even God shows signs of what I discussed in this thread earlier. How our tribalism impacts our ethics and morals. God may call to let His people go, to free them from the bonds of slavery, but doesn't offer the same protection to those that aren't part of his tribe. It would stand to reason that actions that are moral and just for some aren't moral and just for others.

To take it a step further, we see things in Leviticus that are God's Law that we find reprehensible today. Did God change or did our understanding of God and the world change. I know the old chestnut of how Jesus came to bring a new covenant and a new law, but that would imply that a change was necessary. Why? Was the old law flawed or was it a recognition that the OT God's tribalism would falter in a changing society, particularly that of an expanding Roman culture.

Well, that's rambling enough.

 

That would be saying that the objective morals I'm talking about are set forth from the bible. I'm not postulating that. I think God defined that morality when he created man. To be honest I'm not into the whole bibical inerrancy thing. I think it's a mixtures of history, allagory, and parable. I think one can learn a great many important lessons from it and even base many of your beliefs on it but that doesn't mean it is inerrant.

I do think the basic rules are set in stone (nice pun by the way) as much as gravity is.

I think one can discover God though self examination, the process of self actualazation, life experience, and internal dialogue. I am though a big believer in the new testament, that Jesus was a real person, died for my sin, and rose from the dead.

I do agree with what hasbeen99 is saying though. If God is perfect and the source of morals he is seperate and above those morals. So when he smites somebody he's not doing anything immoral.

 

but you used animals as the example of a societies that flourish despite their lack of a moral code keeping them from murdering and raping. i think it's fair to point out that humans on human violence is more common than wolf on wolf or zebra on zebra. so maybe animals don't lack morals.

how would a bee assist another bee? and let's be clear, social animals like insect colonies can give some insight into the evolution of societies, but direct comparisons between ants and humans are difficult seeing as we're not even in the same phylum.

 

hmmm.... i don't think people in the middle east justify their abuse of women (which is what i was getting at, not children). i think they just do it and don't think much about it. i used the term justify from the standpoint of any defense of such behavior. just like i would say defenders of capital punishment justify their stance on the death penalty. doesn't mean they're wrong and they know it.

your response to the death penalty question implies that we don't get a complete set of morals -- indeed even the morals we get aren't adequately defined. what's the point of an objective moral code that says don't murder if you leave murder to be subjective?

actually, yes i do. if enough people felt the holocaust was moral, it would be generally accepted as moral. your argument for an objective set of morals presupposes that there's an objective "score" somewhere -- that events are either good or bad not by how people view them, but in some universal sense. i don't accept this premise. i don't believe in a universal truth.

social creatures often self-sacrifice for the common good. a bee doesn't stand much of a chance against a bear looking for honey, and yet they defend the colony. and of course, sacrificing yourself isn't always as heroic as saving a child from an oncoming bus. suicide attacks are also people overcoming their natural instinct to survive.

i meant reward them in the afterlife.

 

The majority of study and research I've seen, with the exception of ones from animal rights groups, doesn't support morals in animals. There is a high degree of anthropomorphism where people try to project human traits onto animals.

In lesser animals I would think that it's impossible because they don't have the cognitive ability to even ask the question of morality. They are just products of biology, evolution, and societal groups.

My dog has no concept of right and wrong.

 

I think morality, just like religion, is an offshoot of human beings recognition of mortality.

 

I think the morals we internally get from God are ones that come under the heading of the golden rule. Do unto other as you would have them do unto you. Love your neighbor as yourself. From this we get "good" morals such as love, generosity, selfsacrifice, and equality, and bad morals such as selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Murder isn't subjective. What actions constitute murder is where the confusion comes in. If I stab a man who is trying to stab me and he dies I'm not guilty of murder but if I just kill the guy without provocation then I am when in both cases I caused the death of another human.

I would say that humans live their lives as if there are universal truths. When a person is wronged they want justice. If there isn't any objective morals than there is no such thing as right and wrong. We're just intelligent animals. But human life and society are drastically different than in the animal kingdom.

A bee doesn't self-sacrifice in the way a human does. There is no right or wrongness in the bee giving up it's life for the hive. It's what they've been biologically programmed to do. They don't do it by choice and certainly not based on morality.

I think that the belief in an eternal afterlife gives more credence to doing good moral things because it gives those actions more significance and meaning. I don't see it as a reward in the same fashion as my son getting a gold star for doing all of his homework. Eternal life isn't an incentive cause for doing good things.

Good discussion by the way nut. I enjoy debate as a way to explore concepts and ideas and learn as opposed to just trying to prove you're right and the other person wrong. For my part I hope I haven't come across as some religious zealot.

 

i was kind of being facitious. wanton violence is more of a human thing than an animal thing, so it seems our god-given morals don't get us much.

 

Are you serious?