1. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Mar '06 03:451 edit
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    Without God, how would one define 'good' or 'bad'? Everything would simply be my opinion or yours. How would any group of people define right from wrong?
    And I don't believe collective agreement is a possibility. It might work for where your office mates are going to go to lunch, but without laws, how is one suppose to stop the big guy from just doing what he wants?

    DF
    Primates (other than ourselves) show hierarchal organisation, have rules (laws, anyone?) and even have a primative (boom boom) system of policing themselves. Many animals follow rules of this type. It's a basic cost-benefit scenario, which completely pervades all of biology. Primates don't have god as a concept.
  2. Standard memberamannion
    Andrew Mannion
    Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    53702
    01 Mar '06 03:47
    And does anybody notice that the 'big guy' seems to be doing pretty much whatever he wants anyway?
  3. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Mar '06 04:04
    Originally posted by amannion
    And does anybody notice that the 'big guy' seems to be doing pretty much whatever he wants anyway?
    Yeah, well, isn't the christian philosophy to 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'? I reckon god must get a few smacks in the mouth based on how crap he treats everyone else.
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Mar '06 04:11
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Ah, so THAT'S your moral standpoint to judge all us athiests as immoral, or at least amoral, is it? You can't imagine not believing in god, and since you deem yourself to be moral, all us athiests must be amoral. Excellent.
    No one proclaimed your lack of morals. Everyone has some set by which the adjudge themselves righteous. I judge no one, save myself. However, I cannot imagine a world where God does not exist, and therefore, cannot imagine a world where His rules do not exist. You can take this to mean the rules of nature, or the rules of society. Either of them are shadows of God's character. Were you to find a functioning society which did abide by the main aspects of the laws of divine policy, then you could rightly claim morals are possible without God.
  5. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Mar '06 04:341 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    No one proclaimed your lack of morals. Everyone has some set by which the adjudge themselves righteous. I judge no one, save myself. However, I cannot imagine a world where God does not exist, and therefore, cannot imagine a world where His rules do not exist. You can take this to mean the rules of nature, or the rules of society. Either of them are s cts of the laws of divine policy, then you could rightly claim morals are possible without God.
    I guess the billion and a half chinese population (and 121 million Japanese) will have to do it for me then. They seem to do little worse than any other country, yet are predominantly non-christian.

    [edit; btw, what IS a "law of divine policy" exactly?]
  6. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Mar '06 04:37
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I guess the billion and a half chinese population (and 121 million Japanese) will have to do it for me then. They seem to do little worse than any other country, yet are predominantly non-christian.

    [edit; btw, what IS a "law of divine policy" exactly?]
    Good thing you added the edit. Very simply, they are the rules by which a society must live, in order to maintain its proper function.
  7. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    01 Mar '06 04:44
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Good thing you added the edit. Very simply, they are the rules by which a society must live, in order to maintain its proper function.
    So what's the "proper function" of society?
  8. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    01 Mar '06 05:24
    Originally posted by DragonFriend
    Premise 1: before a group of people can live together peacefully there needs to be an agreed upon set of rules governing their actions

    If there isn't , or if the rules are suddenly lifted, we get what we saw in New Orleans after Katrina. It quickly becomes might-makes-right.

    Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they ...[text shortened]... (like the animals). Thus they came from someone above him. And that someone is God.

    DF
    Premise 2 is false. In order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, all that is required is that they agree there is sufficient reason to accept a set of rules. You have given no reason to think that these rules must come from some external authority like God. It is perfectly possible that such rules may come from considerations of what is in our rational best interest, or from natural sympathetic sentiment, or....

    There is no reason to believe premise 3. Even if we grant the tendentious claim that mankind is currently civilized (have you read any history books recently, or turned on the T.V.?), it doesn't follow that mankind must have at any time agreed upon some common set of rules. In fact, it is much more plausible that humans have endorsed different sets of rules, but that happen to have a moderate degree of overlap. Further, the rules we have in fact accepted seem to be justified in different ways by different people. You think it is wrong to murder because God says so. I think it is wrong to murder because one should cultivate compassion as a virtue. If we agree on not murdering (or other rules) we can get along pretty well, even though we disagree about the source of morality.

    Anyway, it is false that all men's opinions are equal. If you opine that P is the case, and I opine that not P is the case. Then one of us must be right (i.e., our opinions aren't equal because one of them is false). Further, if you opine that P but can only provide really silly reasons to think that P is true, while I can provide good reasons for thinking that P is false, then our opinions aren't equal (because yours is unjustified and mine is justified).

    So, what's your next argument?

    (1)....?
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    01 Mar '06 06:04
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I judge no one, save myself.
    Can't have been you referring to Muslims as "sub-human vermin" then. Or wasn't that a judgement?
  10. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    01 Mar '06 12:35
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
    but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
    This is interesting in itself.

    Does this mean Eve did not know it was wrong to disobey God (by eating from the tree) - yet mankind is still being punished for her "mistake"?
  11. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Mar '06 12:37
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Can't have been you referring to Muslims as "sub-human vermin" then. Or wasn't that a judgement?
    Judge, in the sense of 'who goes to heaven, who goes to hell,' not the 'who should be castrated using rusty scissors and then left bleeding in shark-infested waters' type.
    No one goes to hell for anything they have committed, no matter how reprehensible the act(s) may be to individuals. However, for those heinous acts, we should be as "creative" as possible in our reward system.
  12. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    01 Mar '06 12:41
    Originally posted by dottewell
    This is interesting in itself.

    Does this mean Eve did not know it was wrong to disobey God (by eating from the tree) - yet mankind is still being punished for her "mistake"?
    Nay. It means she knew she would die if she ate the fruit. First spiritually, then physically. And, we are not 'punished' for her arrogance; we inherited the sin nature from Adam, and are imputed with Adam's original sin. The woman was tricked into eating the fruit, whereas Adam chose the woman over God, thus partook of the fruit to be with her.
    (We're kinda silly that way.)
  13. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    01 Mar '06 13:36
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Nay. It means she knew she would die if she ate the fruit.
    She knew it would have negative consequences for her; but many things have negative consequences for me that are not wrong (sometimes they are right).

    So how did she know it was morally wrong to eat the fruit?
  14. Joined
    06 Jan '06
    Moves
    3711
    01 Mar '06 13:39
    Originally posted by amannion
    [b]Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they must agree the rules come from an authoritative source.

    Why must people accept that rules have come from an authoritative source?
    ...
    The authority that we site for our social rules is usually the law. But the law is an agreed upon set of rules created by ... us. That is, w ...[text shortened]... ve created the rules by which we live.
    (Well not me of course, or you, but our forbears.)
    ...[/b]
    But how did those rules get started? How did we go from a might makes right "society" to what we see today? Why was one set of proposed rules accepted by the people over the currently in place set?

    DF
  15. Joined
    06 Jan '06
    Moves
    3711
    01 Mar '06 13:42
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Primates (other than ourselves) show hierarchal organisation, have rules (laws, anyone?) and even have a primative (boom boom) system of policing themselves. Many animals follow rules of this type. It's a basic cost-benefit scenario, which completely pervades all of biology. Primates don't have god as a concept.
    Good point. But which of those primates (or horses or ...) are in charge? The largest/strongest of them. They live in a might-makes-right society. If you don't like it, you can challenge the big guy.
    I believe civilized peole are beyond might-makes-right.

    DF
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree