Moral Argument for God

You are correct, such a claim may be made and may be the one being put forth here.First, the claim that I secretly believe in some deity is false. The only source of information about the content of my mind is me and no one is in a position to gainsay me on my declarations concerning it, as I told kendemeyer repeatedly (to no avail).As to the second claim, that god is present in me without my knowledge, that is an unprovable assertion and therefore useless.

And they are better for it. Neitzche said humans are nothing more than neurotic apes. I agree.What exactley is morality other than a word used by humans to place ones personal seal of approval or disapproval on the actions and behaviors of others.The rest of our animal brethren live in complete harmony and homeostasis with one another. Can the same be said about us?The rest of our animal brethren do not lie. They do not invent artifical codes of behavior.We are not outside of nature. We are very much apart of it, and it is mans increasing attempts TO separate himself from nature that is turning him into something he is notA unphysical blob of cholesterol and stress .We could learn alot from the rest of the animal kingdom. IMO.

No animal can commit a crime.

You have exemplary moral character?

Yes, and no.I think it's a fallacy to assume that even our "disharmony" with nature is something unique. Many animals have screwd themseleves over thrugh, overgrazing, overpopulating, over-this, over-the other thing.Many species die out because a new predetor is introduced by natural means. An earthquake makes a land bridge, overgazed land forces the herd to go elsewhere bringing with them lions, who soon make short work of the natives of wherever they migrate.It's the same for mankind. Nature will go on and maintain it's homeostasis even if we manage to kill ourselves off in the process. Yes they do. Monkeys have been observed practicing deliberatly deceptive behavior in order to get their way. They fool each other to get more food, a fav. toy, etc. Again this is not true. Different pods of whales, troops of monkeys, and packs of wolves, show markedly different behavior from each other. Different "traditions" are evident in one group vs. another.These "traditions" do not necisseraly provide any evolutionary advantage. But they do help with cohession of the group. Nothing we do seperates us from nature. We are very much a part of it. Simply because our influence resounds thrugh the environment, only makes us more intrinsicaly linked with it.Just as the eukeriotic bacterio millions of years ago put the oxygen in the air, so are we modifying the world. I would also note, that we are also keenly aware of the effects we are having and increasingly make more efforts to control them. I actually happen to think we are a pretty remarkable creature. We have a rather long lifespan, that is ever increasing, and brains that make us capable of some phenomenal feats. I think we already have.

Yes. I certainly do. I have no criminal record. I have committed no crimes that aren't victimless (such as speeding). I sacrifice for the good of others in various ways. I am honest and care for people in my locality. I am the best, most loyal friend you will ever have if you are so lucky as to earn my regard. I have a carefully considered moral code that I adhere to strenuously.So, yes. In fact I, while not being without fault (arrogance and not suffering fools gladly being two big ones), am an example that anyone would benefit from following.Of course, being an Atheist is a big part of my excellent morals.If you have the temerity to disagree with me, I would have to ask you to prove it and when you fail, I would have to insist that you apologize.

I think its in how you look at it, with your own biases and wants. A theist, who wants to believe in god, observes something and sees evidence of god because of the innate want. An atheist, wanting to support his position of godlessness, personifies animals and raises them to our level, or ‘de-personifies’ humans to bring us down to the animal’s level. Both sides are making a biased observation.A wolf’s chances for survival are lowered without the help of the pack. When a wolf helps the pack, he is helping himself. I don’t think the wolf makes a conscious decision to endanger himself for the good of the pack, I think it’s a behavioral instinct that’s over personified, like these statements: I don’t see these as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.Now, when you say things like: I see these instincts help the group, which in turn helps the individual. I think the animal is helping himself by helping the group. I put this shaded quote there to exemplify the ‘de-personifying‘ of humans that I meant. Nothing, but as we live in a society, we have to deem some actions as unacceptable, or unlawful. Nope, that’s one of the reasons that I think we are outside of nature. The first statement I agree with. Only one part of creation has a standard of morality and that is humans, although it is not an ‘ultimate’ standard. But being the only ones with that standard makes us different than the rest of the creation. I think this suggests gods existence and an ultimate standard for all of creation would support the atheist position, because then humans wouldn’t be so special afterall. What about Homo Sapiens? Can that animal commit a crime?But the other animals, they cannot commit crimes because they don’t have laws. Calling their actions murder or stealing is just an easier way to describe it, even if it is a little inaccurate.

I don't see your decisions as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.Prove me wrong. While you're at it, prove that you and everyone around you isn't a zombie* on Tuesdays.* "zombie" being a term of art in cognitive science used to refer to the concept of a human being operating only from instincts so complex that they present a perfect simulacrum of consciousness. Right. For the good of the group, which turns out to be good for the individual. (Except when it's not, which is when you see almost all humans act selfishly.) But we don't have a standard of morality. We have individuals with individual moralities, and sometimes, a few of them can get together and agree to all have more or less the same morality. Sometimes.The very fact that so many individuals and societies have competing or even contradictory moralities is proof that there is no standard of morality.

How could I disagree with you? I don't even know you.I only mentioned it because I have never known anyone with exemplary moral character before. Pretty good moral character, but not exemplary.So I found your comment surprising.

Are you implying that we are devoid of instinctual behavior?Babies invariably begin babbling at around a year after birth. If they don't it could be a sign of a developmental disorder.Does the baby consciously choose to begin babbling? Of course not. It is the instinct for speech kicking in.A baby instinctively recognizes his mothers face and can pick her out long before the brain is capable of discerning other faces. This is not a choice either.Likewise, our social instincts make us want to belong to a group. As we mature we find that acceptance is something we all desire in one form or another. Those who shun it, often have antisocial disorders.Just because we express instincts on a higher level than animals, does not mean we don't posses them.The same developmental/behavioral studies we perform on young children bellow age 3 can be repeated almost exactly for chimpanzees. Certainly much of our humanness must derive from instinct. Yes, exactly. Kind of like a platoon in the army, a group of peers at your local high school, coworkers, Mt. Climbing buddies.We humans do it all the time, it's the same thing. The animal is helping his friends, because he likes them, and he knows that if he does so his friends will help him.WE DO THE SAME THING!Saying that humans are Animals and that we have Instincts is not dehumanizing, just as saying that a wolf is an animal and has instincts is not dewolfizing.That is simply a silly concept.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-19-2005 07:44 PM

quote:

---

An atheist, wanting to support his position of godlessness, personifies animals and raises them to our level, or ‘de-personifies’ humans to bring us down to the animal’s level.

---

Except that the observation that there is less difference between animal behavior and human behavior than was traditionally thought is not necessarily evidence for atheism, any more than both "lower" mammals and humans are warm-blooded, or that humans share essentially the same metabolic respiration pathways as all other aerobic organisms.It is nice evidence against the special creation of humans, though, but only Biblical literalists need get their underpants knotted up over it.

No, humans have instinctual behaviors but also make conscious decisions on top of them. I think that animals also have instinctual behaviors, but do not make conscious decisions on top of them. Sometimes it may seem like they do, and if you're actively looking for it its easier to think you see it, especially if you want to personify the animal. Something that you see in humans that you don't see in animals is an ultimate altruism, so to speak. In an army platoon, one soldier jumps on a grenade, killing himself, so that no one else will die. Or while Mt. climbing, the person hanging at the bottom of the rope,that cannot hold the whole group, cuts the line above him so that he is the only one that dies. This is a personification of animals that I disagree with, i just don't give animals that much credit. I don't think they 'like their friend' or have knowledge about what their friends will do.

I'm no biblical literalist and I accept the theory of evolution, but I also believe in the special creation of humans. I think we evolved, physically, from the other animals and then god gave us a soul.

A what?

Soul. I think CatholicScientist is saying that Motown is divinely inspired.