Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 1:01 AM
20 online now:
DrJones*, edge (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Moral Argument for God
mikehager
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 16 of 279 (224678)
07-19-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
07-19-2005 5:03 PM


Re: Apologists wrong, as usual.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 07-19-2005 5:03 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2838
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 17 of 279 (224679)
07-19-2005 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 4:34 PM


Re: a little support for the argument
Catholic Scientist writes:

The animal kingdom and nature do not have morals.


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 not

A unphysical blob of cholesterol and stress .

We could learn alot from the rest of the animal kingdom. IMO. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Yaro, posted 07-19-2005 6:31 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 279 (224680)
07-19-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 4:34 PM


Re: a little support for the argument
Animals murder and steal

No animal can commit a crime.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 279 (224681)
07-19-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mikehager
07-19-2005 4:49 PM


Re: Apologists wrong, as usual.
a man of exemplary moral character

You have exemplary moral character?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mikehager, posted 07-19-2005 4:49 PM mikehager has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mikehager, posted 07-19-2005 6:37 PM robinrohan has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4658 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 20 of 279 (224688)
07-19-2005 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by 1.61803
07-19-2005 5:56 PM


Re: a little support for the argument
The rest of our animal brethren live in complete harmony and homeostasis with one another. Can the same be said about us?

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.

The rest of our animal brethren do not lie.

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.

They do not invent artifical codes of behavior.

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.

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 not

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.

A unphysical blob of cholesterol and stress .

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.

We could learn alot from the rest of the animal kingdom. IMO.

I think we already have.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 07-19-2005 5:56 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by 1.61803, posted 07-20-2005 11:45 AM Yaro has responded

  
mikehager
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 21 of 279 (224689)
07-19-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by robinrohan
07-19-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Apologists wrong, as usual.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by robinrohan, posted 07-19-2005 6:10 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by robinrohan, posted 07-19-2005 7:36 PM mikehager has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 279 (224705)
07-19-2005 7:25 PM


a general reply
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:

Yaro writes:

Wolves make friends…fight for justice…"punish" their youngsters for bad behavior

I don’t see these as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.

Now, when you say things like:

Yaro writes:

have relationships, help each other out…help out their elderly by bringing them food

I see these instincts help the group, which in turn helps the individual. I think the animal is helping himself by helping the group.

1.61803 writes:

Catholic Scientist writes:

The animal kingdom and nature do not have morals.


And they are better for it. Neitzche said humans are nothing more than neurotic apes. I agree.

I put this shaded quote there to exemplify the ‘de-personifying‘ of humans that I meant.

1.61803 writes:

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.

Nothing, but as we live in a society, we have to deem some actions as unacceptable, or unlawful.

1.61803 writes:

The rest of our animal brethren live in complete harmony and homeostasis with one another. Can the same be said about us?

Nope, that’s one of the reasons that I think we are outside of nature.

purpledawn writes:

IMO there are no ultimate standards of morality pertaining to all that is considered creation.

I would think that any moral argument for God's existence would need to show that an ultimate standard of morality actually exists for all that God created.

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.

robinrohan writes:

No animal can commit a crime.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 25 by Yaro, posted 07-19-2005 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 07-19-2005 7:55 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 279 (224708)
07-19-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 7:25 PM


I don’t see these as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.

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.

Nothing, but as we live in a society, we have to deem some actions as unacceptable, or unlawful.

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.)

Only one part of creation has a standard of morality and that is humans

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 8:19 PM crashfrog has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 279 (224712)
07-19-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mikehager
07-19-2005 6:37 PM


Your exemplary moral character
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mikehager, posted 07-19-2005 6:37 PM mikehager has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4658 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 25 of 279 (224713)
07-19-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 7:25 PM


Re: a general reply
I don’t see these as conscious decisions, I see them as behavioral instincts.

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.

I see these instincts help the group, which in turn helps the individual. I think the animal is helping himself by helping the group.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 8:10 PM Yaro has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 26 of 279 (224721)
07-19-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 7:25 PM


Re: a general reply
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 8:12 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 279 (224727)
07-19-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Yaro
07-19-2005 7:40 PM


Re: a general reply
Are you implying that we are devoid of instinctual behavior?

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.

Yes, exactly. Kind of like a platoon in the army.....Mt. Climbing buddies.

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.

The animal is helping his friends, because he likes them, and he knows that if he does so his friends will help him.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Yaro, posted 07-19-2005 7:40 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Yaro, posted 07-19-2005 9:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 279 (224728)
07-19-2005 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Chiroptera
07-19-2005 7:55 PM


Re: a general reply
It is nice evidence against the special creation of humans, though, but only Biblical literalists need get their underpants knotted up over it.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 07-19-2005 7:55 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 279 (224732)
07-19-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2005 8:12 PM


Re: a general reply
I think we evolved, physically, from the other animals and then god gave us a soul.

A what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 8:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Chiroptera, posted 07-19-2005 8:17 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2005 8:25 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6616
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 30 of 279 (224734)
07-19-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 8:16 PM


Re: a general reply
Soul. I think CatholicScientist is saying that Motown is divinely inspired.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 8:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019