|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Argument for God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Gee, I wonder how it is that many millions of Buddhists aren't the worst murdering bastards in the world, since none of them believe in hell or heaven?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Well... great... you're like the fourth or fifth person here to totally miss what I am saying.
Everyone is so concerned about showing me that atheists can be moral people, and I'M NOT even arguing that they can't be. I'm arguing the nature of right and wrong! I think it's futile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
So, the Capuchin monkeys who believe that doing the same work for a less tasty kind of food is unfair "practically believe in God"? ...You have no idea what i'm saying either...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
It seems you missed my point as well. Im not arguing that Athiests can be moral, I think that has been well established. I am arguing that right and wrong do exist without god. Not only that, but that there are certain objective right and wrongs existing WITHOUT god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I am arguing that right and wrong do exist without god. Not only that, but that there are certain objective right and wrongs existing WITHOUT god. No morality has a ground, since we can always ask "Why should I care?" to any given moral principle. If one says, you should not do this or that because in the long run it is bad for you, I can say, why should I care about the long run? Perhaps I like chaos and killing and such. I find it romantic. It doesn't help to introduce a God, however, if we mean a super-human type of being, since in that case God's opinions would also be subjective; and it's not possible to imagine a being that is not just a greater version of a human. As regards the punishment-in-hell concept, that does not strike me as a moral reason for not doing something. A moral reason would to be to do something because we think such an action is right in and of itself, apart from any consequences to ourselves. So to do something out of fear of punishment says nothing about the moral status of what is done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
I am arguing that right and wrong do exist without god. Not only that, but that there are certain objective right and wrongs existing WITHOUT god. And that is simply impossible. I've not heard one good logical argument yet to prove this. Everyone's argument boils down to appeal to emotion and majority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
No morality has a ground, since we can always ask "Why should I care?" to any given moral principle. If one says, you should not do this or that because in the long run it is bad for you, I can say, why should I care about the long run? Perhaps I like chaos and killing and such. I find it romantic. Finally! Someone who understands.
It doesn't help to introduce a God, however, if we mean a super-human type of being, since in that case God's opinions would also be subjective; I do not believe in this kind of God. I am more of a Panentheist. What is real is real because God knows it exists and it exists in Him. So if God believes in right and wrong, then right and wrong are as real as gravity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
No morality has a ground, since we can always ask "Why should I care?" to any given moral principle. If one says, you should not do this or that because in the long run it is bad for you, I can say, why should I care about the long run? Perhaps I like chaos and killing and such. I find it romantic. Right, and if this were the case you would be called a "psychopath" as someone already said. You would be the exception, not the rule. It still dosn't mean morality dosn't exist. Especially when you define it in terms of: a) Minimizing harmb) Benifiting the whole
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Right, and if this were the case you would be called a "psychopath" as someone already said. Calling the person that disagrees with you about moral principles a "psychopath" is an ad hominem attack.
You would be the exception, not the rule. It still dosn't mean morality dosn't exist. Especially when you define it in terms of: a) Minimizing harmb) Benifiting the whole Why should principles a and b be absolutes? Suppose I define human behavior in aesthetic terms. I might say, what we should aim for is maximum excitement--that's my absolute. Now what produces the most excitement? Danger. Therefore, war is good. Any reason why your rules are better than mine? Not without begging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Calling the person that disagrees with you about moral principles a "psychopath" is an ad hominem attack. No, that's a fact. A person who wants to harm others, harm himself, and harm society is a psychopath. Perhapse "sociopath" would be more accurate. However you slice it, you are not going to be accepted into civilized society, because either you are insane or moraly bankrupt.
Why should principles a and b be absolutes? Because these principles are necissary for survival. It's our nature.
Suppose I define human behavior in aesthetic terms. I might say, what we should aim for is maximum excitement--that's my absolute. Now what produces the most excitement? Danger. Therefore, war is good. Do you define excitement as an absolute? I don't think you do, nor do I think most people do. And in fact that's what we are talking about here, the desires of the majority.
Any reason why your rules are better than mine? Not without begging the question. Yes, because that is our nature. No one wants to suffer, no one wants to be unhappy. Because if we did desire these things, we wouldn't survive long as a species, at least not in the highly advanced state we currently enjoy. Further, I know you could say something like "Geoffry Dahmer was happy eating people!" or something, again, if everyone behaved like him we woudn't last long. Further, I would venture to say that people like him are very ill, and not very happy. I didn't get the impression Dahmer was a happy man. This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-27-2005 10:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Do you define excitement as an absolute? I don't think you do, nor do I think most people do. And in fact that's what we are talking about here, the desires of the majority Who cares about the majority? The majority of people in the US are religious. That doesn't mean I have to be.
Do you define excitement as an absolute? I don't think you do, nor do I think most people do. And in fact that's what we are talking about here, the desires of the majority. In point of fact, I think an argument can be made that the desire for excitement is a very common human trait, the desire of the "majority,"if you want to argue in those terms. I can also present an argument from nature. Nature is amoral; therefore, we should act natural and be amoral ourselves. Be like the lions and the tigers and the bears--enemies of other species. We should adopt a tribal mentality and kill off all other tribes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6526 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Who cares about the majority? The majority of people in the US are religious. That doesn't mean I have to be. The desire, the human needs of the majority (Im talking about life needs, food, shelter, yada yada), are better served by a society that works to minimize harm and a society that seeks to benifit the many.
In point of fact, I think an argument can be made that the desire for excitement is a very common human trait, the desire of the "majority," Yes, but your example included fullfilment thrugh warfare (harm). You could fullfill the same need thrugh bungie jumping. If you caused harm to others and compromised social order fullfiling your need, you are being imoral.
if you want to argue in those terms. I can also present an argument from nature. Nature is amoral; therefore, we should act natural and be amoral ourselves. Wrong. I have already said morality is a human concept, dealing with human needs, society, logic, and reason. Internal human morality has absolutes. Just as mathmatics, another human construct, has it's own absolutes that aren't necisseraly reflected in nature.
Be like the lions and the tigers and the bears--enemies of other species. One problem, we aren't lions tigres or bears. Further, we are talking about highly inteligent social animals of the Genus Homo.
We should adopt a tribal mentality and kill off all other tribes. Infact many ancient peoples did that, and humanity langushied for many generations as a small global population bearly eeking by in a hostile environment. Then a marvelous invention came along, agriculture! This allowd us to settle down and make societies, and even though we were still warlike, we began to establish rules and behaviors more conducive to advancing those societies. Thousands of years have passed and with each generation people live longer, happier, and more fullfiling lives. Now, we still ain't perfect, but we are getting better. Because, for the most part anyway, as societies we try to work tword the minimization of harm and the benifite of the many.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yaro, you are begging the question all the way through with these principles you've set up about the beliefs of the majority and the survival of the species and people being happy and so forth. There's no reason why anyone should accept those principles other than personal taste. Why should I care if the species survives or not? But if I don't, you label me as immoral. That's what "sociopath" means in your scheme.
Human morality has no ground. It is a hodgepodge of traditions. How it got started, nobody knows although there are all sorts of speculative ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Whether or not there is a supernatural Being is a separate question from the God/moral question. After all, God=good is a modern notion, the Greeks and Romans and to a certain extent, the Hebrews didn't always equate goodness and morality with God/gods/Yahweh. The concept of God is something we (modern humans) have constructed according to our understanding of what is good/moral. Does no one notice that God and good are the same word, after all? I don't know Hebrew, but I would be quite surprised if "Yahweh" means "good" in Hebrew. In Genesis God proclaims the creation to be good, but much of the rest of the OT doesn't exactly portray God as good - unless you think jealousy, spite ("God hardened his heart")vengefulness, demanding human sacrifice (to "test" Abraham)and killing of innocents in battle, etc. are good.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
"How it got started (human morality), nobody knows although there are all sorts of speculative ideas."
It evolved (from pre-human characters) like everything else, as did our concept of God. Do you have any explanation that fits the evidence better? Do you think that animals don't have morality (If think this, you either have never owned a dog or aren't a very good observer).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024