Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[BunnyKillBot]

Without reason, a deity did not "hand down" morality... It was specified by humans and humans alone.
.

Ok, in which case, I propose we immediately and systematically start culling the human gene pool, by breeding desirable traits in to the population, for the good of the human race. Anybody with a 'negative' gene marker must submit themselves for: castration if they have useful skills, execution if they are a parasitic leech.

Here is a scientifically based, godless moral. We already breed cats, dogs, sheep, pigs, cattle etc in this way. Iirc, black slaves were bred for desirable traits as well. Any problems?

 

[RDM]

Ok, in which case, I propose we immediately and systematically start culling the human gene pool, by breeding desirable traits in to the population, for the good of the human race. Anybody with a 'negative' gene marker must submit themselves for: castration if they have useful skills, execution if they are a parasitic leech.

Here is a scientifically based, godless moral. We already breed cats, dogs, sheep, pigs, cattle etc in this way. Iirc, black slaves were bred for desirable traits as well. Any problems?

Why is it always the religious people that seem to think that without a God to guide them then doing horrible things is OK?

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Why is it always the religious people that seem to think that without a God to guide them then doing horrible things is OK?

Excuse me, God doesn't come in to this scenario. I am suggesting a humanist, scientifically centered moral for your consideration. You are welcome to critique it, or point out where it is immoral. For the greater good.

 

[shoes]

And also lets face it, the reason most people don't commit many crimes is because fear of going to prison. If there was no law and no threat of prison, then I'm pretty sure the likes of hurf would be singing from a different hymn sheet.

Just lol.... people of faith really do come across as completely insane.

Are you seriously suggesting that those without faith are without conscience also? That a lack of conscience and having faith are mutually exclusive?

 

[crinkleshoes]

So how did morality come about in your view? Just a social construct?

Whether or not people act morally doesn't undermine the existence of objective moral values and duties. Of course people can do awful things, that doesn't mean that morality didn't exist in the first place.

In your view is rape really wrong, or is it only wrong because humans believe so?

Yes, just a social construct... One that has developed over thousands of years... A good portion of our existing morality has only evolved over the last couple of hundred years... History clearly demonstrates how morality has shifted with time.

How else could it have come about? Any "hand down" would have confirmed the existence of a deity and thus belief would be irrelevant.

Humans have an innately selfish nature, or course that will drive society to a place where it is in a more beneficial state for as many people as possible = morality.

Lol at the rape comment... Trying to use it to shock or force a defensive response? Interesting conversational tactic.

Humans have decided rape is wrong, I believe it to be wrong. No one with the freedom of choice should be forced to do anything unless they lose their right to that freedom (not specifically with respect to rape, that last comment).

Only a couple of thousand years ago, rape was "normal"... It's still rampant in the animal kingdom, although with their apparent lack of ego and certain higher rational function, perhaps that makes the term irrelevant.


Different societies around the world today view morality in different ways from us... Is our view the correct one? It's most likely the nicest to our neighbours... But that doesn't mean it's comprehensive or even that there is a correct viewpoint to take.




On the flip side... Put a slightly absurd hypothetical situation into play... Say for example all women suddenly decided to abstain from intercourse and the human race was dwindling... The only way to continue our species would be to rape... Would it continue to be wrong or immoral? No.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Why is it always the religious people that seem to think that without a God to guide them then doing horrible things is OK?

Perhaps it's because they're the ones who need the guidance

I know you alluded to that, but felt as though it needed to be spelt out




On the flip side to his comment, our planet is already overpopulated to a point where it is no longer sustainable. Those who breed the most, are those with the worst future with regard to traits that benefit humanity and are usually the largest drain on our resources.

Unfortunately, we will doom our species and perhaps our planet before we allow action to be taken in this regard.

I sincerely hope our viewpoint on morality moves toward a push for the greater good, rather than the moronic deity-driven view that "every life is sacred".

While I doubt we would ever cull and that's not even what I would look for, adjusting things like the way benefits are awarded... Being penalised for having a child when you cannot support it and similar methods would be a good step forward.

 

[ringo747]

Where are you even getting this rubbish from? Where have I even suggested that rape isn't wrong. In fact the only people that seem to be trying to suggest rape wouldn't be wrong is you and Jason2 to support the existence of God. The most frightening comment coming from Jason2 saying that he only stays within the law because he is scared of the consequences!

Rape = harm, harm = wrong. Please don't suggest again that I do not think rape is wrong.

Progress! You have suggested in a previous post that you are "agnostic to the idea of objective morality". I think your view must have changed now as your statement that harm is wrong suggests you fully accept the existence of objective moral values. Saying that rape is wrong regardless of human opinion is an acceptance that objective moral values do exist after all.

Didn't see that comment from Jason2 but I certainly don't agree.

You are going to have to be somewhat clearer in the point you are trying to make and how it is arguing against anything I have said because so far I am just not seeing what this has to do with anything I have said.

Sure. The distinction I am trying to make is the difference between moral value and moral duty. In your view harm done may be bad and wrong, but there appears to be no concept of moral duties, i.e. an obligation to do a certain thing. On atheism we are just animals and they have no moral obligations.

I disagree. Good, bad, moral, immoral are human concepts and see need to be thought about to considered. Because they are human values they are only objective when applied to humanity. There is no point applying morality to a star as stars have no morality. a tsunami as tsunami's have no morality and so on. So if morality only exists as a human concept then the act would need to be considered in a human framework.

You disagree with what part? If these are human concepts then you are switching back to the moral relativism mode again.

With the above in mind you can determine that harm done is objectively bad, because harm done reduces the ability of us as a species to thrive and flourish. That is the objective basis you can define harm on.

The arbitrariness of this seems odd to me. On atheism, why think that flourishing of our species is any more valuable than flourishing of mice?

I think that may be more your failing than a non god based objective morality. You yourself consider morality restricted to humans, you just feel that it needs to be god delivered. Why would a morality restricted to humans not develop with humans?

By the development of a morality do you mean as a result of evolution?

Because we are humans? It is a human concept that applies only to humans because it was created by humans about humans. It helps to ensure that humans flourish, us being humans that makes it somewhat sensible.

If objective morality is God given why does it not apply to everything? Why does it only apply to humans? Why did God make a special set of rules that only applies to us?

So what if we are humans. Does being human give us some extra importance? Animals don't have moral obligations towards one another, therefore why would they have any moral duty?

Yet you don't seem to be able to describe why homosexuality is objectively wrong? Also it seems that your God given objective morality is subjectively interpreted by many different religions in many different ways many of which contradictory.

You are going back to moral epistemology again. On your view homosexuality must be wrong too as it doesn't exactly contribute to the flourishing of humanity!

I have gone over this above. In fact I am pretty sure I have gone over this in several other posts too. We really are just going in circles now.

I haven't heard any reason why on atheism is harm done (or limiting flourishing) is objectively wrong.

Because I am human? Because morality is human?

So what? On athiesm we are all animals. Animals don't have moral obligations. Sounds like we are just animals with some illusory sense of moral worth.

 

[ringo747]

Yes, just a social construct... One that has developed over thousands of years... A good portion of our existing morality has only evolved over the last couple of hundred years... History clearly demonstrates how morality has shifted with time.

So our morality has evolved over thousands of years then. If you rewind the clock of evolution and run the whole process again then people with a different set of moral values could result. Perhaps even a society where rape is normal. Do you believe that rape is wrong regardless of socio-biological conditioning?

Additionally, how do you know if a something is really wrong, given the fact that evolution aims for survival rather than truth?

Additionally, I thought evolution was a scientific process? Science is morally neutral.

Humans have an innately selfish nature, or course that will drive society to a place where it is in a more beneficial state for as many people as possible = morality.

So you are essentially redefining morality to mean that which is beneficial for society. Does right and wrong not exist in your world then?

Lol at the rape comment... Trying to use it to shock or force a defensive response? Interesting conversational tactic.

An example of a terrible act to show that some things are really wrong regardless of human opinion.

Humans have decided rape is wrong, I believe it to be wrong. No one with the freedom of choice should be forced to do anything unless they lose their right to that freedom (not specifically with respect to rape, that last comment).

So we have here a relativist society where nobody is really right or wrong. We just make it up as we go. If humans decided rape was right would that have made rape really right?

Only a couple of thousand years ago, rape was "normal"... It's still rampant in the animal kingdom, although with their apparent lack of ego and certain higher rational function, perhaps that makes the term irrelevant.

In the animal kingdom do you think a white shark forcibly copulating with a female is really rape?

On the flip side... Put a slightly absurd hypothetical situation into play... Say for example all women suddenly decided to abstain from intercourse and the human race was dwindling... The only way to continue our species would be to rape... Would it continue to be wrong or immoral? No.

I'm sorry, what? You said above that "rape is wrong". How can you suddenly say that "er actually, if we are in danger of becoming exist, rape is fine".

 

[zenf]

ringo, you've been dodging this question for pages now, please stop quoting William Lane Craig to get out of it. It's very much relevent to this discussion.

You believe objective moral values exist, but you acknowledge that people can't know what they are and there's no way to determine them. What bloody good are they?

 

[ringo747]

ringo, you've been dodging this question for pages now, please stop quoting William Lane Craig to get out of it. It's very much relevent to this discussion.

You believe objective moral values exist, but you acknowledge that people can't know what they are and there's no way to determine them. What bloody good are they?

O hello there.

Where did I say people can't know what moral values are? I don't hold that view and I don't know anyone that does.

I have stated that the question of how we come to understand moral values and duties is moral epistemology. I have already stated on this very page that moral experience alone tells us that some acts are right and wrong.

Try reading my posts properly before posting these baseless accusations.

 

[Diagro]

Lol

I will state again...

Religion is a made up thing, used to give sheep hope in there mundane lives.

 

[Naffa]

Crikey Naffa, I thought the point was blatantly obvious. I don't mean to be critical because I generally respect your views as being well thought out albeit generally not consistent with my own, but in some of the thread your objectivity seems askew.

It was pretty easy to read, and it read as if you were saying that we shouldn't take what he says seriously, because he's a Zionist. Perhaps it was more of an ad hominem than a strawman. My mistake.

 

[Jason2]

Lol

I will state again...

Religion is a made up thing, used to give sheep hope in there mundane lives.

Brilliant statement! So convincing!

And lets face it, you, along with us all are a slave to the law.

 

[Jason2]

And RDM, I never said I only stay within the law because I'm scared of the consequences. Far from it. If that was the case then we really wouldn't have any murderers, rapists ect ect. I said that we all have a moral conscience, yet no matter how hard one tries, he can never abide by it. We've all felt guilt, so we've all gone against this unseen moral law at one time or another. And just because your wrongdoings may not be as bad as murder or rape, they still deserve judgement and punishment nonetheless.

 

[djxput]

I think I am right in saying that religion is man made and is a way to control people and get them to kill people of different faiths, groups, sexes,and generally oppress people.

Can you believe in God but not be affiliated to a religious cult like the Jewish, Christian or Islamic cults?

ya its wierd I used to be quite relgious when I was younger - but now ... I just dont get it ...

 

[Jason2]

For those who've fallen away from the faith, remember the The Parable of the Sower. He who has ears, let them hear!

The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

 

[RDM]

Progress! You have suggested in a previous post that you are "agnostic to the idea of objective morality". I think your view must have changed now as your statement that harm is wrong suggests you fully accept the existence of objective moral values. Saying that rape is wrong regardless of human opinion is an acceptance that objective moral values do exist after all.

You seem to be completely unable to grasp the concept of arguing from a hypothetical despite doing it yourself, delightful. I am agnostic to the possibility of an objective morality, but if it does exist it could be argued from a basis of harm. Even if arguing from a basis of harm is subjective then I can say subjectively that rape is wrong and cannot conceive of a situation where rape would be right.

The distinction I am trying to make is the difference between moral value and moral duty. In your view harm done may be bad and wrong, but there appears to be no concept of moral duties, i.e. an obligation to do a certain thing. On atheism we are just animals and they have no moral obligations.

But we are also a society of thinking empathic animals which seems to make us somewhat unique, so therefore we may well indeed have moral obligations but it would be up to the individual in how they choose to meet them. Which would be identical to a God given situation.

You disagree with what part? If these are human concepts then you are switching back to the moral relativism mode again.

The part that I quoted??

Objective morality is entirely human based due to the nature of humanity. You already accept that in that you do not think animals have a moral duty not to rape. So therefore morality is intrinsically related to humanity and that actions must be considered with that in mind.

The arbitrariness of this seems odd to me. On atheism, why think that flourishing of our species is any more valuable than flourishing of mice?

Because we are human? I am sure to a mouse the flourishing of mice is more important, but there is an important distinction, mice are not empathic social animals and so they would, if they could even consider the concept, only really be interested in the flourishing of their offspring. Human beings realise that the best chance for our offspring to flourish is for human society to flourish.

By the development of a morality do you mean as a result of evolution?

More than likely, as no one has yet managed to come up with a more plausible method for humans to have developed.

So what if we are humans. Does being human give us some extra importance? Animals don't have moral obligations towards one another, therefore why would they have any moral duty?

Because unlike other animals we seem to be the only ones that are empathic and social and capable of communicating those traits and more importantly debating those traits. So yes, humans are quite unique as far as species found on earth so far.

You are going back to moral epistemology again. On your view homosexuality must be wrong too as it doesn't exactly contribute to the flourishing of humanity!

And you are going back to not answering questions directed at you, why should I continue to engage if you refuse to reciprocate?

In short though (because you were remarkably brief in explaining your subjective views on why homosexuality is wrong and have been completely unable to explain why objectively it is wrong) I have no issues with homosexuality because it does not harm the ability of the species to flourish, more than enough people are able to reproduce to continue society. In addition the harm done in forcing people to either deny, repress or ignore their sexuality is quite large on an individual scale.

I haven't heard any reason why on atheism is harm done (or limiting flourishing) is objectively wrong.

So what? On athiesm we are all animals. Animals don't have moral obligations. Sounds like we are just animals with some illusory sense of moral worth.

So if God doesn't exist how would it change the way you live your live? What would you do that you do not do now?

 

[RDM]

For those who've fallen away from the faith, remember the The Parable of the Sower.

I haven't fallen away from faith, I never had it in the first place. Your parables are about as useful to me in determining how to live my life as the Greek myths, Norse Edda and numerous other religious texts and religions that you ignore.

 

[manic_man]

Excuse me, God doesn't come in to this scenario. I am suggesting a humanist, scientifically centered moral for your consideration. You are welcome to critique it, or point out where it is immoral. For the greater good.

Apologies for quoting a post that is probably already considered answered, however the logic behind your inflammatory (intentionally I realise) statement is fairly flawed, for the following reasons:

Without the fear of reprieve from a god and as somebody who lives their life by way of deduction of present facts, your suggestion that those that society (as a whole) deems less useful to the human future should either be neutered or killed is abhorrent to me. It is wrong because the amazing chemical and electrical mass that is my brain and is the result of millions of years of evolution gives me the ability to empathise.

Through this power of empathy I am able to put myself in another persons shoes and imagine I were them, in no situation can I imagine it being anything but a terrible experience to be told you are useless and should be sterilised, or worse still, killed.

From a non-empathetic and purely logical point of view I am also aware of many situations where two people most would deem as "useless" become parents and their child goes on to become a very useful member of society (the opposite can also happen).

The human race exists in its current state because of our prolific nature resulting in (relatively) rapid and positive evolution, as a member of a race I would like to see last I wouldn't ever do anything to hinder this.

That all being said, nature is also full of examples of a species outgrowing its surrounding natural resources, those species don't have the mental capacity to understand this and so just die out, we, however, do have this capacity and therefore should be taking steps to make sure we can survive on our available resource either by curbing our reproduction (especially in certain areas of the world where natural resources are less abundant) or by securing resource from sources outside of the planet (a while off!)

In short, what you suggest is inhumane, therefore I cannot deem it a suitable suggestion even if there are some potential logical benefits.

Those who live by ever-evolving logical conclusion instead of pre-defined static rules are not automatically monsters...

 

[Jason2]

Apologies for quoting a post that is probably already considered answered, however the logic behind your inflammatory (intentionally I realise) statement is fairly flawed, for the following reasons:

Without the fear of reprieve from a god and as somebody who lives their life by way of deduction of present facts, your suggestion that those that society (as a whole) deems less useful to the human future should either be neutered or killed is abhorrent to me. It is wrong because the amazing chemical and electrical mass that is my brain and is the result of millions of years of evolution gives me the ability to empathise.

Through this power of empathy I am able to put myself in another persons shoes and imagine I were them, in no situation can I imagine it being anything but a terrible experience to be told you are useless and should be sterilised, or worse still, killed.

From a non-empathetic and purely logical point of view I am also aware of many situations where two people most would deem as "useless" become parents and their child goes on to become a very useful member of society (the opposite can also happen).

The human race exists in its current state because of our prolific nature resulting in (relatively) rapid and positive evolution, as a member of a race I would like to see last I wouldn't ever do anything to hinder this.

That all being said, nature is also full of examples of a species outgrowing its surrounding natural resources, those species don't have the mental capacity to understand this and so just die out, we, however, do have this capacity and therefore should be taking steps to make sure we can survive on our available resource either by curbing our reproduction (especially in certain areas of the world where natural resources are less abundant) or by securing resource from sources outside of the planet (a while off!)

In short, what you suggest is inhumane, therefore I cannot deem it a suitable suggestion even if there are some potential logical benefits.

Those who live by ever-evolving logical conclusion instead of pre-defined static rules are not automatically monsters...

But the goal of evolution is to care for your own. Why would you be concerned about someone else, as long as it wasn't directly affecting you? Why does someone being murdered and raped in another country concern you? If we just die and then are no more then it really doesn't matter. Afterall, none of us will remember anything. Ultimately the holocaust was meaningless and so was all the suffering. The dead and are no more. Never gonna be justice for all those dead people from the atheistic point of view is there?