Believers: What Would You Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

And yet millions of people live in such a world, many of them in the relatively peaceful haven of Western Europe.[/quote]

Sheer unadulterated nonsense.

Why? Because if anywhere on earth has an entrenched moral code developed exclusively by religion it is Europe.

Ye blunder mightily, hombre.[/quote]

Religion was the midwife of legality in Europe, but that hardly matters in my example of ATHEISTIC Europeans who are generally peaceful. Do you think it matters to them that their laws came originally from Christianity? According to your view, it certainly shouldn’t–they don’t believe in God and therefore have no morality, right? They should all be killing each other.

143

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?

He did a lot of good for German society. I guess, we should have just let him have at it. If the allies could claim to have morals and justice on their side, what right did they have to interfere?

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

Where people grow up with no concept of a personal God…
[/quote]

No such thing.

Now I’m sure you will recoil in abject horror but nonetheless I will post an excerpt from the apostle Paul’s letter to the church at Rome:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world Godâ??s invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1[/quote]

I can assure you that after signing a vow of obedience and poverty and living a monastic life for over three years in a religious order, dedicating the better part of that time to intensive bible study and the histories applicable to it, that I am familiar with all the writings of the apostle Paul.

And my point is absolutely correct, because there are MANY societies that while having spiritual beliefs did not and still don’t have a concept of one overriding godlike entity. Taoists for one have a sense of reverent awe for the energy and flow of the universe at large, that could easily fit Paul’s description of eternal power. But they are seemingly not arrogant enough to assume they do or even could comprehend the source of it.

Only in Judeo/Christian and Muslim faith do we seem to imagine that the self same being that sustains the endless eons and all of existence by will alone, cares about our choice of food, clothing, sexual partners, etc. I have no problem with the concept of an eternal being that may have had a hand in all existence. I no longer tolerate the idea that this being is the petty tyrant described in the scriptures.

145

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Five pillars of morality apparent in almost all societies, translated differently as a result of cultural differences. Interesting how the presenter shows that conservatives worldwide score a broader moral spectrum. Good food for thought, given the nature of this discussion.

146

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you.

147

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.

148

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak.

149

Oh, and one more thing: I say I don’t know whether there is an absolute morality. You say you’re sure. The burden of proof lies with you.

150

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak. [/quote]

Because the people of germany considered it good. That’s all I have to show by your definition. That’s what moral relativism is. They wanted it, that makes it good. You can’t even use phrases like good for the earth, because no such consensus exists. The terms you are now using can’t exist by your own definition.

As a general term the Germans considered Nazis beneficial for their society. From a relativistic moral view where you define good by “benefit” (because in a relativistic view benefit is also relative) of society, the Nazis were good.

If you think that no matter time or place, the nazis were bad, you believe in absolute morals. You can’t be a relativist as you claim and then try to define certain actions as bad.

Take eugenics, without a doubt “good” for general society (or at least german society certainly thought so). By your definition, eugenics are good, right? So that’s something the Nazis did “right”?

151

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

Yep. Good and evil, inalienable rights, and so on depend on faith. Without faith, there is no way to say I KNOW rape is evil. I KNOW that I have a right to life.

Now, I do say such things. But, I’m superstitious like that =P[/quote]

Which is my point: faith is necessary for absolute morality, faith is belief in the unprovable, therefore absolute morality is unprovable.[/quote]

Yep, thus a faithless society not only has an unproveable moral code (evil and good), it doesn’t even have faith in it’s own ‘moral’ code. Not much of a foundation.[/quote]

Good ol’ fashion moral relativism…
So if society was cool with say, child rape, it would no longer be immoral? Would it become moral?
Slavery was a long accepted practice, was that morally a-ok?

152

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Oh, and one more thing: I say I don’t know whether there is an absolute morality. You say you’re sure. The burden of proof lies with you.[/quote]

No, I’m not trying to prove anything. You claimed to be a relativist, but you aren’t sticking to your claim. That is all I’m pointing out. I don’t care if you believe in absolute morals or not. But you can’t claim there aren’t or you don’t know, and then use absolute morals when it suits you.

Where the Nazis bad? A relativist MUST say no. You have no reason to raise your morals above theirs.

153

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak. [/quote]

Because the people of germany considered it good. That’s all I have to show by your definition. That’s what moral relativism is. They wanted it, that makes it good. You can’t even use phrases like good for the earth, because no such consensus exists. The terms you are now using can’t exist by your own definition.

As a general term the Germans considered Nazis beneficial for their society. From a relativistic moral view where you define good by “benefit” (because in a relativistic view benefit is also relative) of society, the Nazis were good.

If you think that no matter time or place, the nazis were bad, you believe in absolute morals. You can’t be a relativist as you claim and then try to define certain actions as bad.

Take eugenics, without a doubt “good” for general society (or at least german society certainly thought so). By your definition, eugenics are good, right? So that’s something the Nazis did “right”?[/quote]

You’re dancing around the issue. Some considered it good, some didn’t. We, as a nation, didn’t. Therefore we intervened, on moral grounds. It’s that simple.

Yes…obviously, for those who thought Nazi Germany good, Nazi Germany was not operating in violation of ethics or morality. This is not new, or controversial.

Once again: if, as you affirm, there exists an absolute moral code, then the burden of proof lies with you to affirm rather than with me to refute. But, even if you quit dancing around with half-baked logical fallacies and got down to trying to prove the existence of absolute morality, you couldn’t. So I am going to bow out before I get into one of your pseudo-intellectual argumentative quagmires.

154

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have no reason to raise your morals above theirs.[/quote]

Selfishness. The morals of MY society trump the morals of another, simply because they are MINE.

155

[quote]pat wrote:

Good ol’ fashion moral relativism…
So if society was cool with say, child rape, it would no longer be immoral? Would it become moral?
Slavery was a long accepted practice, was that morally a-ok?[/quote]

No…if society was cool with child rape, then society was cool with child rape. That’s it…just realism. But, if morality flows from the desire to live peaceably in social cooperation, then child rape loses every time…because that aint peaceful, and it aint cooperation.

Or perhaps such a society would be in violation of some transcendent ethical code. I haven’t seen it, so I don’t know.

156

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak. [/quote]

Because the people of germany considered it good. That’s all I have to show by your definition. That’s what moral relativism is. They wanted it, that makes it good. You can’t even use phrases like good for the earth, because no such consensus exists. The terms you are now using can’t exist by your own definition.

As a general term the Germans considered Nazis beneficial for their society. From a relativistic moral view where you define good by “benefit” (because in a relativistic view benefit is also relative) of society, the Nazis were good.

If you think that no matter time or place, the nazis were bad, you believe in absolute morals. You can’t be a relativist as you claim and then try to define certain actions as bad.

Take eugenics, without a doubt “good” for general society (or at least german society certainly thought so). By your definition, eugenics are good, right? So that’s something the Nazis did “right”?[/quote]

Sorry but that’s too absolute. Not all the German people saw the Nazi party as beneficial, and there is significant evidence that many found them morally objectionable and were pressured into showing support. The sanctions imposed after World War one helped to impoverish Germany, and the Nazi party played to the desperate and fearful. Many young Catholic Priests in Germany, for instance, were shot as examples, for not supporting the Nazi party or outright opposing it.

Religious and social groups opposed to the Nazi party were interred in Camps alongside Jews and Homosexuals in part to ‘reform’ them, and to remove them effectively from public forum, where they might have otherwise persuaded the weak or undecided.

157

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak. [/quote]

Because the people of germany considered it good. That’s all I have to show by your definition. That’s what moral relativism is. They wanted it, that makes it good. You can’t even use phrases like good for the earth, because no such consensus exists. The terms you are now using can’t exist by your own definition.

As a general term the Germans considered Nazis beneficial for their society. From a relativistic moral view where you define good by “benefit” (because in a relativistic view benefit is also relative) of society, the Nazis were good.

If you think that no matter time or place, the nazis were bad, you believe in absolute morals. You can’t be a relativist as you claim and then try to define certain actions as bad.

Take eugenics, without a doubt “good” for general society (or at least german society certainly thought so). By your definition, eugenics are good, right? So that’s something the Nazis did “right”?[/quote]

Sorry but that’s too absolute. Not all the German people saw the Nazi party as beneficial, and there is significant evidence that many found them morally objectionable and were pressured into showing support. The sanctions imposed after World War one helped to impoverish Germany, and the Nazi party played to the desperate and fearful. Many young Catholic Priests in Germany, for instance, were shot as examples, for not supporting the Nazi party or outright opposing it.

Religious and social groups opposed to the Nazi party were interred in Camps alongside Jews and Homosexuals in part to ‘reform’ them, and to remove them effectively from public forum, where they might have otherwise persuaded the weak or undecided.[/quote]

There is never absolute consensus on anything. So morals as you define them never exist?

158

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

So, in your mind, Hitler wasn’t bad?
[/quote]

No. In HITLER’S mind, Hitler wasn’t bad. In my mind, he was. Is there some sort of transcendent ethical code through which I could possibly show my view to be superior, or more in the right, or aligned in synchronicity with the absolute truth? I don’t know. And neither do you. [/quote]

No, you defined morals by societal benifit. Technically, if he benefit german society, he was good. Now you are saying each individual gets to pick their own morals?

And yes, I believe in absolute morals. What he did to the jews was wrong. Period. We had the right to stop him. By your own view, you can’t claim that.

People who claim relativistic morals don’t seem to know the consequences of such belief.[/quote]

Really? Prove that Hitler was good for German society as a whole. Prove that allowing to slaughter 6 million people was good for Earth as a whole. Prove that the United States would have been better off not intervening in a conflict that was VERY likely to spill across the Atlantic at one time or another. Prove that the domestic economic benefits of rigid authoritarianism within Germany somehow invalidated the threats posed by it to the entirety of the rest of the world. Prove that Nazi Germany did more good for man than it did evil.

I defined morality as: “a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished.” If the ethnic cleansing of millions is not “detrimental to societal cooperation,” then nothing is. If blatant imperial expansionism is not “detrimental to societal cooperation” at the national level, then nothing is. Think before you fucking speak. [/quote]

Because the people of germany considered it good. That’s all I have to show by your definition. That’s what moral relativism is. They wanted it, that makes it good. You can’t even use phrases like good for the earth, because no such consensus exists. The terms you are now using can’t exist by your own definition.

As a general term the Germans considered Nazis beneficial for their society. From a relativistic moral view where you define good by “benefit” (because in a relativistic view benefit is also relative) of society, the Nazis were good.

If you think that no matter time or place, the nazis were bad, you believe in absolute morals. You can’t be a relativist as you claim and then try to define certain actions as bad.

Take eugenics, without a doubt “good” for general society (or at least german society certainly thought so). By your definition, eugenics are good, right? So that’s something the Nazis did “right”?[/quote]

You’re dancing around the issue. Some considered it good, some didn’t. We, as a nation, didn’t. Therefore we intervened, on moral grounds. It’s that simple.

Yes…obviously, for those who thought Nazi Germany good, Nazi Germany was not operating in violation of ethics or morality. This is not new, or controversial.

Once again: if, as you affirm, there exists an absolute moral code, then the burden of proof lies with you to affirm rather than with me to refute. But, even if you quit dancing around with half-baked logical fallacies and got down to trying to prove the existence of absolute morality, you couldn’t. So I am going to bow out before I get into one of your pseudo-intellectual argumentative quagmires.[/quote]

So, if I think you deserve to die it is as just for me to kill you are for the US to have gotten into WWII?

Everyone has as much right as anyone else to their own moral code? You are essentially to the point of might is right.

159

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

The same way a person kicks when you tap their knee.[/quote]

So you agree that it’s more likely she would protect her child. It’s not random, disordered behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that is consistent with what you attribute to a supernatural being.
[/quote]

More likely, yeah, but not absolute. And in your scenario, you have already removed the value of one option over the other. So whatever the result, you can’t claim it as bad or good.[/quote]

So we’ve established that even if there is no god and no afterlife, people are more likely to behave as prescribed by most religions, as in this example of saving the life of an innocent. There doesn’t need to be a god or an afterlife for people to do this.

160

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Whether it’s a genetic mandate, or just a genetic influence, don’t you agree that she would be more likely to save her child over choosing the Snickers bar?[/quote]

The same way a person kicks when you tap their knee.[/quote]

So you agree that it’s more likely she would protect her child. It’s not random, disordered behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that is consistent with what you attribute to a supernatural being.
[/quote]

More likely, yeah, but not absolute. And in your scenario, you have already removed the value of one option over the other. So whatever the result, you can’t claim it as bad or good.[/quote]

So we’ve established that even if there is no god and no afterlife, people are more likely to behave as prescribed by most religions, as in this example of saving the life of an innocent. There doesn’t need to be a god or an afterlife for people to do this.[/quote]

Wrong. I think god is necessary for existence. without existence a mom wouldn’t be.

More than that, I believe moms are influence by absolute morals, your have in no way removed that influence from what typically happens now.

You are also confusing belief and existence. I’m claiming god made morals as part of the universe. You are saying a mom, who doesn’t believe in god still doing good disproves this. It doesn’t, the mom not believing in god doesn’t remove her from influence.

This is why you can’t scientifically tackle god’s existence, by definition there is no control group. There is no scenario you can test without god.

An atheist society doing good proves nothing, because not believing in god doesn’t remove him from the situation. It’s just poor logic.

If god created morals as part of the universe, they exist weather you believe him or not. You are claiming that if a society didn’t believe in gravity, and they still fell toward the earth, gravity isn’t what makes them fall. Believing or not has nothing to do with it.