Believers: What Would You Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The TED talk that I provided the URL for earlier tends to agree most with what I believe about moral capacity. The framework is already there from birth, waiting to be filled by whatever cultural deference a person is born into. You can argue that G-d provided the framework or that evolution demanded it with equal passion, and with little way to prove either. I remain undecided on the origin, but few can argue the existence of a founding framework for morality.

Hitler as you brought up, was not a monster under all circumstances, and was known to be tender and fatherly to children. Most of his senior staff were seen as exemplary parents and spouses. Morality by my perception could be defined as the ability to differentiate conditional vicissitudes.

Fairness and reciprocity - one of the 5 proposed Moral pillars is wildly interpreted from one culture to the next but ALWAYS present. Even without the ten commandments, there are laws and rules against theft, etc.

162

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The TED talk that I provided the URL for earlier tends to agree most with what I believe about moral capacity. The framework is already there from birth, waiting to be filled by whatever cultural deference a person is born into. You can argue that G-d provided the framework or that evolution demanded it with equal passion, and with little way to prove either. I remain undecided on the origin, but few can argue the existence of a founding framework for morality.

Hitler as you brought up, was not a monster under all circumstances, and was known to be tender and fatherly to children. Most of his senior staff were seen as exemplary parents and spouses. Morality by my perception could be defined as the ability to differentiate conditional vicissitudes.

Fairness and reciprocity - one of the 5 proposed Moral pillars is wildly interpreted from one culture to the next but ALWAYS present. Even without the ten commandments, there are laws and rules against theft, etc. [/quote]

I do not differential between god creating morals as part of evolution set in motion at creation. or an intervention later. As such, evolution is not incompatible with god creating them. If all god did was be the initial cause, he still created morals.

Morals always being present is more evidence for morals being absolute, depending on how you take it.

163

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’ve agreed, then, that it’s possible for societies to establish a moral code…[/quote]

No we haven’t. I don’t believe your definition is morality. And since morality is defined by mere human opinion in your system, I can’t be wrong. At best they can develop laws which may or may not outrage us (affected by religious humanity), which can obviously change.

]
[/quote]

What does it matter, if the general behavior is the same?

There will be some differences, but then again there are some differences in prescribed behavior among religions sects as well.

165

Absent some transcendental moral order, human behavior would be governed in the long run by nothing more than raw utilitarianism. Sometimes that generates cooperation, sometimes that generates a murderous destruction.

And, there’d be no moral distinction between either event. Each would merely be a preference.

The question is a bit fatuous - there is no answer because the question moots itself. In the absence of God/higher morality, humans would do all manner of things with and to each other. And all of these things would be equally “right” from the point of view of morality (which, in order to exist, inherently must transcend individual preferences), so there is no reason to entertain a hyopthetical designed to prove that, in the absence of a God/higher morality, that human beings would still do “right”.

There wouldn’t be a “right” or “wrong” in the absence of a higher moral order. The idea is a nullity.

In the absence of a higher moral order, we could rationalize that everyone on welfare was a drain on society, and we could kill them all in the interest of the greater good. That’d be just as “moral” as recognizing an individual’s right to his own life.

166

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
This post from Pat got me thinking:

[quote]That’s precisely what I meant. Leading a good life has no ultimate value if nothing happens when you die or are killed. This true for anybody, theist and atheist alike. Problem is, leading a good life is damned hard, it’s far easier to lead a narcissistic life. I’d like to think in the end, hard work and sacrifice mean something more than “He was a nice fellow, to bad he’s worm food now”
Contrary, I’d like to think assholes like stalin got more than a peaceful death on a comfy bed. There is no real justice in this world, but justice does come in some way or another.[/quote]

I have a sincere question for the believers out there. Please take a few mins to think about it rather than shooting from the hip, because I’m genuinely interested in what you would do.

What if you learned that there was no god, and no afterlife? I realize we can’t know this, but let’s say you did.

How would this knowledge affect the way you live your life?

Would you start murdering people, robbing people, lying to people, etc.? What if you knew you could get away with it? Would anything stop you from doing it?

Would you still love people? Would you try to help others, even if there was no reward for doing so?

Would you spend more time with your loved ones, or less? Would you tell them you love them more, or less? Would you care about their happiness more, or less?

I’m genuinely curious, because I asked myself all of these questions after stepping back from my religious beliefs. I asked myself how the possibility of this life being all there is would affect my values, and the way I live my life.

Obviously the realization would be shocking, confusing, and dismaying. But what about after that? What would you do with the rest of your life?[/quote]

If there is no god, good and evil and love don’t exist, so your question is meaningless.[/quote]

Would you be ok with murdering people? Would you still try to help people?[/quote]

It’s like asking to pretend the background music isn’t playing in our head. We’re this way due possibly to nature, and most certainly from nurture (from ealier or later in life).

Ask me if I’d own slaves in the old South. Sure I could say no, but I couldn’t really mean it with any certainty. This is just as pointless.[/quote]

It’s not an abstract thought experiment, I’m genuinely interested in knowing how that realization would affect the way you treat people.

I know how the belief affected my own perceptions and my own behavior, but I’m curious how it would affect yours.

For myself, I realized that not believing in a god didn’t translate to feeling free to do whatever I want, as long as I could get away with it. I still valued honesty, treating others with respect, etc.

How would it affect you? Are your values 100% dependent on your belief in god and the afterlife, and would you toss away all of those values if you realized there is no god or afterlife? Why or why not?[/quote]

My journey, being similar to yours, I believe, has lead me to a far greater and deeper feeling of compassion for my fellow humans. As a ‘religious’ person, I was far more judgemental than now, even though I blindly believed otherwise. I have become a MUCH better communicator as well… now that I’m not constantly trying to win arguments over the existence and nature of an abstract being. I am also FAR more comfortable really listening to other people’s concepts about mystical/philosophical beliefs.

But I’m not as apt to ‘turn the other cheek’ now either. I have noticed that the idea of this life potentially being ‘All’ that there is has lead me to crave achievement and begrudge any and all butt f*ckery. Also the anger I feel over such things leads me to more positive and proactive behavior, since I’m not waiting for G-d in his wisdom to solve my problems, or take the pain away, or punish the wicked in his own time… [/quote]

I think the biggest change for me was recognizing the importance of telling the people I love that I love them, and making the most of my time with them. I had always believed that I would spend eternity with my family, so it was a huge shift in my thinking. Losing my loved ones will be harder, but then again I will have truly cherished and celebrated our relationship, when before I might have taken it for granted.

I’ve developed deeper tolerance for ambiguity. I no longer feel like I have the answers to life’s biggest questions, but I’ve learned to be ok with that. In fact, the search for truth has been surprisingly enjoyable, thought provoking, and insightful.

Like you, I’m less judgmental overall. But some things still get my goat, like cheating on your spouse, per my posts in the Schwarzenegger thread (heh, my iPad had his name in the auto dictionary as I typed it).

Having been so devout in my religious beliefs, I’m now more skeptical of my own beliefs, and am unwilling to insist I know what is true and what isn’t. And I’m less willing to take the assurance of others that they know what is true and what isn’t.

Overall, I feel that I’ve grown as a person and look forward to continuing the journey.

167

[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]

Damn, that is a finely crafted couple of sentences, and is spot on.

168

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Would it be right, though? Would it then be moral if accepted?

169

[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]

Faith by definition isn’t knowledge. You can only have faith that rape is evil. It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.

170

[quote]forlife 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]

Faith by definition isn’t knowledge. You can only have faith that rape is evil. It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.[/quote]

Faith is a component in every belief and action.

171

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You forget that in the hypothetical thought experiment, in which you participated, where there is no god and there is no afterlife, you still predicted that the mother would probably save the life of her child. No god, and no afterlife, remember?

172

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.[/quote]

No, I know rape is evil. I know God exists. I’m hold to religious faith unapologetically. Now, your last sentence is exactly why humanity is naturally religious. For all the talk of atheistic Western Europe, or wherever, even they KNOW rape is evil. A statement of fervent religious faith. Even they believe they have certain rights which don’t vanish with a change in consensus or government. See, religious beliefs will still persit for a time.

However, eventually, they would begin to believe just as you say “Well, actually, maybe rape isn’t evil…” Your hypothetical is answered by your own argument, rape wouldn’t be known as an evil. There would be no such thing as evil or good. This is the underlying foundation of a purely atheistic/materialistic world?! Besides, it’s already been answered by humanity itself, which has a religious nature.

173

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You forget that in the hypothetical thought experiment, in which you participated, where there is no god and there is no afterlife, you still predicted that the mother would probably save the life of her child. No god, and no afterlife, remember?[/quote]

With stipulation. Like that genetics in your scenario would be the same without gods influence. Which I don’t buy. So, yes as a requirement of you hypothetical, but that doesn’t mean there would be morals without god. There is no indication of that possible. A best guess becomes impossible.

174

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Absent some transcendental moral order, human behavior would be governed in the long run by nothing more than raw utilitarianism. Sometimes that generates cooperation, sometimes that generates a murderous destruction.

And, there’d be no moral distinction between either event. Each would merely be a preference.

The question is a bit fatuous - there is no answer because the question moots itself. In the absence of God/higher morality, humans would do all manner of things with and to each other. And all of these things would be equally “right” from the point of view of morality (which, in order to exist, inherently must transcend individual preferences), so there is no reason to entertain a hyopthetical designed to prove that, in the absence of a God/higher morality, that human beings would still do “right”.

There wouldn’t be a “right” or “wrong” in the absence of a higher moral order. The idea is a nullity.

In the absence of a higher moral order, we could rationalize that everyone on welfare was a drain on society, and we could kill them all in the interest of the greater good. That’d be just as “moral” as recognizing an individual’s right to his own life.[/quote]

The hypothetical doesn’t ask whether your choices and behavior would be right or wrong. It asks what those choices and behavior would be, irrespective of whether you ascribe them to an ultimate moral source. A mother would still protect her child, whether or not there was a god or an afterlife.

175

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Absent some transcendental moral order, human behavior would be governed in the long run by nothing more than raw utilitarianism. Sometimes that generates cooperation, sometimes that generates a murderous destruction.

And, there’d be no moral distinction between either event. Each would merely be a preference.

The question is a bit fatuous - there is no answer because the question moots itself. In the absence of God/higher morality, humans would do all manner of things with and to each other. And all of these things would be equally “right” from the point of view of morality (which, in order to exist, inherently must transcend individual preferences), so there is no reason to entertain a hyopthetical designed to prove that, in the absence of a God/higher morality, that human beings would still do “right”.

There wouldn’t be a “right” or “wrong” in the absence of a higher moral order. The idea is a nullity.

In the absence of a higher moral order, we could rationalize that everyone on welfare was a drain on society, and we could kill them all in the interest of the greater good. That’d be just as “moral” as recognizing an individual’s right to his own life.[/quote]

The hypothetical doesn’t ask whether your choices and behavior would be right or wrong. It asks what those choices and behavior would be, irrespective of whether you ascribe them to an ultimate moral source. A mother would still protect her child, whether or not there was a god or an afterlife.[/quote]

Not true if god created genetics. You cannot logically remove gods influence from the equation. Or, if you do, the answer becomes entirely unknowable.

176

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife 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]

Faith by definition isn’t knowledge. You can only have faith that rape is evil. It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.[/quote]

Faith is a component in every belief and action.[/quote]

Be that as it may, my point stands. You don’t know what is good and what is evil any more than I do. You can only express faith that something is good or evil, but have no knowledge of whether it actually is.

177

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife 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]

Faith by definition isn’t knowledge. You can only have faith that rape is evil. It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.[/quote]

Faith is a component in every belief and action.[/quote]

Be that as it may, my point stands. You don’t know what is good and what is evil any more than I do. You can only express faith that something is good or evil, but have no knowledge of whether it actually is.[/quote]

So you are claiming there is no such thing as knowledge, since all things require faith?

178

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s impossible to know that rape is evil.[/quote]

No, I know rape is evil. I know God exists. I’m hold to religious faith unapologetically. Now, your last sentence is exactly why humanity is naturally religious. For all the talk of atheistic Western Europe, or wherever, even they KNOW rape is evil. A statement of fervent religious faith. Even they believe they have certain rights which don’t vanish with a change in consensus or government. See, religious beliefs will still persit for a time.

However, eventually, they would begin to believe just as you say “Well, actually, maybe rape isn’t evil…” Your hypothetical is answered by your own argument, rape wouldn’t be known as an evil. There would be no such thing as evil or good. This is the underlying foundation of a purely atheistic/materialistic world?! Besides, it’s already been answered by humanity itself, which has a religious nature.[/quote]

Your first two sentences contradict the third.

Faith is not knowledge. You can’t know something is real, when it is derived from an authoritative source that you don’t actually know exists.

179

Adultery, divorce, theft, incest, revenge, envy, infanticide, euthanasia, murder, greed, dishonesty, that magnitude of such things would make this world look like a walk in the park. We all know it.

Hence, religiosity, a favorable trait, became human nature. How humanity developed already answered your hypothetical.

180

[quote]forlife wrote:
You don’t know what is good and what is evil any more than I do.[/quote]

Yes we do. We can look at a rape victim and tell her (or him), without any uncertainty, that what happened was an evil act by an evil man. You can’t. That’s an act of fundamental faith.

You hypothetical is answered. That world would be chaos. Why is this still going?