Athiests & Firm Believers In Evolution....Come Hither

[Brown_Pride]

again seriously why do we do this here?
There are two languages being spoken, they just happen to consist of many of the same words.

You guys are arguing circles vs squares.
Apples and oranges.

Just...just stop already.

 

[brick james]

why are you asking "non religious" people this question?

Because the religious people will contend that the bible is the word of god, so that the morality in the bible comes from god.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

where do your morals originate and why do you have them?


for what reasons do you hold dearly to these idealogies? is it because you genuinely feel they are appropriate or simply because they seem to naturally occur within your deepest human psyche

what purpose do they honestly serve in the grand scheme of things? and why do other animals not have them?

I'm not an atheist but I will play along

My morals come from my desire to sustain and improve the human race, my genetics to be exact. I hold these idologies because in human society certain things improve us and move us forward and other things don't. Self preservation of a species is deeply rooted in the psyche of all living beings.

In the grand scheme of things these morals ensure my survival and the survival of my genes, and ultimately the human race. Plenty of animals show traits in which we deem "morals" most of the ideas we consider human morals possess evolutionary advantages.

 

[mbewane]

That has more to do with translating one language into another rather than 'convenience'. For instance, there is no Arabic word for 'compromise' AFAIK.



That behavior isn't confined to religious people.
​

That's exactly my point. How can you base your behaviour on a thousand year old text that has gotten to you after various translations? In French it's "Tu ne tueras point" which can be translated into English as either "Thou shalt not kill" or "That shall not murder". The former is against ALL killings, while the second give some latitude to discuss what exactly is a "murder". This has big implications, I guess we all know which translation the supporters of the death penalty use.

And who said it was confined to religious people? Thing is, only religious people have to distort their own "morals" in order to justify some of their attitude, and they do so precisely by saying "My translation of the Bible states..." or, as I said before, that enslaving/killing Native Americans or Africans was ok because obviously "They have no souls". As opposed to non-religious people who kill just the same, but who at least aren't hypocritical about it.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

why does my dog not attack me? does he have "morals"?

But many religious people would argue that dogs have no souls so

Also your dog does'nt attack you because you are the alpha male of your pack...dogs are descendants of wolves.

 

[DANKTHRONE]

There is no premise stating that 'either x or not-x' are the ONLY choices. This is why ED is invalid. It presents two options, but they are neither necessary nor inescapable.​

Ugh...

Either God has reasons for his moral edicts or God does not have reasons for his moral edicts.

There are only two choices because I made a partition involving two classes. That is a perfectly valid move. What is so hard to understand about this.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's exactly my point. How can you base your behaviour on a thousand year old text that has gotten to you after various translations?

You think they base their behavior on a text? Nah, the vast majority use logic and reason to base their behavior.

And who said it was confined to religious people?

You did (by omission) since hypocrisy is a human trait.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Ugh...

Either a) God has reasons for his moral edicts or b) God does not have reasons for his moral edicts.

Or........c)

God is necessarily good, and it is His nature and character that is the exemplar of what goodness is. God’s commands to us are an expression of that goodness and become our moral obligations.

Do you see now why ED is invalid?​

 

[mbewane]

You think they base their behavior on a text? Nah, the vast majority use logic and reason to base their behavior.



You did (by omission) since hypocrisy is a human trait.​

So why are we even arguing that morals somewhat originate from religion breh I've been saying that morals is common sense, not based on religion, but some religious people will like you to believe that all morals originate from religion.

So now you know better than myself what I'm saying (by omission)

 

[Darts]

these religions all originated at some point. so were there no morals before that?

Are you implying that religion predates humans making moral decisions??

How old is religion? Has there ever been a time when humans didn't believe in a power or powers greater than themselves?

 

[The Real]

Or........c)

Do you see now why ED is invalid?​

That isn't a truly logical argument, breh. It fudges ontological priority with logical priority, imo, since the justification, as Craig argues, comes from the supposed ability of necessary truths to co-exist with no ontological hierarchy whatsoever. It doesn't provide justification for that claim properly, as Craig's own examples show (they all make this mistake of fudging ontological with logical priority as I said above.)

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That isn't a truly logical argument, breh. It fudges ontological priority with logical priority, imo, since the justification, as Craig argues, comes from the supposed ability of necessary truths to co-exist with no ontological hierarchy whatsoever. It doesn't provide justification for that claim properly, as Craig's own examples show (they all make this mistake of fudging ontological with logical priority as I said above.)

I agree. The problem is still inherent in the ED that allows for this to occur since it is not a *true* dilemma. WLC just takes advantage of it.
​

 

[ExodusNirvana]

How old is religion? Has there ever been a time when humans didn't believe in a power or powers greater than themselves?

Of course

Deities and the like were created to explain what could not be explained at the time

 

[The Real]

I agree. The problem is still inherent in the ED that allows for this to occur since it is not a *true* dilemma. WLC just takes advantage of it.
​

I see what you're saying. That's fair, but only in a theological framework. It would be consistent in an argument that allowed for the initial theological leap of faith, just like the first cause arguments, etc. I guess then the limitations of Plato's arg could be seen as a reflection of the conception of deity in his time and place.

 

[DANKTHRONE]

Or........c)

Do you see now why ED is invalid?​

Yeah I don't really care about bullshyt modality attributes to God. Ad hoc horseshyt. I don't see why you are being pig ignorant about this. It is a legit two set partition. That guy is taking the second part and arguing that you can have moral edicts that are reasonless but not arbitrary. Then you do some little modality trick that is wholing unconvincing because you only focus on omnibenevolence and ignore the omniscience and the omnipotence.