Good without God

i watched the first two

       
        Doctor good to see you back from Kenya. I'm sure many on here are interested in your work.


I like the way you talk to yourself on here sometimes. Gives us all an interesting glimpse inside of your mind. If I were you I think I'd try lithium. It just might even your brain out a little.

God gave man "free will" and told him, "You can choose to follow Me and live eternally in blissful happiness.

Or, you can choose to deny Me and follow Satan's bad example -- and live eternally in misery."

Now, for any intelligent person -- given those choices, it would be a no-brainer.  Because God loves all of us -- He has given every single person an easy way to grab the Golden Ring and live happily ever after.  However, God will not make anyone reach for the Golden Ring.  Each person has to individually choose to reach for that Golden Ring -- or to ignore it.

 

I choose to reject the Golden Ring that goes through my nose.  It is the ring of slavery, submission, and unworthiness.  It is the ring through the nose of a steer, destined to misfortune.  God does not love us.  The Bible tells us that he barely tolerates us.  Of course, I'm being facetious, there is no god.  In the minds of the primitives who invented the gods, however, he could be no different, such as the primitives were.

 

Keep your ring, gold or otherwise.  I'll retain my free mind.  Thank you.

 

DF

';';';';';';';';';';'

Deep you are dishonest fellow. You claim to have a free mind but your are constantly making a liar out of your own self by the constant bawling against believers on here. If you had a free mind you certainly wouldn’t be here wasting your time. You are drawn here against your will? I say you are making sure you have collected the proper protocol for a deathbed confession.

You admit to being alone out there and actually sound scared to die to me. I could be wrong. I’m just saying.

 Jean Paul Sartre, openly acknowledged:

Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behavior (1961, p. 485, emp. added).

Or, to put it in the words of prominent evolutionist, Richard Dawkins:

I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave.... My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

---

Well, that might have been Sarte's opinion, but there are many, many people on this planet who live lives of compassion and kindness, not hurting other creatures except what can't be avoided, and many of them don't believe in God.  Many haven't even heard of him or have decided that following him isn't their path in life, and they aren't forlorn, lost, or lacking something to depend upon.  Saying there are no values without God or commands is a bit silly unless every single  person needs to be commanded by an outer force to be civil to others.  Some do apparently, but others don't.  That whole paragraph is just opinion since it obviously isn't true for all humans.

 

Dawkins even says, "My own feeling is" and while it is interesting reading, that isn't the case anyway with humans.  Sure, we have ruthless selfishness all around us, but there is also kindness, tolerance, compassion, humor, and sharing around us as well.  Many species besides humans live in relative peace with each other and often with their neighbors, and while of course there is fighting for resources and mating, it isn't nastiness.  That aside, humans do not have to choose to be a "society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness"  and often don't, so it isn't happening anyway and therefore the argument in moot.  

 

Actually, if you look at some native populations that didn't believe in God until missionaries come along you often see a shift away from the peaceful society living on the land and taking only what they need from it.  With the "saving" and "educating" often came everything from disease to war, destruction of the native way of life, and other nasty side effects.  The above are interesting opinions, but just that.  It just isn't true that no human can live as a fully self-actualized, mature, morally developed, civil person with values and compassion for others without God.  It would be nice to think that way if a person strongly believes in a particular religion that commands obedience to God, but it just isn't true.

I think Dawkins hit’s the hail on the head. Maybe you are not familiar with him.

Let’s hope we never find out that Dawkins is correct.

Frog

In Dawkins own words: “

however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

Frog you can “moot” all you want too but Dawkins’ logic is admitting that morals are God based. If you don’t want to admit to the logical truth your participation in this discussion is “moot”

---

Lol...so if I don't agree with your perspective or that of someone you quote my participation in a discussion is moot?  Interesting viewpoint you have there..lol.

 

however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true

I suppose you don't see that I could use that quote to make my point too?  Just because some people want God to be essential to moral development doesn't make that true either...lol.  See, for me logic either makes sense to me or it doesn't when I consider the road taken to the conclusion, and I don't care who has this opinion or that if it doesn't make logical sense to me.  Perhaps his view is that it is necessary, but when I use my own logic I don't see it.  That doesn't make my opinions or viewpoint any more moot than yours or his

 

I respect many people's conclusions on many topics, but I don't automatically assume someone's logic is fact just because I like the person or respect him/her.  I still consider all the viewpoints and facts I am presented with or can dig up and then decide if it makes sense to me.  Do you really suppose just because someone says something it must be true, and if someone disagrees with your interpretation their participation in a discussion is moot?

Frog.

It’s not Dawkins “logic”. Logic is a property of “systematic study of the

principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.” Wiki”

Dawkins fears are logical fears that must be common to any rational thinker.

Again your hoping a society of morals based on evolution is not logical and is untrue.

If truth is of no consequence maybe you should preface all your arguments with that axiom.

 

Why would you argue the point?

---

For one thing, I didn't say anything about a human society of morals based solely on evolution except to comment that that isn't the case anyway, and therefore that is why his comment was moot since that isn't the way it is nor will it most likely be without any other factors involved at all.  There are many factors that go into how a person's moral compass develops, and I simply said that God does not have to be part of that development.  And I said Dawkins' logic because you called it 

Frog you can “moot” all you want too but Dawkins’ logic is admitting that morals are God based.

 

Since he even said it was his "feeling" once again you made my point for me.  Thanks for the definition of logic, but really I did have an idea what it meant...I was referring to what you said about his comments.  I'm not arguing really...just saying I don't agree that God has to be involved for human to be civil human beings.  There is more than one way to live, and many have lived without the concept of God and been lovely people.

------------------------------

Dawkins :

 however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

 

Who have they been lovely to frog ?  They are lovely only to a society based on Gods morals.You are not facing facts that God is the source of morals. it is not necessary for you to believe in God but for you not to appear ridiculous you must agree that the God of believers is the source of all morality. Otherwise as our friend Dawkins admits: anything goes.

 

 

---

How is it then, that people that had never heard of your god had morals? Why don't christians have those morals?

---

You have made no sense in my opinion, and that is where we differ.  You keep saying that anyone who doesn't agree that I must agree that God is the source of all morality appears ridiculous, yet you say in the same breath it isn't necessary for me to believe in God..lol.  So if I didn't believe in God why would I agree that the "God of believers is the source of all morality"?  How would that make any sense logically?

 

And they may be lovely to each other and all the creatures around them.  Native Americans weren't horrible and amoral to each other or their environment before the white man so kindly decided they should believe in God.  Although they would have had the usual human squabbles over some issues, they certainly aren't famous for being amoral.   As I said before, tribes have been found throughout the unexplored parts of the world who hadn't heard of God at all ever in their history, but they didn't live amoral lives at all.

 

Of course, if your version of moral is a strict interpretation of every word of the Bible I would be happy to report they didn't follow that, but the fact here is that you believe that morality refers to your version of morality.  Many atheists live very moral lives and since they don't believe in God I kind of doubt they are basing their decisions on God's list of commandments, for that matter.  I respect your right to believe whatever you want to believe regarding this or anything, but I really don't see why it is necessary for you to say anyone who disagrees with you must " appear ridiculous".  That is where the problem comes in, actually.  Why would you feel that need to call anyone else names for simply having another viewpoint?  You can't prove your position to be fact just as others can't prove there is no god or Great Spirit or whatever else, so why call names?

---

Yes, this is what I was trying to say.  There are in fact societies that weren't based on God-centered rules who weren't amoral, so the premise that there can't be one not based on God can't be valid.  And as Best says, there are many, many, Christians and other God-based groups who have done horrendous things.  Apparently having God's list of morals doesn't assure successful follow-through either.

God was here before the universe. God is responsible for every human being here now, in the past and future. It was passed from the first man, this morality. Man was told not to take the option of taking on morals but mankind elected to take on that knowledge.

Except for this decision on the part of man to reckon morals for himself I see man simply surviving as our animal friends. An analogy of this predicament of no morality would have been borne out in an evolution model.

In the Garden of Eden the animal man communicated with the animal ‘snake’, there were no morals involved. Only after the decision to reckon morals was mans eyes opened and became not only the animal but a free moral agent. The animal snake never became a free moral agent and lived under the dominion of man

It‘s simple frog. that’s why it was written so easy to understand.

Most Christians DO have morals. They know how to forgive, and how to be civil to people they don't agree with. They know how to offer the olive branch, even when the odds and time, prove that they will get that olive branch thrown back in their faces. They ALSO would rather be honest than to sneak off into oblivion just to avoid ADMITTING that they are so full of hate that they can't or WON'T try to get along with those they disagree with.

 

Honesty, forgivness, civility. Yes, I think there are a lot of Christians who display these moral values. And I know at least ONE atheist who doesn't.

The Subjective Nature Of Absolute Morality

---

Fundamentalist Christians are often busy beating the drum of morality with regard to various social issues, especially during political elections.
Such drum beating certainly gets attention from the media and politicians alike.
Many believers love to associate themselves with a higher power and trumpet their authority by making the claim that their beliefs are based on "moral absolutes".
In this way, they raise themselves up above the secular population and create an aura of righteousness and holiness.
In other words, they know what's best for society because they have God on their side.
However, the issue of absolute morality is often not as obvious as Christian advertising makes it out to be.

Fundamentalist Christian position:
God has given humanity mortal absolutes. Skeptics reject these absolutes.
However, they are still moral absolutes and no skeptic can change that fact.
Skeptics have to accept that what God says is correct. The Bible is the Word of Almighty God.

Commentary:
Note the method that's employed in this authoritative sounding discourse.
The first step is to assert that God has given moral absolutes.
The second step is to declare that these absolutes are facts that cannot be denied.

This is a fine example of making an argument by assertion, where the premise is simply assumed and the conclusion, which stems from the premise, is then declared to be a fact.
However, the believer hasn't established that the source of the Biblical moral absolutes is God, nor have they established that all of the moral absolutes are in fact "moral".
They simply believe or assume that the Bible must be the Word of God and then let their personal preferences dictate the conclusion they desire.
An unproved assertion is used as the foundation to create and establish a universal fact.
In this case, it's the setting of moral absolutes for human behavior.
This approach also employs an appeal to power, where introducing "God" into the equation adds an air of authority to the whole exercise.

Christian position:
God's word is absolute. It is not the opinion of men, it is the divine word of God.
It is absolute and independent of anyone's opinion or taste.
God cannot be proven false because His moral rules are absolute.

Commentary:
This is another flagrant argument by assertion because none of the conclusions put forth in these statements are proven facts. They represent speculation and wishful thinking that have been dressed up to appear as "facts". It's smoke and mirrors, the stuff of carnival magicians.

An analogy to this particular type of thinking can be expressed in the following:
There is a book called "The Rules", which is a collection of spiritual writings, voted into official status by various councils of male clerics hundreds of years ago.
This book is the Word of God. The believers have declared it so.
Therefore, the moral absolutes given in this book must be from God and are facts.

In the minds of many believers, repeating something over and over makes it true.
Piling one assertion on top of another may sound impressive, but the underlying premises are subjective, being based on the theological preferences of those making the claims.
This type of superficial thinking isn't limited to church environments. Repetition is also used in a variety of political and commercial endeavors, in order to advance an agenda.

 

http://agnosticreview.com/absolute.htm

Sarte was wrong, Dawkins is right.

Only with the gods are atrocities allowable.  Only the gods could direct the bombings of 9/11 and the much more recent one in Nigeria.  There is no mechanism by which atheists indulge themselves into bombing the religious.  None.

 

Dawkins is saying that our superior intellect is sufficient to come to morals that perpetuate us.  It's not really so difficult to grasp.  We have abstracted the natural emotions and intuitions into a set of moralities that should remain fluid, rather than hidebound simply because the first abstractions were written down thousands of years ago.  Let's face it, the results of those first abstractions were pretty horrible.  If you don't believe me, ask the Amelikites.

 

Enjoying the convo.

 

DF

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Billifer, the new queen of cut and paste.

O,

 

I'm happy you agree with me that morality is fluid and, necessarily, subjective.

 

DF

Jean Paul Sartre, openly acknowledged:

“Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist”

Ns posits” Sarte was wrong, .”

 

Question ns, what is not permitted without God?

I understand what you are saying. The claim that man was inherently moral before a belief in gods made him immoral is counter to all research in animal behavior.

 

As I told someone else above: you can still have your non-belief in God but by your same theory that belief in nonexistent gods causes crimes against humanity that same belief in non-existent gods will also cause rules of morality, especially if it is written in a book that everyone reads.

 

It’s difficult to know if you are serious or just taking the opposite position for no good reason but if you don’t agree with what I said above I’m forced to make conclusions on your behalf.

OK,

 

Morality does not come from the gods.  We lend the gods morality.

 

I am an atheist.  I cannot murder you.  It would be wrong.  It would lead to a culture in which murder is acceptable, and I do not wish to live in such a society.  I have a human connection with you.  I empathize with you.  Because of that empathy, I cannot murder you, in the same light as I do not want to be murdered by you.

 

This is a distillation of thousands of years of philosophy, yet a good distillation.

 

I almost said that morality is a human abstraction.  A human construct.  It exists only in the human mind.  Yet this is not the case.  Many mammals and other animals have moralities.  The Great Apes certainly do, elephants do, and wolves do, to name a few.  Even lower forms of animals have morality.  Take the piranha, for example.  By all accounts they are tasty fish yet they do not eat each other.  They have a species-relevant intuitive morality that perpetuates piranhas.

 

Don't we?

 

To the extent that there is a human objective morality, it is evolutionary.

 

DF

Hi Deep,

 

There is a choice between Positive Moral Values, which basically are derived from the Bible and which has guided mankind in the right direction for thousands of years -- or Relative Moral Values, which the secular world champions and says, "Do what feels right to you."    So, if stealing, murder, rape feel right to you -- then, by Relative Moral Values -- they are acceptable.   Since 1963, our public schools have been teaching Relative Moral Values -- and we have new community events such as drive-by shootings, increase in teen pregnancy, and about 1 MILLION babies murdered each year by abortion.

 

And, finally, Deep -- animals do not have morals.  Animals have instincts, survival instincts.  Even atheist animals -- otherwise, why would they cluster together on the Religion Forum?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

NS, You contradict yourself so quickly. If morality does not come from gods how can you say evil comes from gods.

 

Dawkins says:

My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.

But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

Ns, based on Dawkins’ “nasty society” I’m a dead man.

 

Ns, your animal kingdom holds no water. Your animals do exibit behavior that we see as being moral based on ours. If you take our morality out of the picture then rape, incest, devouring the young and recreational killing killing of your neighbor is moral.

---

Sorry, Bill, but humans are animals, and therefore you are an animal as well.  Your posit that animals do not have morals would then indicate that you must have no morals since you are one yourself as we all are, but I don't believe that you don't have any.  Also, you really have no knowledge of what animals have or don't have as motives any more than you know absolutely why humans do what they do.  It is only human arrogance when we refer to ourselves as somehow better or more morally developed than other animals.  Having survival instincts isn't an insult at all and can go hand in hand with morals that are appropriate for each species.  

 

---

Nicely put

Hi Frog,

 

There is one MAJOR difference between mankind and the animal kingdom -- man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), the animal kingdom was not.  Therefore, man has moral values; the animal kingdom has survival instincts.  I am truly surprised that you do not already know this.

 

Genesis 1:24-25, "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind;' and it was so.   God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good." 

 

Genesis 1:26-27,  "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'   God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 

Man - Morals!  Well, we do have to take into consideration those who still want to live in a world controlled by Relativism, i.e., Relative Moral Values -- "If it feels good, it is right!"

 

Animals - Survival Instincts!   Stay away from my young ones!  "If it tastes good, eat it!"

 

So simple that even an atheist should understand it.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Hmm... This sure sounds like a biblical Freudian slip...

 

"Genesis 1:26-27,  "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'   God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"

 

 

Is your god schizophrenic?

 

Who might he be referring to when he says, "Us" and "Our?"

 

 

I think there's more "truth" in that statement than you realize....

---

You are back to assuming only your way of thinking is correct, though, and the only evidence to back up your claims is the same book that I remind you many, many people "know" wasn't inspired by anything divine just as you "know" it is.  But instead of stating it is your opinion that the Bible is absolutely the word of God and God's word is absolute you seem to default to a condescending nastiness whenever anyone doesn't totally agree with you.  I am unfortunately not surprised, but it is too bad that I haven't seen you have a respectful conversation with anyone who doesn't agree with you.  Your argument is based only on that one book, and while I respect your right to believe it is what you say it is, once again you are not open to respecting anyone else's point of view.  

 

Also, once again you quote only scripture to make your points, make nasty comments, make totally invalid assumptions about every other living creature on the planet just because many don't qualify for your respect based on their beliefs, and then add a tell people to have a wonderful day.  Even an atheist?  Perhaps you don't realize how incredibly rude that comment is...I haven't said "even a Christian", (only chosen because this is your viewpoint) or belittled you for your beliefs, yet each time you respond you say things that are dismissive and seemingly intended to be insulting.  Do you believe that furthers your cause to convert everyone to Christianity, do you not realize you are saying things that aren't particularly nice, or perhaps you are intending to be nasty?  

 

You really have no idea what animals' motivations are any more than anyone else would and most likely less since your mind is closed to their amazingness, and although perhaps you haven't seen them take actions that wouldn't be described as simply instinct it doesn't mean they don't.  I realize what I say comes from my own experiences and isn't absolute, and that goes for everyone else on the planet whatever their belief system happens to be whether they admit it or not.  We are humans and very fallible...every one of us.

Originally Posted by frog:

-------------------------

Frog info on what animals think is close at hand it seems.

 

NS quote:

Many mammals and other animals have moralities.  The Great Apes certainly do, elephants do, and wolves do, to name a few.  Even lower forms of animals have morality.  Take the piranha, for example.  By all accounts they are tasty fish yet they do not eat each other.  They have a species-relevant intuitive morality that perpetuates piranhas.

Merci, beucoup, mon ami.

DF

Sez OK: There is one MAJOR difference between mankind and the animal kingdom -- man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), the animal kingdom was not.  Therefore, man has moral values; the animal kingdom has survival instincts.  I am truly surprised that you do not already know this.

 

OK, haven't you been keeping up?  Morality, after a fashion, exists in many lower life forms.  Female alligators protect their eggs.  Is this not morality?  Sparrows feed their young, is this not morality? 

 

If you think morality is a revealed code from the Old Testament, then I suggest you have not considered the concept in any depth whatever.  Even that morality was created by humans, flawed as it is, naturally.

 

If one is to take the Bible as a moral code, then one will develop into a monster.  Consider the Amelikites, the massacres, the misogyny, the slavery, the genocides, the human sacrifices (including Jesus), to assuage a bloodthirsty and jealous god, to name a few transgressions against humanistic morality.

 

OK, how dare you claim that the God of the Bible is in any way a moral standard to which we should stand?  He is a monster.  And don't try to weasel out of it by saying the NT gave us a New Covenant, because the NT includes the Greco/Roman concept of Hell, only turbocharged.  Hell is the most arrogant, violent, evil, and wicked concept ever invented.

 

Whatever human morality is, it is NOT to be found in the Bible.

 

DF

NS ok didn’t “sez” that quote but I will respond with a ‘respected fellow’ who argues you are wrong.

Dawkins says

:

My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.

But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true (1989, pp. 2,3, emp. added).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2687

 

Mr. Dwkins is saying no matter how much you despise the Bible the truth is morals come from the study of it.

I really don’t understand why you are so opposed to a theory that morals come from the bible.

You can still be the atheist and believe that morals come from others belief in God. Someone on here stated that they wanted God out of their daily lives. One would naturally see that Biblical moral rules obstructs that person in some way.

I think it is glaringly clear that Dawkins is right.

 

On one point NS I certainly agree God is a monster and “

Hell is the most arrogant, violent, evil, and wicked concept ever invented. ”Especially if you are an atheist.

---

And once more I will explain that while I understand that you read what he says and feel it is "glaringly clear", it is because your frame of reference and mindset is such that you agree with him.  It isn't that there is a set of facts that is glaring at us all, but that you have the predisposition to agree with him, and that is cool if it makes sense to you.  It doesn't, however, mean that everyone else reading that passage would see it is glaringly clear since so many, many people on the planet haven't heard of God or don't choose to follow him or behave as they do in decent ways because of him.  

 

I don't despise the Bible, but I see that the "truth" you are referring to is your opinion.  My opinion is simply different, so my question to you is why are you so opposed to the idea that your "truth" might not be the only "truthful" way to think?  That there are humans and in my personal view many other creatures that behave in civil or decent ways (morality is relative to what society you are referring to, although I know that many Christians will disagree with that as well) without having heard of God or read the Bible?  

 

I'm just saying that if you read it that way that is fine if it makes sense to you, but why do the ones in the rest of the world have to be wrong?  Why can't I accept you feel how you do and you accept I don't happen to feel that way about some things, and then we find common ground and both live the best lives we can?  What you see as "naturally seeing" just isn't how many others see it, so  if they aren't telling you that their way is the only truthful way, then why do you feel the need to tell everyone else they aren't seeing things naturally or that they must be seeing things in a glaringly wrong way?  

 

It is one thing to say, "I think....." or "I feel..." about something.   That is part of a conversation and leads to friendly discussion where both sides learn and enjoy each other's company.  Saying, "the truth is...(insert a particular belief) and everything else is glaring wrong, ridiculous (or any other of the various ways opinions have been referred to in this forum), or worse doesn't respect anyone else's experiences, beliefs, or education and definitely doesn't lead to friendly discussions or much of anything positive.  I'm afraid I don't see how that helps anyone learn anything or enjoy a chat?

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.

http://www.geoffwilkins.net/fragments/Dawkins.htm

Frog, Mr. Dawkins is simply stating a fact based on rational thinking.

There is no one on earth who doesn’t know of God. Don’t kid your self.

Dawkins knows as does everyone else those moral values that spring from society’s belief in God causes conflicts in the daily lives of the non-believer.

Like he says “however much we deplore something, it does not stop it from being true”.

Frog I don’t see how you can insist you are being truthful to your self. I think you are a non-believer. Not sure but how does “morals from God” effect what you believe?

“Morals from God” is testable. Genetic origin of morals is not testable. Morals are a learned behavior by any species and can alter genetic makeup in a species by turning on or failing to turn on messengers that control DNA and genes. DNA and genes have no reasoning power and are simply there waiting on a message prompting different responses from a common gene or variant ability. That is the reason species may have a common gene but receptors receive altogether different messengers that result in different moral objectives from one individual to another.

Morals are learned behavior that alter genes that can be heritable not the reverse.

The logical approach is that of Dawkins; face the truth that religious people who believe in the Bible is the source of certain morals that are counter to your desires.

I have no problem with you interpreting things to suit your self. I just want you to realize that that is in fact what you are doing regarding this subject.

---

First bolded:  You really can't prove that and even if someone had heard the word God it wouldn't mean s/he really understood rules, morals, or anything related..lol.  Perhaps your experience is that everyone you can think of has heard of God, but unless you can speak directly to each person on the planet you just don't have information upon which to base that statement.  Your opinion is your opinion, but not absolute truth.

 

Dawkins knows nothing of the kind on second bolded sentence.  He may have opinions about it, but again, unless he spoke to them he has no clue what some person in a tribe or isolated area thinks and what conflicts if any an abstract idea of God has created in his life.  the issue is you keep using absolute terms.  "Everyone" doesn't know even what your sentence means, much less whether it makes sense or not, so stating that isn't logical.

 

"Morals from God" isn't testable unless you have access to every single human on the planet, and unless each person is willing to cooperate by giving a thorough background of beliefs, morals,  exposures to the idea of God you can't prove your opinion unless you have spoken to them all.  Yes, morals are learned behaviors, but there are so many variants in environment from conception all the way until death that one can't prove that it was only exposure to the concept of God that formed the morals.  I would even venture that some humans might develop moral behavior despite his or her exposure to the idea of morals that was learned in religion class or in some religious homes.  Humans have commonalities but are not by any means identical, and assuming that all or none of a set of moral behaviors can be traced back to one event or variable just isn't provable.   You can't prove that any particular set of behaviors relating to morals (humans don't even all agree with that set of behaviors consists of anyway) came exclusively from God...you really can't separate that one factor out since not everyone has heard of God anyway, and the logistics are overwhelming even if you could.

 

It doesn't suit me to interpret anything a particular way, but your statement "face the truth that religious people who believe in the Bible is the source of certain morals" isn't even what we were specifically discussing.  Where did the part about religious people who believe in the Bible come into this? The quote I was discussing and posts after that quote was given related to the Bible/God being the source for morals for all humans, and not religious people who believe in the Bible being the source for morals, and "certain" wasn't in the quote unless I missed something. I would even more strongly disagree with the premise that religious people who believe in the Bible are the source for all morals, but for "certain" morals (as in the behaviors they choose to participate in regardless of what the Bible says whether they are positive or negative behaviors) for some people I would agree.

 

By that I mean that since people who believe in the Bible would probably behave certain ways IF they followed all the teachings in the Bible (many haven't read it all or don't choose to follow all the rules they would find there if they did), I would agree that those people and those they have close contact with are exposed to that particular set of rules of behavior.  That doesn't mean those are all healthy or positive behaviors that benefit the rest of society, but yes, those people are affected.  But the bolded quote I cite in the previous paragraph isn't what I was discussing in my previous posts anyway, so it would become a whole new area of discussion.

 

I'm sure I am interpreting what I read in ways related to my background and I have no problem with that at all. I am happy to learn from others' experiences, but my point is you are doing the same thing.  We all do that and who gets to judge what the absolute "truth" is for subjects that can't be proven at this point? It doesn't suit me particularly either way since I come to the discussion knowing that we can't prove much of what we are discussing anyway.  It is friendly discussion and we might all be right or wrong about the whole subject...lol.

 

 

 

 

Many here seem to think becoming a Christian is like placing a certain ring on one's finger, much like joining a secret sect. If we see the ring, we know the person is a member. Humans, on the other hand, each have different weaknesses. Becoming a Christian doesn't change their nature in itself. An alcoholic will still have to deal with his/her demons.

 

There isn't a perfect person in the world, be it Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. Saying that Christians commit immoral acts is hardly a surprise to anyone. The basic difference is that Christians strive to do better.

 The basic difference is that Christians strive to do better.

 

 

 

The difference in who? You don't have to be a christian to strive to "do better". There are plenty of people that don't believe in a god that live better lives than most christians.