Atheism and Morality

[Muezzin]

To answer the question of this thread, I do not believe that atheism precludes morality. Religions enforce certain forms of moral codes. Individuals may believe certain moral codes trump others, but to me it seems false to claim that religion created morality, with the implication that a lack of religion leads to a lack of morals. This is just not so.

That's about as much as I wish to say; I don't really want to debate, but I do have to speak out against something here...

snakelegs:
But then again, maybe you’re right: why should a person try to help other humans? Right? Just live and let live – and try to be “polite”.

'Polite' means not forcing others to adopt your view. I believe it is morally wrong for religious adherents to force others to adopt their view, and if those others do not, they are informed that they will dwell in hell, with a view to pressuring them to convert. That sort of preaching is wrong in my view.

What you seem to be advocating is the atheistic/agnostic/secular alternative - that religion is wrong, and if you do not agree, you are primitive. That's just... intellectual rape. People have the right to choose. You have the right to offer them options, but you don't have the right to say their way of life is wrong, and they will be condemned/dwell in stupidity if they disagree. It's lazy, and the intellectual equivalent of self-gratifying empowerment. Condescension is generally counter-productive unless one's goal is to establish oneself in an ivory tower presiding over the ignorant masses whom one has actually alienated due to self-indulgent sarcasm administered under the pretense of education.

And to go with Ingersoll's interpetation of the serpent, did the snake say that Adam and Eve would be stupid if they did not eat from the tree of knowledge? No. It simply tempted them or provided them an option, which they then chose to pursue of their own free will. Pressuring people into making a choice, which you seem to be advocating, reduces the impact of their free will, in my view. 'Truth' which is forcibly delivered to people is not a form of learning, but a form of brainwashing, for they have not consented to be educated. To me, free will is paramount - people may choose and live with the consequences of their decisions, but to force them to adopt one's own particular world view is morally wrong.

 

[rav]

Shalom Pygoscelis,

I may have made some claims that I did not support or go into more depth on, so I apologize. I will outline how I was able to draw such conclusions in this post.

In reference to “Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but humans do not.”, you wrote:

Bold unsupported claim.

Each existing life form has a continual relationship with every other component that makes up its milieu or better yet, “environment”. Can you not see the divergence between the equilibrium formed between animals and their surroundings and the human correlation with its environment? Look primarily at all other mammals on this planet. Look at the environment in which they live now. Now let us observe humans, and the environment in which they live. There is no equilibrium that humans form with the environs. We simply consume.

Bold unsupported claim, and self important as well.

You have absolutely no basis besides your religious teachings to establish this. You can't just state something this bold as if it was uncontested fact. Animals sure seem to think and process information and act on it, freely of their own will. They don't appear to be robotic slaves.

On the other hand some research has flown in the face of this which appears obvious and has shown that we often act on information before we process it - but all the while thinking we willed what we did. It could be that neither animals nor we have free will.

Either way, there is nothing objective pointing us towards the idea that we have it and they don't. Only way you could truly know what goes through their minds would be to be one of them. So unless you believe in reincarnation and were one of them in a past life, you have no basis from which to judge one way or the other.

The very idea sounds human-centric and self important, just like the assumption humans once made that the sun revolved around the earth and the doctrine that the creator of the universe (if there is one) holds humans as his most important creation.

Another important point that has already been made is that "animals" are pretty varied. We have much more in common with an ape than an ape has in common with a giraffe.

I agree that some of my last post was taken from my specific beliefs; however, that is not exclusively the case. To outline how I formed such a conclusion that may be viewed as “bold” is through this thought process.

If man does not possess the freedom to choose, he is no more morally culpable for his actions than a lion for eating its prey. At the end of the day, he is just another animal whose actions are determined by his instincts.

Hans Jonas points out in "Tool, Image, and Grave: On What is Beyond the Animal in Man" three ways in which man is distinguished from animals. Only man designs tools to achieve particular purposes. Only man creates physical images to recall past events or to contemplate future possibilities. And only man buries his dead, and is moved by a lifeless form to contemplate something beyond the physical universe. "Metaphysics arises from graves," Jonas informs us.

Humanity by and large holds the populace accountable for their actions, “and will say that they deserve praise or blame for what they do”. Nevertheless, numerous amounts of people deem that moral liability requires free will. Thus, another imperative question is “whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their actions—and, if so, in what sense”.

Of course, other views may completely disagree with me, but to say my claim is “bold and unsupported” in not entirely true.

From Aish HaTorah, Only mankind has the ability to discern right from wrong and to make moral judgments. It is this ability that makes human beings responsible for their actions.

When we hear the news of a shark attack, we don't blame the shark. We know he's just doing what comes naturally. We don't suspect the shark chose to attack out of evil intent and really could have called upon his nobler instincts and spared his victim.

But when a human being attacks, he is held accountable for his actions. A choice was made and he is responsible.

The next time you encounter a moral dilemma, use your free will. You can rise above your baser instincts and ennoble your life through choosing good. We have the choice to strive to be good, not animals. This is our unique responsibility.

Bold unsupported claims. And this would be quite insulting to my dog (that's him in my avatar) if he was reading this. He wouldn't like to be told he's mindless.

I’m sorry if your dog was insulted by my post. (He is actually very cute). However, I stand by my opinion, and that opinion never said he was “mindless”.

rav: What I’m thinking is how much you might have helped humanity if you had applied your obvious intelligence and diligence to studying not the writings of primitives but the writings of Jewish geniuses. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean.

Shalom zoro,

I guess I will take that as a half insult, half compliment. I, in no way believe the writers of the Hebrew Bible to be "primitives". I assume we will just go our seperate ways, and believe what we wish. I must say that align myself with Muezzin in saying: "What you seem to be advocating is the atheistic/agnostic/secular alternative - that religion is wrong, and if you do not agree, you are primitive. That's just... intellectual rape. " I think you can show a level of respect to people you utterly disagree with and refrain from calling what they believe to be: "primitive".

 

[جوري]

Hans Jonas points out in "Tool, Image, and Grave: On What is Beyond the Animal in Man" three ways in which man is distinguished from animals. Only man designs tools to achieve particular purposes. Only man creates physical images to recall past events or to contemplate future possibilities. And only man buries his dead, and is moved by a lifeless form to contemplate something beyond the physical universe. "Metaphysics arises from graves," Jonas informs us.

I could write a thousand paragraphs of man-kind and it wouldn't be summed up as beautifully as what you have just stated above!

now for a different matter...
There are many what we call in the field of psychiatry-- "idiot savant" the term was deemed politically incorrect so now the term Autistic savant is used instead... but what is really meant is "Asperger syndrome"... certainly these people excel in one field to the point of genius but lack miserably on many others, sometimes the areas of social and moral development, sometimes in others!

an idiot savant's brain is abnormal, this still cannot answer questions that probe a little deeper. For example, is the process of instant memory of music the same as the ordinary memory process? Where on earth do people store the memory? How do they recall the memory? Why do the music savants have a special connection with music? What is the nature of music itself? Why don't music savants need to know tone or tempo? Why isn't the calendar savant necessarily a genius in all fields of mathematics? Why do they have a special connection with time and the calendar? Is the brain of mathematic savants simply a fast calculator? Why don't they need techniques or methods to arrive at answers to complex questions? Why do they get the answers when they don't even have an interest in solving the puzzles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2988647.stm

Einstein like many other genuises suffered or perhaps gained greately from his condition! See above brief news article!

Why should all of this really even matter? simple, what is blatantly obvious to one common man, might not be so obvious to a "genius"--
if we are going to cut and paste the summation of dead philosopher's quotes and present it as evidence as lack of existence of G-D, I'd start to feel really concerned for humanity. Further, what I really, don't understand, is why those who don't believe in G-D, preoccupy themselves with his non-existence to the point of obsession?

["Einstein said what of religion?", "then it must be true!"]..
Einstein was a physicist, who at some point of his young life, was kicked out of school for failing his math class. Einstein was also genius, Einstein gave much to humanity, but Einstein wasn't a philosopher, or a theist, He was in two words "An Asperger savant!" If we are going to reduce all of existence to open of closed systems, then might I by the same token be justified in calling him, exactly what he was!

This isn't a road that some genius ventured into to save us all the trip, and we should take his words as biblical because of what he is and what he represents-- the road is open wide and free for all of us to tread and probe.

Each man should make that informed decision on his own volition.. otherwise we are no different than tyrants who came before us in the way of Hoxha, Zedong, Stalin, sar and others, who imposed Atheistic regimes and led to the demise of millions, simply because they held religion as an obstacle and a hindrance to progress. Such men have cost society more of its blood, than all the religionists combined.

I'll have to agree Rav. with your ending statements... when it comes to Atheists we'll have just to part ways!..... but what I don't tolerate are the stabs at the intellect of those who choose to add a deeper meaning to their lives over what appears to me very much like a sterile, meaningless existence!

peace!

 

[Pygoscelis]

What you seem to be advocating is the atheistic/agnostic/secular alternative - that religion is wrong, and if you do not agree, you are primitive. That's just... intellectual rape. People have the right to choose. You have the right to offer them options, but you don't have the right to say their way of life is wrong, and they will be condemned/dwell in stupidity if they disagree.

It is certainly no worse and no more offensive than saying people will burn in eternal torture for disagreeing with you. If one person believes in hell and says that God is just and people who don't worship him deserve hell, that's what they believe, as offensive as it sounds (and it certainly does). Likewise, if somebody else believes religion is primitive and says it is a crutch for weakminded people, that too is what they believe believe, as offensive as it sounds. In both cases the speaker has the simple statement "Truth Hurts" to fall back on.

And to go with Ingersoll's interpetation of the serpent,

I had not seen Ingersoll's quote about the serpent before. I think it is very nicely put. How can we see the snake as a villain in that story? He's the one who tells them to the truth and leads them to knowledge. God is the one who threatens them that they will certainly die if they eat from the fruit of knowledge (implying that God prefers stupidity).

God then punishes the snake to crawl on its belly for all time. Which brings up another question. Was that snake an actual talking snake, or was it Satan in the form of a snake. If the latter why does God punish snakes? Didn't he know it was Satan?

Another point from this story is that it is "the knowledge of good and evil". So how could Adam and Eve have known that it is good to obey God?

Another point from this story is that Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed before eating the fruit. God seemed quite happy with their nakedness. So that makes me wonder about the strong nudity taboo in the religions that follow Genesis. Are nudists not as Adam and Eve before the fall?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Each existing life form has a continual relationship with every other component that makes up its milieu or better yet, “environment”. Can you not see the divergence between the equilibrium formed between animals and their surroundings and the human correlation with its environment? Look primarily at all other mammals on this planet. Look at the environment in which they live now. Now let us observe humans, and the environment in which they live. There is no equilibrium that humans form with the environs. We simply consume.

I still don't follow this. I can think about the environment in which other mammals live and their interplay with it and then think about the environment humans live and their interplay with it. I see no big difference, other than humans have developed enough intelligence to better shape their own living conditions (other animals do this too - just not to such an extreme).

Hans Jonas points out in "Tool, Image, and Grave: On What is Beyond the Animal in Man" three ways in which man is distinguished from animals. Only man designs tools to achieve particular purposes.

Simply false.

Only man creates physical images to recall past events or to contemplate future possibilities.

Not sure if this is true or false, but it proves nothing. Creating physical images doesn't indicate contemplation of the future. And contemplation of the future occurs frequently in human minds without the creation of physical images.

And only man buries his dead, and is moved by a lifeless form to contemplate something beyond the physical universe. "Metaphysics arises from graves," Jonas informs us.

Burial now certainly contains metaphysical thoughts. I doubt it did at first though. There is little evidence that nomadic humans buried their dead. And once humans became stationary and formed villages the bodies had to go somewhere or they'd be stinking up the place and would be frightening too.

Lack of burial certainly isn't evidence that somebody DOESN'T contemplate death.

Of course, other views may completely disagree with me, but to say my claim is “bold and unsupported” in not entirely true.

Ok, I grant you that. Your claims are not unsupported. You have some others who think the same way, so you have their support. What you lack is objective evidence. The evidence you have pointed to only shows that people can contemplate images and that people can contemplate death and an afterlife - and that doesn't relate to the claims that were made.

From Aish HaTorah, Only mankind has the ability to discern right from wrong and to make moral judgments. It is this ability that makes human beings responsible for their actions.

Yes, other people make bold self important claims unsupported by evidence too.

When we hear the news of a shark attack, we don't blame the shark. We know he's just doing what comes naturally. We don't suspect the shark chose to attack out of evil intent and really could have called upon his nobler instincts and spared his victim.

The shark is a carnivore. It makes no sense to blame the shark, whether it has free will or not. The fella is hungry and needs to eat. We don't blame human beings for killing brocolli. This is just a matter of perspective.

The next time you encounter a moral dilemma, use your free will. You can rise above your baser instincts and ennoble your life through choosing good. We have the choice to strive to be good, not animals. This is our unique responsibility.

That it is our "unique responsibility" is something people have been saying without foundation for decades, and they tend to be from the same schools of thought as those who have claimed other thigns self evidence, such as the sun going around the earth.

I’m sorry if your dog was insulted by my post. (He is actually very cute). However, I stand by my opinion, and that opinion never said he was “mindless”.

No worries, he hasn't figured out how to surf the net yet.

You said he lacks the ability to tell good from evil. He would disagree, as is obvious from the expressions on his face when he does or sees somebody do something bad. Dogs have empathy too.

 

[Muezzin]

It is certainly no worse and no more offensive than saying people will burn in eternal torture for disagreeing with you. If one person believes in hell and that God is just and people who don't worship him deserve hell, that's what they believe, as offensive as it sounds (and it certainly does). Likewise, if somebody else believes religion is primitive and a crutch for weakminded people, that too is what they believe believe, as offensive as it sounds.

We are actually in agreement here, if you read the preceding paragraph of my quote. Both approaches are as bad as each other, which is why I used the term 'secular alternative'.

Next time try to separate the person from the problem rather than painting all us religious types with the same brush.

In both cases the believer has the simple statement "Truth Hurts" to fall back on.

Truth is a point of view, my good man. Different people have different points of view, which is what is cool about being human (If everybody looked the same/we'd get bored lookin' at each other). As long as we don't force others to adopt our view, all is well. Offering people options is fine, but forcing people is not. It's that simple, and frankly I don't understand why people generally have such a problem with it.

Also, when it comes to matters of faith or lack thereof, I believe it is deeply insensitive to fall back on what I think is the lazy option of 'Truth Hurts'. Some might call me a soft-touch because I give a toss about others' feelings, and because I would rather be nice to people than be a butthead. I'd rather keep ties than burn bridges; to preserve those ties, I would just say something like, 'okay, let's just agree to disagree. Let's not let different opinions about God and religion wreck our working relationship as that would be bull.'

I had not seen Ingersoll's quote about the serpent before. I think it is very nicely put. How can we see the snake as a villain in that story? He's the one who tells them to the truth and leads them to knowledge. God is the one who threatens them that they will certainly die if they eat from the fruit of knowledge (implying that God prefers stupidity).

God then punishes the snake to crawl on its belly for all time. Which brings up another question. Was that snake an actual talking snake, or was it Satan in the form of a snake. If the latter why does God punish snakes? Didn't he know it was Satan?

Another point from this story is that it is "the knowledge of good and evil". So how could Adam and Eve have known that it is good to obey God?

Another point from this story is that Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed before eating the fruit. God seemed quite happy with their nakedness. So that makes me wonder about the strong nudity taboo in the religions that follow Genesis. Are nudists not as Adam and Eve before the fall?

You seemed to have missed the point of my post.

Basically, it is: Believe what you like. It's your prerogative. Just don't try and forcibly insert your belief into my mind by repeatedly telling me my way of life is wrong and I am 'primitive'. To my knowledge, I've not told anybody on this forum that if they fail to subscribe to my point of view they are either stupid or will burn in hell. Surely you'd like to extend me the same courtesy.

 

[Philosopher]

Basically, it is: Believe what you like. It's your prerogative. Just don't try and forcibly insert your belief into my mind by repeatedly telling me my way of life is wrong and I am 'primitive'. To my knowledge, I've not told anybody in my entire life that if they fail to subscribe to my point of view they are either stupid or will burn in hell. Surely you'd like to extend me the same courtesy

People can believe in whatever they want. That doesnt mean they are believing in the truth.

 

[Muezzin]

People can believe in whatever they want. That doesnt mean they are believing in the truth.

That's right. The thing is we don't all agree on what the 'truth' is, so rather than having meaningless debate, I'm of the opinion that, unless somebody's belief is hurting myself or others, let everybody believe what they want.

 

[Philosopher]

That's right. The thing is we don't all agree on what the 'truth' is, so rather than having meaningless debate, I'm of the opinion that, unless somebody's belief is hurting myself or others, let everybody believe what they want.

Either one or none are right. As a Muslim, how can you say "let everybody believe what the want" knowing that non-Muslims will be in eternal hellfire?

 

[Muezzin]

Either one or none are right. As a Muslim, how can you say "let everybody believe what the want" knowing that non-Muslims will be in eternal hellfire?

I present people with an option through my behaviour. I don't force them to adhere to my religion. I believe in setting examples which others are free to take or leave.

It worked for the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). We're even told in the Quran, 'To you your way, to me mine'.

Also, ultimately, it's not my decision as to who will and who will not burn in hell, is it?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Though I like the sound of it, I don't think it will ever be so simple as "believe and let believe". As you noted, we should act if the beliefs are hurting ourselves or others. And from many points of view, they ARE.

First, consider the point of view of the religious believer. This person believes that nonbelievers will be thrown into eternal torture for their nonbelief. Certainly the believer has some motivation therein to "save" the foolish or blind nonbeliever from himself and this horrible fate. Pushy religious missionaries are at the same time arrogant and rude (from the nonbelievers view) yet noble and kind (from the believers view). The fact that there are believers who do NOT seek to change the beliefs of nonbelievers yet still believe the nonbelievers will be forever tortured, kind of makes you wonder about these people. No? Either they don't really buy into what they claim to, or they don't mind seeing these people tortured eternally (I think its a bit of both).

Now, consider the nonbeliever. The world is filled with religions that historically have spread by the sword. And most of them tell their believers to go out and convert everybody and force their views on others. The nonbeliever (as opposed to the anti-religious) needs to take a defensive stance. The separation of church and state is fragile, and the nonbeliever needs to do all they can to maintain it, and avoid society falling into another dark age. That means trying to depgrogram dangerous people.

Now, consider the anti-religious. He sees the believer as not only deluded, but dangerously so. He notes that many believers eagerly anticipate the end of the world, terrorize their chidren with the idea of hellfire, and brainwash their children into a black and white, us vs them mindset. Moreover he sees the Gods depicted in the holy books to more often seem like monsters than heroes, with ethics that would be clearly and universally dismissed as wrong if put in any other context. This is not at all healthy for a society (unless its all true or misinterpreted, which the anti-religious says it isn't). A point Sam Harris often makes is that even wishy washy religoius moderates are a danger because they enable the hardcore extremist believers and shelter them from criticism. That's a bit far for me, but there is some logic to it if looked at from a certain angle. So the anti-religious works towards secular society.

All three of the above people are working with good intentions. None of them are mean people out to hurt others. All of them are concerned about the world around them and how belief systems impact it.

 

[Muezzin]

Well, you're talking about good intentions. We all know what the road to hell (be that literal or metaphorical, whichever you prefer) is paved with, do we not? Also, I'd say spreading things by the sword is part of the human condition (Note I am not justifying such methods). The only thing we seem to advance non-violently to other cultures is trade, the arts and the sciences - and there are even violent exceptions to those categories. When it comes to sharing ideologies, we humans tend to be a terribly violent lot.

Personally, I don't believe in blanket statements made by preachers, be they religious, non-religious or anti-religious. I believe you have to take each person as they come. Generally, unless I'm doing something creative like writing, the abstract does not concern me, only the material - and the thing is, religion is another form of enforcing moral codes, enforcing politeness and goodwill to others, so it is enforcing goodwill in the material world in the hopes of achieving the abstract (heaven/enlightenment/nirvana). And this same goodwill can and does encourage conversion to one's particular beliefs, be they religious, non-religious or anti-religious.

I don't know about other people, but if someone is being a jerk while trying to sell me something, I'll tell him where he can stick it, even if he's right about my product being obsolote and his being superior. If on the other hand he is being friendly, and showing me the advantages of his particular product, the chances of me reacting in a positive manner would increase exponentially. This is the better form of 'preaching' in my view. That method, that goodwill, is what I love and what I endorse and what I believe religion to ultimately be about.

On the other hand, people have abused religion for their own ends. They still do. It's plain as the nose on your face. But people abuse many things. People abuse computers and cars and credit cards. People abuse science (in my view) by creating advanced lethal weaponry. It does not follow that we should ban science, or any of the other things I mentioned. I see no reason why we should ban things that are abused by a minority, when it's more practical and more moral to simply punish the abusers. Someone killls someone else and says it's part of their religion, contrary to the law of the land? Punish the person, not the religion as whole, which is not being abused by the majority.

I don't know that that makes me one of Sam Harris's 'wishy washy religious moderates' who shelters extremists from criticism. I just believe the criticism should be levelled at the subject (the individual) rather than the object (the religion). It's like when certain children play violent videogames and then (allegedly) as a result, go and kill people. I don't blame the game, I blame the kid and his or her parents for being irresponsible.

Balance in all things. In my opinion, morality is about balance.

 

[rav]

Shalom,

I still don't follow this. I can think about the environment in which other mammals live and their interplay with it and then think about the environment humans live and their interplay with it. I see no big difference, other than humans have developed enough intelligence to better shape their own living conditions (other animals do this too - just not to such an extreme).

I’m sorry you cannot see such a distinct difference.

Simply false.

Prove me otherwise. I think you do not know the precise point the post is trying to formulate.

Not sure if this is true or false, but it proves nothing. Creating physical images doesn't indicate contemplation of the future. And contemplation of the future occurs frequently in human minds without the creation of physical images.

My post never said that contemplation cannot occur in human minds without creation of physical images, nor did it say that all Creations of physical images, are solely for contemplating future events. Please re-read my post.

Burial now certainly contains metaphysical thoughts. I doubt it did at first though. There is little evidence that nomadic humans buried their dead. And once humans became stationary and formed villages the bodies had to go somewhere or they'd be stinking up the place and would be frightening too.

Lack of burial certainly isn't evidence that somebody DOESN'T contemplate death.

First, there is indeed evidence of nomadic humans burying their dead, but I suppose you would have to define what a “nomadic” human is. Second, humans had numerous ways to get rid of the “stinky” bodies, for example, burning them. Third, you again misread the post. It says “only man buries his dead, and is moved by a lifeless form to contemplate something beyond the physical universe.” So your connecting two points and saying they are one point, which is of course false. So, your last statement does not really have anything to do with my post. I never said, burial is connected to contemplation of death, and all who do not bury do not contemplate death. I am saying that only humans are “moved by a lifeless form to contemplate something beyond the physical universe”.

Ok, I grant you that. Your claims are not unsupported. You have some others who think the same way, so you have their support. What you lack is objective evidence. The evidence you have pointed to only shows that people can contemplate images and that people can contemplate death and an afterlife - and that doesn't relate to the claims that were made.

Think for a second. Re-read my posts, you’re obviously an intelligent guy, so I presume you will be able to figure out how my points are indeed pertinent.

You said he lacks the ability to tell good from evil. He would disagree, as is obvious from the expressions on his face when he does or sees somebody do something bad. Dogs have empathy too.

I’m afraid your dog reacts to his natural environment, which I presume is your home. Your claim has no evidence one way or the other. So when your pup is lying on your pillow, ears flopped, eyes gushing with love, is he really thinking about you or just what makes him happy?

To outline what Blumberg says, the relationship, "works for dogs and works for people." Perhaps we can just leave it at that.

 

[root]

Before you read the below, keep an open mind, that is all I ask of you. I ask you to challenge all that I write, and clarify (in depth) why you conflict with the reasoning. This is for basically atheists, who believe that this world was created by chance..

Your starting from a false premis. Basically atheists "who" believe that this world was created by chance are probably very few in numbers.

The logic cannot be used when looking at someone who believes in G-d, but proposes that G-d would create the world using evolution, which I will not even discuss why I believe that cannot be true...

Here is a picture of a tree, I pass trees on a daily basis when driving. Next time you drive by a tree ponder upon this?

was this tree created by an intelligent designer, smart enough to forsee that millions of years later his creation would cause countless deaths and heavy damage to the tree caused by vehicles hitting it's branches. The intelligent designer had designed his tree to perfection in that the branches next to the road grew shorter and even better branches never grew at all in order to allow vehicles to pass safely without injury to the driver and thier passengers nor damage the tree.

Or has this tree evolved this way by natural forces acting upon it, I will leave you to decide.

I warn you to remember the difference between your "morals" which may be influenced by religion or another source, and the morals that science teachs when viewing the world through such a lens. So let me ask you a question.

What exactly do you mean by another source, do you mean the source that indicates that we all have morals despite religion in the first place, here are a couple of examples:

Example 1

A train is out of control and you are standing on a bridge with a trainspotter. You can see six people are on the line and they are too far away for you to communicate with them and the train will kill them all. You notice a line switch handle next to you and can divert the train onto another track, however someone is also on the other track but is by himself.

Is it morally justifiable to switch the track and killing 1 person but saving the lives of six others?

Now that you have answered yes, answer this?

Is it morally justifiable to throw the trainspotter off the bridge to derail the train and prevent it from hitting either the six people on one line or the single person on the other line thus saving seven lives?

Is it morally justifiable to throw the trainspotter in front of the train killing 1 person but saving the lives of seven others?

Why have you said no?

No matter what religion you are or if you even have a religion, you will always take the correct morally justified action. This question was even presented to extreme isolated jungle tribes (replacing trains and lines to something that they were firmiliar with).

So, how do you explain why apparently nearly all human's are equipped with a sense of morality that is uniformal throughout and indapendent of religion?

What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men?.

Human meat is a bit tough? Joking aside, I would personally believe that the seemingly inbuilt morality question would be lurking inside this question. For example, the consumption of human meat by humans is well documented. The Russians from Leningrad under siege by the Germans, Berliners towards the end of the second world war to the famouse alps aeroplane crash where the survivors eat the fleah of dead passengers. Again, I could see the morality in consuming the dead to enable the survival of the living. Perhaps our inbuilt moralty woukld go something like this.

You are on a plane that crashes and you are trapped for six months on a snow mountain.

1. Is it morraly justifiable to eat the flesh of the dead in order to survive?
2. Is it morally acceptable to kill a survivor in order to eat them for the survival of the many?

Like our train example, I think most people would say yes to the first & a no to the second?

If the criterion is mere power, and men may eat animals because they gained power by accidental evolution, then the evil Nietzsche was right when he approved the oppression of the weak by the strong; and thereby every evolutionist is ideologically a criminal. The murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution, which can recognize no distinction between cattle-slaughter-houses and the German-Nazi Murder factories, except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”..

I think my examples above demonstrate that evolution has equipped us with a sense of morality that can and does recognise a distinction, this little section is way off the mark and quite absurd.

If a scientist finds himself alone on a desert isle with a weak old man who possesses a chest of diamonds, what is to hinder him from strangling the old man and taking the diamonds? His conscience?

Are we talking conscience or morality? You have switched terminology and I wonder why.

He does not admit the validity of conscience for he declared that men are animals which are descended from reptiles, who are descended from slime cells.

He may or may not accept a conscience, we have already proven that a sense of morality exists within us all, so will exist in our scientist friend.

He debates inwardly: "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Then as he visualizes the glittering stones, he thinks "But no one will ever know. No one will be influenced by my example. The fear that society may eventually be corrupted does not deter me, for the effect will be to far into the future to affect me. Since there is no right or wrong but only usefulness, then surely it is useful to posses diamonds."]

This is over simplified and quite flawed as I have already proven.

Indeed, none of the academics have ever declared it was "scientifically" wrong to vivisect even a man; they have never stated that anything was wrong "scientifically"..

What do you mean by "scientifically". Scientifically their is nothing wrong with throwing the trainspotter off the bridge, that does not mean anyone would do so since the vast majority would not. Besides which I think this point here completely ignores the evolution of group co-operation, and it's morality within it.

The academics take their morals from the Homicide Squad. For the criteria of right or wrong the scientists have no recourse but to rely on the patrolmen and state legislature. If not for these unscientific people, then they could not condemn murder because then the professors who eat beef should be expelled! All I can ask is the same question: What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men? Is it because we are stronger? Can anyone be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest? We can oppress the weak in slaughterhouses because we are stronger and gained power because of accidental evolution? It is thought provoking.

I don't think it's thought provoking at all. It's got gaps bigger than the mersey tunnel.

 

[rav]

What exactly do you mean by another source, do you mean the source that indicates that we all have morals despite religion in the first place, here are a couple of examples:

Example 1

A train is out of control and you are standing on a bridge with a trainspotter. You can see six people are on the line and they are too far away for you to communicate with them and the train will kill them all. You notice a line switch handle next to you and can divert the train onto another track, however someone is also on the other track but is by himself.

Is it morally justifiable to switch the track and killing 1 person but saving the lives of six others?

Now that you have answered yes, answer this?

Is it morally justifiable to throw the trainspotter off the bridge to derail the train and prevent it from hitting either the six people on one line or the single person on the other line thus saving seven lives?

Is it morally justifiable to throw the trainspotter in front of the train killing 1 person but saving the lives of seven others?

Why have you said no?

No matter what religion you are or if you even have a religion, you will always take the correct morally justified action. This question was even presented to extreme isolated jungle tribes (replacing trains and lines to something that they were firmiliar with).

So, how do you explain why apparently nearly all human's are equipped with a sense of morality that is uniformal throughout and indapendent of religion?

Interesting question. Would you be comfortable in murdering someone in that fashion to save seven others? Let me ask another question, would you save 100 animals by killing one man? I'd have to think about the answer. Would it be permissible to destroy yourself for the sake of eight lives in that situation? Or are the circumstances perfect, in that it would be impossible?

I think my examples above demonstrate that evolution has equipped us with a sense of morality that can and does recognise a distinction, this little section is way off the mark and quite absurd.

Your examples did nothing of that. The topic remains, why do we not eat the flesh of fellow humans any more than the flesh of animals since we are basicaly no different minus the accidential evolutionary development. So if you say it is valid to eat beef and slaughter innocent animals, than how can you say it is wrong to normally eat human flesh? (not just in survival circumstances) As I outlined in my post, is it because the strong can opress the weak, solely because we are stronger? I believe that is the ideology of a criminal.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't think I'm an expert on morality, neither do I think I have an answer to the hypotetical of the killer train.
I can't help but wonder, isn't there a difference between neglecting to save 7 people and being an accomplish in killing a person. Which of those two is most severe?

 

[rav]

I don't think I'm an expert on morality, neither do I think I have an answer to the hypotetical of the killer train.
I can't help but wonder, isn't there a difference between neglecting to save 7 people and being an accomplish in killing a person. Which of those two is most severe?

Shalom,

From my understanding, not saving someone, is far from murder because you are not killing them. But being the hand that took the life out of another human being is murder, no matter who you may have saved.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yeah I'm inclined the same way. But I didn't want to say so because I feel as if this is over my head.

 

[Woodrow]

My synopsis of what I see being said so far:

Most Theists do not doubt that atheists can and most do have moral values.



Us theists believe that is something that came from God(swt).

Atheists believe it came from evolution or as social training.

Theists believe Morality in atheists gives evidence of God(swt)

Atheists believe morality in theists gives evidence of evolution.

Atheists believe in logic.

Theists believe in logical faith

Conclusion: We are going to have difficulty in coming to a common reason for the existance of morality.

 

[Gator]

Good wrap up. Again, I think we are exchanging ideas to understand where each other are coming from rather than trying to convince anyone.

I think both are logical, its just the basic assumptions that are different.