by dorayakii 94 Replies latest watchtower bible
Morals are the most practical behavior possible.
There is something I saw on TV as a boy that made a profound impression on me, it was an ultimate expression of love, which is the highest moral good:
http://www.synergyinstituteonline.com/detail_article.php?artid=371
That man dove repeatedly into an icy river to save those he did not know in an air crash in the Potomac, and he died in the process.
Was he being "practical"?
BTS
The believer isn't obligated to follow any specific system of morality either.
So a christian can follow the pagan morality system. I kind of though they were mutually exclusive seeing as Pagans don't believe in Christ as their top god, and Christians burn pagans at the stake for being witches and tools of Satan. Mainly because it is immoral to not be a christian.
So you have a problem with Romans 1?
I'm totaly depraved
This is the danger of thinking in absolutes. You're a totally depraved sinner, and God is the ultimate source of goodness?... it doesnt quite hold scientific or philosophical water. Please give a reason, or a proof for why you think it does, don't just assume that the words in the bible are the ultimate truth.
If we are depraved sinners, why can atheists of all people be among the most kind of people. Can we find provable, scientific reasons to keep the moral precepts of society without resorting to claiming that goodness or evil are somehow innate? Why are they innate? Why are humans inherently good?
The question is NOT, "where/with whom did morality originate?" but "why/how did morality originate?".
Dorayakii... of the "almost 4am here in Japan, so going to bed" class.
The believer isn't obligated to follow any specific system of morality either.
Then where does the self-declared moral superiority of the believer come from?
This thread is going to fast for me
I guess we are agreeing when I'm saying
Looks like you agree that atheists have no morals?
They use my world view for their morals.
Deputy Dog:
In God's case (as King of everything) might is right.
BurnTheShips:
It is no different from might is right
I wasn't really expecting so clear a response from any theists but both of you are to be admired for your honesty, if nothing else. Most theists ignore or struggle with this paradox but the two of you have come right out and said it. Whatever your god may do is automatically good. If he drowns children or ravages their bodies with cancer, that's every bit as good as if he made their lives happy and painless. In fact, given that your god is omnipotent, everything that happens is exactly what he wants to happen. What claim then can either of you have to morality except obedience to (your best interpretation of) the whims of a capricious megalomaniac?
Then where does the self-declared moral superiority of the believer come from?
Without getting into "superiority"; from the same places as the nonbeliever.
The believer is just conscious of the source.
BTS
If he drowns children or ravages their bodies with cancer, that's every bit as good as if he made their lives happy and painless. In fact, given that your god is omnipotent, everything that happens is exactly what he wants to happen.
Whoa! Don't put words in my mouth. I said everything God does is good by definition. I didn't say God does everything. I didn't say he drowns children and whatever terrible things you can conjure up. Same for everything that happens being what he wants to happen. But that is a subject for another thread.
What claim then can either of you have to morality except obedience to (your best interpretation of) the whims of a capricious megalomaniac?
Being that inherent in your argument this capricious megalomaniac is in control of everything what are you other than a pathetic puppet that deludes himself into thinking he has self-determination?
BTS
Morals are the most practical behavior possible.There is something I saw on TV as a boy that made a profound impression on me, it was an ultimate expression of love, which is the highest moral good:
http://www.synergyinstituteonline.com/detail_article.php?artid=371
That man dove repeatedly into an icy river to save those he did not know in an air crash in the Potomac, and he died in the process.
Was he being "practical"?
BTS
Richard Dawkins explains it thusly: Evolutionary adaptaations sometimes misfire. An adaptation which was for a particular purpose often gets used in a different way. For example sexual pleasure evolved to propagate the species. People and animals only have sex because they enjoy it. If the experience was wholly neutral, neither people nor animals would bother doing it. Yet today we have artificial contraception. We still feel the pleasure, but the evolutionary reason, conception, is not achieved. With contraception we get little or no evolutionary benefit anymore from our sexual urges.
Similarly, morality can be said to have evolved out of a need for practicality or social cohesion. Yet today we have artificial cities and communities where most people we meet are strangers, far from hunter-gatherer societies where almost everyone you met was either a relative, or a person connected to you in some way. We still feel the desire to help those we don't know, even though it won't bring us any personal benefit. In a large city we get little or no benefit from our urge to do good to others.
The modern artifices of life have changed the way we behave. Originally practical adaptations have taken on different roles and consequences in the modern community in which we live.
Deputy Dog: They use my world view for their morals.
In a way, yes, I agree that many modern Western societies use Christianity as a basis for many laws and moral decisions.
Yet, many of the moral codes existed before Christianity came on the scene. In addition, much of the Jewish system of law originated in Egypt.
Further, non-Christian nations such as Japan, where I now live, have a highly developed system of morals with practically zero historical influence from Christianity. Japanese society has a well constructed notion of right and wrong, and moral and ethical educationas a compulsory subject in schools. Many well-educated people are also fascinated by the similarities and differences between it and the western morality.
Dorayakii... of the "I really am going to bed now" class.
Richard Dawkins explains it thusly: Evolutionary adaptaations sometimes misfire.
Dawkins says a supreme act of love and goodness is an evolutionary misfire. What a freak.
LOL.
The Dawkins is the misfire.
BTS
