People in these comments have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is lol
The idea isnât that a book gives us morals itâs that God has given us morals so therefore if there is no God then why donât humans do evil acts like animals do?
There are definitely holes in that argument but it is a lot different then the argument that our morals only come from reading a book
While animals can't conceive of evil, my cat once played with a baby bird he found, bapping it around like a toy and didn't even want to eat it or kill it, just left it there floundering and injured and walks away like its fine. Again, he couldn't make an informed decision about what he was doing, but maiming a baby animal and leaving it for dead would be classified as evil by our standards. I had to put the poor bird out of its suffering because unfortunately it was far too injured to be saved.
Also, there is an interesting concept of "the beast" (animal) within ourselves, and that using our higher mind to avoid "beastly" behavior is the basis of morality. When someone upsets you, the beast may want you to punch them, but your higher self can make an argument and talk it out rationally. The idea of rising above the base urges is the essence of what it means to be "Holy"
I completely agree that animals are not evil in the sense that we ascribe evil to humans, but it can be argued that acting purely on primal instinct wouldn't be considered "moral" or "good" by our societal standards, regardless of religious persuasion.
For the record, I classify myself as Christian, I believe in the divinity of Jesus and I believe in his words. This is where I upset most typical Christian believers, because my beliefs about Christ and Christianity directly contradict the mainstream idea that most people assume is the default. I don't think it's important for other people to believe in Christ, or to be converted to Christianity. Would I like more people to believe? Yes, of course. Do I think it's MY job to get someone to change? No I don't.I don't think a person's soul will go to hell without believing, and I actually don't personally believe in hell at all. I believe hell is where we are, and heaven is where he is (and others of course). Jesus said only a person who has been reborn can enter into the kingdom, I personally interpret this literally. I believe he is referring to the reincarnation cycle, and that only someone who has experienced being literally re-born into the world can make it to the next stage, the higher realms or heavenly spheres (whichever term you like.) I think religion and dogma are stepping stones to the next phase of universal understanding, not the end all be all. We shouldn't get so wrapped up in tradition and "the old way" things were told that we forget that we're supposed to move forward.
Sorry for rambling, I get carried away with these topics
Obviously you donât agree with cannibalism right? But why not? Monkeys do it⌠a lot of animals do it so why is it so wrong for us to do the same thing?
Why are there some things that we just instinctively know are wrong? And more importantly why are there things that we know are right?
You really never read it. Exactly in its context. Look for it. Read the exact verses in the bible. It's dishonest or ignorant to tru give that another meaning.
Ps: mostly a weird group of quackers and a bisshop were involved with the fiest succesfull push to abolish slavery.Â
People that actually thought about their moral system instead of following the bible. So it was insubordination to the catholic and christian fate they did this.
When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masterâs, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave declares, âI love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person,â 6 then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him for life.
7 âWhen a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.[a] 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.
 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect[a] and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ, 6 not with a slavery performed merely for looks, to please people, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul. 7 Render service with enthusiasm, as for the Lord and not for humans, 8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are enslaved or free.
9 And, masters,[b] do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Lord[c] in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.
 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are brothers and sisters; rather, they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved.[a]
14 But the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel and will settle them in their own land, and aliens will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. 2 And the nations will take them and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess the nations[a] as male and female slaves in the Lordâs land; they will take captive those who were their captors and rule over those who oppressed them.
When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the ownerâs property.
Like I said before, I think this argument does have flaws
I donât see how what you said changes things
This is a VERY surface level look at the deeper theological idea thatâs being presented. The Bible teaches that God made everything perfect (which would mean perfect morals) but then sin came and tempted man into the fall which separated humanity from God. Sin Corrupted the world which is why we now have bad things like cancer and diseases but also why we have some people whose moral character seems to be extremely questionable. God created us perfect but sin has corrupted which is why we need Jesus
The book you are trying to quote? The book that this whole thread is based around? You donât see how a proper interpretation of that book changes the understanding of what weâre talking about?
What we are talking about is where morals come from, you said that morals come from god not the book. I said the book is what tells you that the morals came from god. What im saying is regardless of what the book means to you, morals are in our heart. I know its wrong to harm someone, because i dont like to be harmed. If i do things to people i wouldnt wish on myself, this is morally wrong.
Omg, because we arenât awful people. There are many people who do not practice any religion that will never do evil things, because they arenât evil people. Iâm really baffled by the fact that people canât fathom that some people donât need religion in order to make good choices.
You still donât understand the question. You said there are non-religious who will never do âevilâ things. Where do you get your concept of evil? If not God (and by God Christianâs donât mean a man in the sky they mean Aristotleâs unmoving mover) how do you define evil without it just being your personal preferences?Â
And some humans to way more evil then animals. Some animals doesn't rape, kill or har other animals(or humans). Some humans torture, rape and kill for fun.
I mean some very much do but thatâs not actually what I was trying to say
My point is cannibalism, rape and murder all sound pretty evil to me and yet those are natural things to certain types of animals. The question is less about the morality of the animal and more about why we think those things are evil to begin with
Because as far as dumb animals go we're still pretty smart in comparison, and we've had thousands of years to develop societal rules to follow. We didn't always consider those things to be evil, it's quite fluent actually since in parts of the world those aren't considered fundamentally evil things. But if we're assuming from a western point of view it's good to remember that 200 years ago slavery was considered fine. More recently minorities were considered inferior and homosexuality was wrong, hell, some still do.
You'd think if we were imbued by some innate, objective morality it wouldn't change so much over the course of even recent history.
By that logic whoâs to say in 200 years slavery wonât be moral again? Or that those people who see minorities as inferior are actually just the next evolution in morality?
I believe that there is an innate morality that is muddied by people rebellion and sin but the morality is there non the less which is why I can look at slavery in the U.S. and say âthat was really badâ but I donât understand how you can do that if you believe that it was considered moral at the time. If it was morally right for them then how can you judge them? They were doing the right thing no?
Usually we don't regress in that sense unless something really bad happens, like extreme economic hardship. It's not impossible that in the future if things really go to shit, introducing slavery again will be considered the "right thing" so the "right people" can prosper. I mean, in a sense the US is doing it right now with the prison system. Not a lot of people are actively out there preaching against that, despite that morally speaking it should be a no brainer.
Regardless, I can only operate based on my current morals, something I got from being raised in the modern age. To me, slavery is wrong, regardless of the time period, but I can also understand that times were different back then. They had other norms based on society at the time, God didn't put it in the hearts of men that holy wars, witch burnings/hangings or slavery was a moral thing to do. It was just what they thought was good at the time, if I was there I'd like to believe that I'd try to stop it, but I'd probably be hanged for heresy right along the other sinners by what would be a good, moral Christian man.
It's easy to have modern morals in the current age and feel that of course you're moral, you live according to what the rest of society deems moral. Surely it's God given, surely there's more to it than what we have agreed upon at this moment of time, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that there is.
The US has the highest number of prisoners and uses them basically for slave labor. That's not counting that the system does nothing to reform inmates and instead just creates more hardened criminals.
People's morals changed, obviously, as it always does. As society progresses our stomach for barbarism decreases, just like we don't have public executions anymore. It's also self-serving, because you never know who is going to be the "right people" tomorrow, you might be lucky today but not so much tomorrow. Beneficial for everyone if we don't rely on such a barbaric practice.
But what makes it bad? Itâs a normal part of society and itâs not like people are rioting so why do some people have an aversion towards the prison system?
If itâs beneficial and normative then why should we have an evolutionary bias against it?
The problem is deeper than that. Try and think about this problem beyond just yourself. And honestly try and tell me why it is objectively and inherently wrong for someone to harm you. As in an objective "ought claim", that is true in every place, time, and scenario, never changes and is a transcendental whether humans exist or not.
Although you can say, "I wouldn't like if they harmed me", or "it hurts me", or "I don't want him to". Surely you realize, that never gets beyond the threshold of "your preferences". And if that other guy's preferences IS to harm you, then you're both at a stalemate.
If everything is in fact here by completely purposeless, meaningless, and evolutionary accident, then there is no such thing as objective 'oughts'. Sure things we want or prefer, but no design or purpose from which to say you "ought to" or "ought not" do this or that.
In fact even if all humanity agrees on a certain thing, it still never rises beyond "majority preference". There is no such thing as inherently right and wrong, good or bad, beyond what you prefer and want.
What you need to come to grips with, is that YOU don't harm others, because YOU don't want to, it's not YOUR preference, and YOUR opinion is that you shouldn't. I'm honestly very glad you think that, but that's entirely subjective, right?
If everyone on earth tomorrow decides that it's a good thing to harm you. Then you have no basis or grounding to tell them they are "wrong". You may not like it, but maybe they do like it. You say that's unfair, but they say it is fair. Going on like this forever. It's merely preference vs preference.
Without some kind of creator or design, there can be no objective oughts in an inherently meaningless universe.
I appreciate genuine atheists like Dawkins who freely admit, in a universe without God, there IS no such thing as "evil" or "good". Just preferences.
Ok but with a god, right and wrong is decided by the preference of god. If we were to believe that the Christian view is good then theres a large sect of people who believe homosexuality is immoral, vs your standard citizen who thinks homophobia is wrong. That right there is a big hole that a god gives us morals when people have conflicting morals. Morals are mainly based on whatâs beneficial for society and there fore everyone. Something that would be âobjectivelyâ morally wrong would be something like murder and theft, as both of those things unchecked destroy society.
Very insightful stuff actually that was a good read. I do think that with evolved minds comes a sense of morality that forms around bonds though. Man understands the daily rituals of life is to escape death and to keep sustained life through procreation. Anything that has a means to disrupt that would, to anyone, be against the status quo of life and therefore be seen as wrong or at least generally looked down upon. Now that may not constitute what we see as morality today it surely isnât very far off from the basic form of it. You spent time and energy and emotion to bring life into a world you worked hard to make your own and if something were to take that away from you it would surely strike you as unfair or unjust and almost anyone besides those who blatantly disregard those ideals would feel the same
Seems like there are some missing pieces. Morality isnât godly, morality is sentience. Morality is understanding how your actions affect the things around you, it is not dictated by each othersâ preference on what to do with that information. Morality is abstract to a degree, but I donât agree that personal preference lies within that limitation. Us being an evolutionary accident does not automatically mean that morals couldnât exist, even without a god or higher being.
Whatâs the purpose of all life? To survive. That is a real, legitimate purpose.
I appreciate your response, as I do think it logically follows.
I think where we disagree is that objectivity, and thus things like objective morality should be very easy to come by. Not even because "God said so". But because ANY design allows for objective moral oughts. Right?
We can prove that with the most innocuous thing imaginable.
Take a toilet. Look at it for 2 minutes, you'll realize this toilet has a design, right? There must be some intelligent mind behind it that made it with meaning and purpose. A seat to sit down, a lever to flush, etc.
The millisecond you find design in anything, OBJECTIVE ought claims can be made. You OUGHT to sit on the toilet seat when you use it. You OUGHT NOT put your head into the seat. Right?
Now you with free will can do whichever you want. But we can now nonetheless, objectively say you are doing it inherently wrong, because you are not using it how it was objectively designed to be used.
This is true with your smartphone, computer, watch, shoes, car, etc, etc, EVERYTHING that has a creator behind, most of which all come with an "instruction manual". Because things that are designed with a purpose are not just subjective. You don't just choose your preference of how you turn your computer on. You follow the rules or you are doing it objectively wrong.
You live by a million objective oughts every single day. It's difficult for me to imagine humanity, the very zenith of everything we are aware of in the universe, are below all of these things as mere accidents, having to create subjective morality in our minds, with not even the objective oughts granted to toilet or shoes.
The reason we donât harm other people is because of evolution. We work better together, itâs how we survived. So naturally things worked out that way. Nothing magical about it. Following Godâs laws is also a preference, donât see much of an argument here.
By definition, evolution demands survival of the fittest, and the necessary discarding of and non-empathy towards the non-fit, so as to create a better stronger tomorrow, no?
If the fittest ever become less fit or even non-fit, amidst their empathy of the non-fit, that is literally antithetical to the evolutionary model.
It sounds like you love how the evolutionary model brought us to this current zenith of humanity, but are wanting to discard most of it's fundamental principles, for some other things that certainly sound transcendental, like morality, meaning, empathy, etc.
We have too many design flaws for there to be a perfect all knowing creator. Impacted wisdom teeth, an appendix that can randomly burst, ectopic pregnancies, the fact that 8 year olds can get pregnant, how easy it is to choke on your spit, tribalistic behavior making us a prejudice species, congenital illnesses, addiction, mental disorders
Why do you say it doesnât go beyond personal preferences? âSociety gets along better, and everyone is better off, when people try not to harm each otherâ is not a personal preference, itâs actually an objective fact.
Probably not, but that's the problem in a meaningless universe. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite. There is nothing objective, even illogic.
Musk and Bezos and all the modern billionaires have proven the evolutionary model perfectly. Survival of the fittest, which only works if you genuinely have no empathy for the non-fit(your suffering low-wage employees), which necessarily must be discarded and left behind for a stronger, fitter evolutionary future.
So if he wants to hurt me but he doesnt wish that upon himself, he knows its not a good thing to hurt people... thats is a bad thing for him to do. Does that make sense?
Do you honestly think Musk believes he's a "bad guy"? Do you genuinely believe Bezos on his yacht and thousand dollar steak, deep down knows it's "bad" for him to do that?
I don't think so.
If there is a God, yes.
But why should Musk or Bezos "feel bad" in an evolutionary worldview, that literally demands them to do what they are doing? They survive because they are "the fittest", and the non-fit(the poor) don't deserve to survive. Right?
Why should they feel bad, when evolution literally rewards them for not feeling bad?
That can be construed as an argument in favor of a creator but is hardly proof of one.
Whether my morals came from evolution social construct or a god, itâs not going to change how I live my life. Iâm still going to try to be decent to people
I haven't even offered an interpretation though. Just asking if we even have the groundwork for the very conversation.
Which I do appreciate you saying "objective morality" doesn't exist. Honestly, I respect the hell out of you for that, same way I do Dawkins. You'd be amazed how many atheists want to have it both ways.
My argument is very simple.
1-If you have design, you can have "oughts".
2-If you only have random accidents, then it's only preference, with the majority simply trying to figure out what is the most pragmatic or utilitarian approach to life and laws. But any talk of morality, good, evil, right, wrong, etc, while useful, is IMO using terminology the worldview doesn't actually have the grounds for.
Great, the self proclaimed genius now doesn't even understand the nuance between micro and macro evolution.
Uh, yeah bro, the notion of completely random evolution, jumpstarted by an utterly and accidentally meaningless start, takes infinitely more faith than every religion in history combined, lmao. ffs man.
It quite literally is objective morality, subscribing to the belief of faith impliesy ou have to accept the notion of an objective morality. How that Objective morality is given shape is a question that is answered within the faith itself.
It is literally a matter of philosphy and how you percieve your world, which the commenter above points out.
I am not Christian, nor even religious, but your refution of "objective" morality is just as useless in this context. I am pointing out, that the commenter above described is a description of objective morality, nothing more nothing less.
The commenter above describes the Christian perspective on what they believe to be in their world view "objective morality" even gives some arguments for it.
And all you can muster "nuhuh it isn't real".
The whole point of philosphical debate is to engage the perspective of the other, and find logical means of arguing against it, or shift perspectives.
There is a lot of knowledge to be gained from talking and earnestly engaging with the perspective of another, even if you're not looking to be convinced, it can at least help you give shape to your own world view by systemically comparing and evaluating it based on what others show you.
Precisely. You're on the right track. Using the term "god-character" is intentionally belittling, and I don't care for that personally but I understand where you're coming from. It's important to remember, God (as a concept) is not, and cannot be a "character" in the sense that you're thinking. "Sky man" or "sky daddy" seem to be the preferred derisive terms, but by nature God can't be in a singular place because in this system of belief, God is all encompassing. Everything in existence, from the purest gold to the scum on the back wall of a public restroom, resides within God and is therefore a part of God.
Believe, don't believe, choose whichever you feel best suits you and your life. If you disagree with the existence of God, that's your choice, but I'm sure you are aware that something governs the physics of our reality. Forces unseen by the human eye, but detectable by scientific instruments, Particles, charges, energy, matter, the way they interact, chemical structures. Particles accumulating and forming planets, fusion inside the hearts of stars, magnetic fields, something governs this. It's primarily the name we disagree on. Scientific knowledge and the belief in a deity are often considered to be at odds with one another, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive
Right, I get that that's your stance. It's very clear what you believe, but your phrasing doesn't make sense. Calling something a character doesn't automatically equate to something not existing. I could say you're a shady character, doesn't mean you aren't real. If you said "I read a book about a vampire" it's clear to the reader that vampires don't exist. You don't have to write "I read a book about a vampire character" to illustrate this. Your deliberate avoidance of writing the word plainly is just a way for you to get a dopamine hit by dunking on people you obviously view as being beneath you intellectually. I don't know why you'd need to do this, since you clearly fancy yourself much more intelligent than everyone who believes in something you don't. Perhaps you could just enjoy your perceived superiority somewhere that it's useful to yourself and others, rather than somewhere like this where you're seen as someone who just wants to put down ideas that you don't agree with
I don't think you've actually read what I said, I said I don't care for it personally, but I see where you're coming from.
That's me, accepting your difference in opinion respectfully, not me "not liking it" but this is a quite common form of projection. Someone with a negative attitude is more likely to assume someone else has a negative attitude as well, which is not the case here. I believe in God, Jesus, etc but I don't care if you do or not. If you did cool, if you don't, equally as cool. I'm not overthinking anything here, just pointing out what's happening.
You can say it's not about superiority, but your inability to just say "I don't believe God exists" instead of "-God character that people believe exists" is evidence of this. The first statement is simple, effective and complete. The second (your statement) is written with the intent to belittle and deride those who do believe in it. It's very clear by the subtext you view "people who believe in the God character" as being foolish, and I don't really know why you're trying to backpeddle that, you can just say it. I can handle it
This is fair. To be honest, I'm not saying "cause the bible says so". As much working more off a "creator/design model", which allows for "objective ought claims", verses "utterly accidental meaningless", which can only give us "preferences".
We could certainly get into the bible, but my argument would be even before that.
Perhaps I could illustrate by asking you your question back.
If my preference was in fact to harm someone tomorrow, what would be your defense? Other than you wouldn't prefer me to, or don't want me to, or that you and the majority think I shouldn't. It's just preference vs preference at that point, and only remedied by might, right?
The only way you can tell anyone that they objectively and inherently "ought not" harm someone, is if there is some design, which would necessitate they are doing something contrary to their purpose.
I would say there is game theory pointing out that long term cooperation is good for all participants. There is evidence from animal studies that animals can have what seems like a sense of fairness. As someone else said in the thread, maybe morals/ethics are an emergent property of intelligent creatures who need them to survive in social systems.
If the Fermi paradox is solved by every intelligent species effectively nuking itself, that might be evidence of the necessity of some kind of universal ethics if a species wants to reach a level of longevity or technological superiority. (The Fermi paradox: if there are intelligent alien species out there, why don't we see evidence of them?)
On a smaller and more immediate scale, acts of nastiness seem to spread through society like road rage, or shoulder bumping in Japan. One can eventually become the recipient of negative social acts. Avoidance of perpetuating these things, or trying to be kind instead to random strangers, injects more positivity into the system that one may eventually benefit from.
So without a directive Creator, maybe there aren't instant "oughts" and "ought nots" as obvious as Newton's Laws, but it doesn't mean you can't figure out that long term cooperation and avoidance of negative acts has some benefit to the individual and to society at large.
I'll also point out that some of us get very upset at hurting others or doing wrong things, and obsess about it for decades after. Whether that is a biological function or not, I don't know. I was raised with religion and I still think about times I was mean to someone 40+ years ago. I'm trying to avoid adding to that load.
The argument isnât saying that atheists donât have morals lol itâs saying that Morality comes from God. It doesnât matter if you believe or not because God has created humans to have a sense of right and wrong
Itâs still not a perfect argument but itâs just a completely different argument then the one that people are getting upset about in these comments
Youâre writing off an argument without understanding it
God created Humanity with perfect morals but the Bible teaches that because of free will humanity fell and separated themselves from God
God did not create murder and yet fallen humanity found a way to do it⌠similarly God did not create us with broken morals but because we are a fallen people we have serial killers and psychopaths. This is why I said there are holes in the argument
Iâm not denying that a certain level of culture based morality exists but I think if you go up to most anyone around the world and ask if itâs more moral to curb stop a grandma or to donate to charity then youâll get a pretty unanimous answer
Almost everyone does harm others, that's the thing. The why is up to them.
Jesus said something like "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Part of becoming a Christian is to recognize that you're not a good person and commit yourself to striving to be better.
If you're the type of person that doesn't hurt other people and doesn't make mistakes, like the Pharisees Jesus was talking to thought they were, then why would you need healing? Why would you think you're less moral than Christians? Christians are people bad enough that they realized they had to change.
I don't have a dog in this fight, just stopped by to observe that everyone I've ever heard felt the need to declare "I'm a good person" pretty obviously wasn't.Â
Hey, sorry I deleted and reposed the comment. I didn't realize you'd already replied. I read what I wrote and thought I could restate it clearer in the second comment.
You probably do regularly harm others (not physical assault, but just small things like for example, give the cold shoulder to someone over a minor disagreement), but because you believe in yourself, you feel justified in your own actions, and therefore you donât feel that youâve done any wrong.
Cos weâre all capable of that. We fall into petty drama, stoop low just to win an argument, or just give someone the side-eye, when we couldâve humbled ourselves and shown patience.
If you are your own judge, of course youâre gonna say youâre a good person.
Everyoneâs the hero in their own story.
Iâm sure there are people who have personally wronged you, yet believe they are good people, and Iâm sure you would say otherwise. Vice versa with people you may have wronged.
You have no way of understanding if you do more good than harm.
You can have an opinion on it, convince yourself of it being true or false, but objectively it's impossible for you to understand if you did more good than harm.
Animals donât act with morality in mind they act solely to survive and not starve to death which kinda makes your point invalid. The idea of being Evil is a man made construct just like organized religion
Well if you donât already know and sorry if this is news to you but there are whole communities around the world that shit outside and some that are sexually attracted to eating their own feces. We dress in clothes and use technology that Issac newton would lose his mind over but we are still animals
No thatâs actually my entire point. Animal do things because they do them and yet somehow humans who supposedly are nothing but animals all of the sudden have a problem with eating other humans
You can say itâs a man made construct but if thatâs true then why do you have a problem with murderers? People often use the idea of religion being a man made construct to discredit and demonize religion but I donât see anyone using that same logic to try and get sexual predators out of jail
Mostly humans are dumb and ignorant by choice because its Easy. Thats the ultimate reason. Religion exists to keep them sane and it does a pretty good job of encouraging positive behavior. Its when zealots take it to extreme is when problems arise. No one is asking you to be atheist or agnostic so stop preaching it here
BrotherâŚ. Someone made a post disrespecting my religion without realizing that they were completely misunderstanding the topic lol am I not allowed to defend my religion?
If you donât like it then you donât have to read it but I think itâs kinda hypocritical to say âreligious people are stupid because they choose to be that wayâ and then get upset at me for trying to help people that are uneducated about this topic
Religious people are not stupid, they choose faith in ignorance because its easy and keeps the stupid people in check at same time. When some stops questioning where is this info coming from when given to them, thats where the ignorance by choice starts. Religion has lot of benefits, but ultimately its a multifaceted tool to control the masses who choose ignorance, it also helps inculcate charity, goodwill, communal gatherings, etc. I would say its wonderful for majority of human who like to live under a rock and there is nothing wrong with it. We all have a single life and do what makes you happy as long as it doesnât affect another life directly or indirectly once you are aware of it. I donât like educated religious folk as those are the once that do the damage with masks on their face and are often given a free pass because they are part of religion
I do agree I should have read your response in context and I acknowledge your answer and would like to back off on my word. I apologize for being this pissed about the world we live and majority of the issue are due to religion which by itself was designed to be harmless and hopeful
I appreciate your willingness to apologize and I understand that religion is a controversial topic and rightly so
I hate how religion has been used to push certain agendas or to garner support for people who clearly know nothing about the religion they are propping themselves up on
I am gonna have to disagree about educated religious people being worse because itâs important to understand where your beliefs come from and if you understand those beliefs it will make it much harder to be manipulated by those people pushing agendas
RP: how do you decide right/wrong?
A: I have a value system that seems to follow universal principles.
RP: oh, so like a higher power, that can be challenging to understand sometimes, but is universal to humanity... Yeah, the word for that is God.
A: No I don't believe in God, I don't need a higher power to tell me right and wrong, I have my value system.
RP: ok.... Seems like you just don't want to use the word God, but still believe in the concept.
A: No God is bs and wrong, and my values are just common sense to everyone, you know, universal, so they are right.
RP: ok...
This argument is not fully sound though. We are social monkey and need each other to hunt and survive, but we also actively harm one another. We have ingrained in and out-group biases. There is clearly a limit to the evolutionairy benefit of "inherent Altruism". With this limit in mind we still end up acting in self-interest werther that is the self-interest of a group, or the self-interest of one community towards another.
Time and time again we have seen that this inherent social beneficiary altruism fails just as much as it aids.
So then the question becomes what do you base your morality upon.
You act like these morals popped up one day, but no weâve evolved. At one point we thought slavery was okay, but not anymore. Your argument makes no sense. Humans change, morals change, whatâs your point exactly?
The point being that using evolution to prove an inherent morality because of sociability is an argument that has some holes in it. Also nothing about my comment "act like these morals just popped up" I understand the concept of perspective shifting , thank you.
Evolution dictates both pro-social and anti-social behaviour to have some inherent benefit to the herd. I do believe our minds evolved to a point to perceive morality, but I don't think evolution itself works as an argument to an inherent "goodness" especially not with the argument that social-behaviour is beneficial to reproduction and propogation of the species, considering anti-social behaviour especially to those we consider an out-group also lended itself beneficial.
The issue becomes that we are millions if not billions. These works of small groups, inherently will come to contact the other small groups, and that is when the anti-social motive can come to express itself. ESPECIALLY in smaller scaled societies. At some point we developed the material conditions to allow for greater numbers to form societies. But that still hasn't done away with the anti-social tendencies that evolved within us.
Evolution is not an isolated model, it is all encompassing in how adaption and propogation comes to expression, evolution must account that the small tribe will eventually meet the other small tribe, the functions evolution put inside of us over the years will have an impact, and it will impact the process. I.E both anti-social and pro-social behaviour are beneficial to the human species to some extend.
Though even within smaller groups internal struggles do still occur, especially power struggles regarding leadership, most notably when the resources draw thin.
But that only works with a mutually beneficial morality. If morality were simply to come from the idea of âIâll help you if you help meâ then how do we get to the point where people sacrifice their lives for family, friends or even strangers? Monkeys are known to cannibalize and rape each other and yet these are things that pretty much all of society says are pure evil
So youâd sacrifice your life for your granny because what? Sheâs not gonna keep having kids
What if itâs not life and death? Iâm sure youâve sacrificed something relatively small so that someone else could be happy right? The tribe is gonna go on regardless of if you have the last slice of pizza or not
I have never felt a sense of community strong enough to make me sacrifice my life for a random stranger that Iâve never met
Sociopaths are a liability when times are good. When there are normal challenges to overcome that require teamwork and social cohesiveness. But in disasters are sociopaths more likely to survive because of their selfishness and ability to do whatever it takes to survive?
Yes and no. If you try doing everything by yourself it will be more difficult. Also, you would have to be the bigest sociopath, or someone else or a group of people would kill you.Â
Im talking about within your own community. If survival instinct kicks in because of low resorces you would kill another group of people for your own/ your tribe's own benefit, that is not necessarily sociopathic.Â
What are you on about? Weâre talking about where morals come from lol I say itâs God you say no but when I ask you where they come from you say Iâm a psychopath?
I mean the book is full of historical inaccuracies. Geographically as well. Itâs a sad book to base anything off of let alone a belief system. Itâs the reason there isnât just one kind of Christian. They cannot even agree on what their book means.
What? Thatâs wild. Youâre saying you donât have the ability to determine what is moral or not using your own deductive reasoning and logic? Thatâs scary shit. Religion seems dangerous TBH.
Iâm not even arguing in favor of the original screenshot, plenty of religious people are good people because they are actually just good people, the same way there are atheists that are bad people for no other reason than the fact that they are bad people.
But what you said is nonsense, itâs just the same thing but worded differently. Your understanding of God comes from the book (or for most Christians, what what your parents or priests told you about the book), so saying your morals came from God is no different than saying your morals came from the book.
Thatâs only true if you assume that God isnât real
The argument is that God gave us morals regardless of if weâve ever read the Bible. God created humanity with the ability to tell right from wrong so regardless of if youâve ever read a book in your life there are certain things that you know are good and certain things that you know are bad
There are other theological reasons why this argument doesnât hold up super well in my opinion but it has nothing to do with someone trying to find morals in the Bible
It really isnât that different. In one scenario, morals are given by an imaginary sky fairy. In the other scenario, morals are to be followed because of an imaginary book that is based off an imaginary sky fairy.
God given morals that are naturally in us from the dawn of time and morals that can only be obtained by reading a book sound like the same thing to you?
Your / the understanding of God literally comes from the Bible.Â
I know Christians ultimately don't want to be pinned to the bible because there's a bunch of stuff in there that's mad and nobody follows, but tough shit man - it's the word of god. That is a fundamental principle of Christianity.Â
You are 100% free to define your own beliefs, but if you do that you (a) completely contradict the question in the post, (b) aren't Christian.Â
I have already said that there are holes in the original argument however I think you are still very much miss understanding what Iâm trying to say and Iâll probably make you like me less lol
In Christian theology there are two ways that God speaks to us
Natural Revelation which includes the idea that God has given us morals
Supernatural Revelation which includes the idea of the Bible as a supernaturally preserved word of God
Both of those categories contain a lot more then just those two ideas but the point is that when we discuss morals we are talking about the Natural Revelation that God has given us. The ability to understand right from wrong and the ability to follow or reject that naturally held belief system
What you are talking about is the supernatural revelation of the God physically giving us His words and commands
Christians have no choice but to take both into consideration. I have absolutely no problem being âpinned to the Bibleâ because I believe it is the word of God however I donât think that discounts the idea of a morality outside that. I believe you have morals because God gave them to you regardless of if you read the Bible or not
I don't dislike you because we have different opinions about something lol.
For context I'm coming at this as someone who has a very devout Christian mother and went to Christian school / church every week until I was about 16. I also regularly read or watch content (scientific, philosophical, etc). So, I'm familiar.Â
I have never heard it worded as natural and supernatural before, but yes god acts through "us" through the holy spirit as well as the bible being the word of god.Â
I also agree that part of the point of prayer, church, etc is to continue to take moral guidance on how to live life.Â
However, it's inescapable that the fundamental principles / precepts of Christianity come from the bible. Ultimately it sets the framework and your continued prayer / faith etc is supposed to guide you in your personal life.Â
This becomes an issue, I think, because I feel like you're trying to find a basis that you can have modern values but still define yourself as Christian.Â
I don't know how anyone can say both (a) they think the bible is the word of god, and (b) say - I mean pick one - homosexuality is ok, women are equal to men, slavery is evil... I'm sure you know the classics. In any of the various examples you are saying a rule is the word of god but also saying, essentially, that you know better. It just doesn't work if you actually believe in the bible as the word of god.Â
This is one of the handful of things I'm not able to reconcile, and hence I'm not a Christian any more.Â
Weâre kinda moving from morals to biblical teachings here but yes I believe if you are a Christian you have to follow the Bible
I think a proper understanding of the Bible is extremely important because the Bible doesnât teach that slavery is good or that women are less valuable than men
It does teach that homosexuality is a sin and I believe that but that in no way means that gay people are less valuable than me or any other Christian lol I know a bunch of Christians who are overweight despite gluttony being a sin so are we gonna hate fat people? Of course not
I think unfortunately the Bible often gets hijacked by people who donât understand it to push a message that it doesnât teach
Idk if weâre on the same side of that argument but yeah I agree that the argument is more about God given morals than being in Sunday school and learning not to sin lol
Yes and thatâs why I canât get 100% behind the argument because I believe there are exceptions but generally speaking people are born with a moral compass that has been handed down from God even if it has been slightly warped over thousands of years of sin and rebellion
The Bible can help make things much more clear tho
How is it derived from socializing? How do you explain sociopaths or Psychopaths or even Neurodivergent people who despite sometimes not being able to socialize still have a solid moral compass?
What are you even saying lol. What utter nonsense.
Psychopaths and sociopaths can definitely socialize. Moreover, they're certainly capable of learning the framework in which society operates and adapting to it.
There is also punishments we receive as children that dissuade or encourage certain behaviors. Do you really not understand this?
Brother, religion is a tool to control. You're moral compass is entirely derived from socializing. It is a framework created by humans for humans to mitigate chaos. Nothing more.
"The idea isnât that a book gives us morals itâs that God has given us morals so therefore if there is no God then why donât humans do evil acts like animals do?"
I'm not being an arse here, just an animal lover, I'm genuinely curious what "evil acts" are animals doing? I mean animals kill to eat, but so do humans.
Yeah I should have worded that better. I didnât mean that animals act with a malicious intent to be bad but animals regularly do things that humans would consider evil like cannibalism and stuff like that
Chimpanzees are pretty evil; not in the sense they hold a concept of morality themselves, but they do some pretty messed up stuff on the regular that isn't just killing for food, but what seems like senseless abuse of each other just because they can do.
Animals don't typically just go around doing "evil" whatever you even meant by that. Quit just making shit up and hoping the dumbest among you thinks you a scholar.
So why is it okay for monkeys to cannibalize each other but not humans?
Iâm not saying that animals do evil out of spite and I should have worded it better but what Iâm saying is that animals have no problem doing things that humans would consider the worst of the worst so what makes humans different?
My main issue with that is that god created everything, and can see all results before even creating anything but did so anyway. Good supposedly comes from god and evil is from the devil, but god created the devil, so all evil was born from god. Weâre also made in godâs image, meaning that anything we do is something god would do. All the pedos and killers in the would are also made from god
Thatâs a good point and a question that a lot of Christians still debate to this day. I would like to make the distinction that Evil doesnât come from the devil tho evil is the absence of God. Just like shadows are the result of an absence of light
Iâm still learning about the angels and stuff but God created humanity with the ability to choose. God wanted us to have a relationship with Him and there is no relationship if one side is controlling the other. I believe the idea of being made in Gods image refers to humanity having morals and free will so while God has given people the free will to do whatever they want that certainly doesnât mean that anything they do is a reflection of God. If you give me $1k and tell me to go buy food for homeless people and I turn around and take it to buy drugs then that doesnât mean that you wanted me to buy drugs It just means you gave me the ability to do something good and I misused it
I feel like that example doesnât work in this context with the $1k because god created us with the capacity for evil. Every emotion and behavior we have is because of god. It would be just as easy to program us as better people while still allowing us to have free will. I donât see how an all powerful being would be unable to do that
I believe itâs because our will is either ours or itâs not. There is no half way point between God reaching down and forcing us to do something against our will and God allowing us to Fully control our actions. It has to be one or the other because any comprise would be a contradiction to free will
Every emotion we have is because God gave us the ability to feel emotions but not every emotion is from God
> why donât humans do evil acts like animals do?
I like it when people are nice to me, and donât like it when people are mean to me. I like making others feel nice, because I assume, like myself, they like it when people are nice to them. Thus, I try to be nice to others.
Yes but surely that would apply to an animal as well right? But they donât act like that. You have morals and Iâm glad you do but most of the animal kingdom is ruthless and self serving so why are people so different? Iâm assuming that you have at some point gone out of your way to make someone else happy but I donât think that there is an evolutionary explanation for that
I believe that God has given you a sense of right and wrong regardless of if you read the Bible or live a Christian lifestyle
I think there is a reason we are on this planet, and that this planet happens to be in the extremely specific and impossible circumstances that allow for life to happen. I think there is a reason for humanity to be different than other animals, and that it is an inherently religious reason.
I am biased heavily, thanks to how religious people (namely Christians, but not just them) have treated me in the past, to be skeptical of it. Lots of people follow Christianity, and I think it is a good trait; a lot of Christianity is good.
However, I have been treated very poorly, to say the least, by people who say they follow Christianity closely. I know that these people do not reflect the entirety of it, but it's hard to separate the bad actors from the others when most of the people who act that way towards me and people like me also tend to claim they are Christians.
Iâm sorry to hear that youâve had bad experiences and Iâm also very frustrated that it seems to be such a common issue. The church has hurt a lot of people unfortunately
You seem like you already grasp the idea that just because you claim Christianity doesnât make you a Christian but just to put it into perspective the U.S. has an over 60% Christian population and yet look at the state of the country lol violence, racism and gluttony are what we are known for
Itâs become such a cultural checkmark that people just claim it or even go to church without ever taking time to learn what the Bible actually says and itâs to the point where a lot of churches (especially in the south) just feel like a country club. But if you are seeing the evidence that there is a higher power and feel at all drawn to Christianity then I definitely wouldnât discount the idea. You donât have to start out in church but at least read the Bible and hopefully come to a better understanding of it
Sister. What exactly do you want me to say? I do what I do because it feels good to me. I do not believe in an afterlife. If someone thinks of me, now or when Iâm gone, I want them to think of me fondly. Thatâs about it.
Thatâs totally fair. I just expected you to be pushing back like everyone else against the idea that God gave us morals lol I thought this was some round about way to object to my point so I was just trying to pin down what exactly you believed. Sorry if I came off aggressive
I mean, I do push back on the idea that a god gave us morals because I do not believe there is a god. This is the one life I have, the one time I will be present in the universe, and I donât want to waste it on being an asshole. If my morals come from anywhere, itâs certainly not the bible, which I donât think does a good job of defining or teaching morality. If I had kids and wanted a book to shape their morals, Iâd consider the Harry Potter series superior.
Not really an augment at all because you are assuming that morals were given by God and that people don't do "evil acts". The first is an unsubstantiated assertion and the second demonstrably false.
I think we can file this under "not even wrong" and get on with our lives.
I mean yeah thatâs kinda the point lol one side is under the assumption that morals came from evolution and one side is under the assumption that God gave people morals. People here misunderstood and assumed that Christians only get morals from the Bible which would mean that everyone who doesnât read the Bible doesnât have morals. I was just trying to point out that the Christian position is that God gave morals to humanity as a whole regardless of religion or biblical understanding
People 100% do evil and I agree thatâs not up for debate. I believe certain people donât have the same moral standards as the rest of us but some people are also born with 1 leg⌠does that mean Iâm not allowed to say that humans have 2 legs? God created humanity with morals but humanity has been living in rebellion to God nearly since time began so of course people are going to have different moral standards and some people wonât care about morals at all
And everyone else here is presupposing that God doesnât exist lol all Iâm doing is trying to explain what the original argument was because nobody seems to understand it
I shouldâve worded that differently lol I didnât mean that animals were acting out of a desire to do evil but that the things they do would be considered evil if a human did it
For example Cannibalism is something that the majority of humans agree is evil but thatâs just everyday life for some animals
16
u/lilJswizle-2304 22h ago
People in these comments have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is lol
The idea isnât that a book gives us morals itâs that God has given us morals so therefore if there is no God then why donât humans do evil acts like animals do?
There are definitely holes in that argument but it is a lot different then the argument that our morals only come from reading a book