Religious Discussion Thread

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
The moral argument is about ontology. The question of how we know is about epistemology.
In saying that, the bible does state that that Gods laws are written in our hearts.

The thing is though, if there is no OM, then there moral such thing as moral improvement.
What the Nazis did is no better or worse than what Mother Theresa did if there is no OM.

CS Lewis said it best " “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
As I said before, that's a black and white interpretation and the world isn't black and white.

"What the Nazis did is no better or worse than what Mother Theresa did if there is no OM"

Not true. Well, not exactly. We inherently know certain things are wrong, and that's due to evolution guiding us as a species to survive. But if you train a population to worship murder for generations then murder becomes a moral good. This effect has been studied in psychology and there's plenty of evidence to support it.

But there is some inherent morality developed through evolution, which has also been studied extensively.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
God does not kill.
God casts judgement on his own creation. As the AUTHOR of life, he has every right to cast judgement.
Can anyone tell the author of a book who should survive or not in there novel?
In saying that, if Christianity is true, the people do not actually die, they just change locations.
Remember God is love AND JUST.
People want to only believe the former
And by that same judgement, couldn't we say that a murderer is just changing people's location? Bringing them closer to God?

Here's another thought experiment. Say that I managed to create life in a lab. This life developed sentience and intelligence. It began carrying out acts of good. Then I stomped it to death. Am I not killing life?

Say I did create characters in a novel, but those characters had minds of their own. Free will. I no longer controlled their destiny. Is it still fair for me to kill them?
 

Northern Beaches dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
1,550
As I said before, that's a black and white interpretation and the world isn't black and white.

"What the Nazis did is no better or worse than what Mother Theresa did if there is no OM"

Not true. Well, not exactly. We inherently know certain things are wrong, and that's due to evolution guiding us as a species to survive. But if you train a population to worship murder for generations then murder becomes a moral good. This effect has been studied in psychology and there's plenty of evidence to support it.

But there is some inherent morality developed through evolution, which has also been studied extensively.
Using evolution as a guide to morality has several flaws.
First, evolution or biology describes what is, not what it ought to be. That falls under the IS-OUHGT fallacy.
It also assumes surviving is good. It is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.
If it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive, then if humans or any species became extinct, then that is neither right or wrong, good or evil.
 

Northern Beaches dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
1,550
And by that same judgement, couldn't we say that a murderer is just changing people's location? Bringing them closer to God?

Here's another thought experiment. Say that I managed to create life in a lab. This life developed sentience and intelligence. It began carrying out acts of good. Then I stomped it to death. Am I not killing life?

Say I did create characters in a novel, but those characters had minds of their own. Free will. I no longer controlled their destiny. Is it still fair for me to kill them?
But we have been commanded not to kill.
It is not up to us to send other people to a different location.
We are not the authors of life and have no right to cast judgement.
 

Northern Beaches dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
1,550
This convo needs to be broken into 2 parts.
Do you believe there is OMV?
If so, how do you account for them? That is, what are they doing existing in a godless universe (assuming you are a non believer)
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Using evolution as a guide to morality has several flaws.
First, evolution or biology describes what is, not what it ought to be. That falls under the IS-OUHGT fallacy.
It also assumes surviving is good. It is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish.
If it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive, then if humans or any species became extinct, then that is neither right or wrong, good or evil.
The is-ought fallacy only relates to evolution if you don't have explanations or evidence and only make a guess.

Surviving is good. If a species does not survive then it does not survive. This is not just an assumption either. It's seen all throughout the animal kingdom including in humans. It's even seen in microbiology, viruses, etc.

It is also not evil or good if humans become extinct. It's just something that could happen.

Survival of the species is the key driver of every living species. If you discount that then you're not just making a false assumption, you're ignoring established facts because they contest your belief. In doing that, you only lead to falsehood.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
But we have been commanded not to kill.
It is not up to us to send other people to a different location.
We are not the authors of life and have no right to cast judgement.
Only if God exists. If God does not exist then we haven't been commanded not to kill. This is another example of circular reasoning. It only works if you prove God exists and in proving it works you prove God exists. But you can't prove God exists so you can't prove that we have been commanded not to kill.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
This convo needs to be broken into 2 parts.
Do you believe there is OMV?
If so, how do you account for them? That is, what are they doing existing in a godless universe (assuming you are a non believer)
As I said before, it's not black and white. OMV suggests that morality is set in stone, unchangeable. It's not. As I pointed out earlier, millions of years of evolution leads to certain things that work for the survival of the species. For example, not making ourselves extinct as that would not result in our survival.
 

Northern Beaches dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
1,550
The is-ought fallacy only relates to evolution if you don't have explanations or evidence and only make a guess.

Surviving is good. If a species does not survive then it does not survive. This is not just an assumption either. It's seen all throughout the animal kingdom including in humans. It's even seen in microbiology, viruses, etc.

It is also not evil or good if humans become extinct. It's just something that could happen.

Survival of the species is the key driver of every living species. If you discount that then you're not just making a false assumption, you're ignoring established facts because they contest your belief. In doing that, you only lead to falsehood.
If it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish then acts that lead to the survival and flourishing of humans or any species is also nether good or evil.
If i killed you, under naturalism, it is neither right or wrong or good or evil.
This is because it is not a fact that you ought to live to X years.
Essentially, arguments for morality from evolution ASSUME the end goal to be good or right - survival and flourishing is good and any acts that lead to this are good.
Humans and creatures may like and want to survive, but it does not make it a fact that they ought to survive.
 

Northern Beaches dog

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
1,550
As I said before, it's not black and white. OMV suggests that morality is set in stone, unchangeable. It's not. As I pointed out earlier, millions of years of evolution leads to certain things that work for the survival of the species. For example, not making ourselves extinct as that would not result in our survival.
That is the survival of the species, that is not morality.
 

Caveman

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
2,563
Reaction score
4,393
But we have been commanded not to kill.
It is not up to us to send other people to a different location.
We are not the authors of life and have no right to cast judgement.
We have been commanded not to murder, the OT required Israel to judge according to Gods holy standard and quite often punishment for sin was death, hence man killed man without breaking Gods commandments.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
If it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive and flourish then acts that lead to the survival and flourishing of humans or any species is also nether good or evil.
If i killed you, under naturalism, it is neither right or wrong or good or evil.
This is because it is not a fact that you ought to live to X years.
Essentially, arguments for morality from evolution ASSUME the end goal to be good or right - survival and flourishing is good and any acts that lead to this are good.
Humans and creatures may like and want to survive, but it does not make it a fact that they ought to survive.
The problem is that you're still seeing it as black and white. Good and evil. Your first statement is more accurate. Survival of the species is not good or evil, it just is. It may seem. There's no assumption of good or right, just an end result.

We as humans see good and evil, but these are things set by humans.

The monkey ladder experiment is a good example of this. In the experiment they put bananas at the top of a ladder. Any time a monkey climbed the ladder to grab a banana, they tortured the other monkeys. Eventually the other monkeys learned that they would be harmed if they let a monkey climb the ladder, so any time a monkey tried to climb the ladder, the other monkeys beat it.

Eventually the scientists replaced the monkeys one by one. Everytime the new monkey would try to climb the ladder and it would be beaten up by the other monkeys. Over time the scientists replaced all the monkeys so the original monkeys who were tortured due at the start were no longer there. But the new monkeys would still beat anyone who climbed the ladder, even though they didn't know why they were doing it.

All species are the same. We develop these beliefs and ideas based on past experience and we teach these to others. Generations down the line we may not know why we do stuff, but we do it because it's what we know.

No right or wrong. No good or evil. Just the result of thousands of years of learning.

And humans aren't the result of a divine line. There was many other species that could have been us, but they died. We survived because every piece of evolution lead to our survival. Every mutation lead to us surviving and the millions of other species failing to survive. And when we die it'll be because we failed to adapt and other species will take our place. They'll have their own Gods and they'll forget about us and the millions of other species that failed alongside us.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
This is the inherent problem with morality debate. If one side believes that morality cannot exist without God and the other believes that morality is derived from evolution and culture, then there's never going to be an equal ground as it requires the belief or lack of belief in God. Both are based on different foundations and incompatible.

But morality cannot be used to prove God as the argument requires someone accept morality derived from God proves God before proving God. Circular reasoning fallacy.

Its a cyclical debate that will never end. Like most philosophical debates.
 

Tuffers

Kennel Participant
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
221
Reaction score
247
If it is not a fact that humans or any species ought to survive, then if humans or any species became extinct, then that is neither right or wrong, good or evil.
If humans became extinct, would then God also become extinct, because there would be no beings left that believe or worship her? What purpose would God serve without mankind?
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,483
I'll enter the Church of Assassin. Quit my day job. Go straight to the broth with an occa haha
Welcome bro, our newest believer.

Told you there is a God and that He is good ;)

Just in case you still don't believe, Ferris sacked now too.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
If humans became extinct, would then God also become extinct, because there would be no beings left that believe or worship her? What purpose would God serve without mankind?
HolyRat.jpg
 
Top