I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Lastly, personal experience is evidence. We're dealing with a debate on human morality. So all my experiences with humans count as evidence.
I have personal experience to contradict that. --------
k, Name one time someone made a decision that they thought would not bring them the most happiness.
Anytime someone does homework that that person does not like. ----------
Secondly, I've already provided a real case in which Absolute Morality was used. (Do I need More?)
Like I said before (did you even read my post. . .?) that would not be an example of morality, it would be an example of anger and reaction. You continue to conflate morality and emotion. -------------
First, where's your hard empirical evidence.
The very existence of amorality shows that there is no absolute morality-because not everyone would follow the same morality. Also, a Christian's morals would be based on following God's commandments, whilst an atheist's would not. The replies you've given me have led me to the conclusion that you are either ignoring or just not reading significant parts of my posts, as you do not respond to them and continue to put up the same arguments after I have provided a refutation.
@Dr: Also, all of your evidence and arguments have been based on matter of emotion, not morality. You are confusing them. There is an absolute emotion; all humans feel emotion. BUT, not all humans have the same morality.
Anytime someone does homework that that person does not like.
Well they have decided that working on the homework will bring them long term happiness by being more successful,hardworking and smarter. They think that the long term happiness brought on by the homework will be greater than the lesser happiness of not doing it.
Like I said before (did you even read my post. . .?) that would not be an example of morality, it would be an example of anger and reaction. You continue to conflate morality and emotion. BUT, not all humans have the same morality.
Ok, I see why we both seem to be spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. I'm not arguing all humans have the same morals. I'm arguing that right and wrong exist as absolutes regardless of what humans say. My opinion does not make an action any more right or wrong. Its my job using reason and experience to discover right from wrong.
Sorry I didn't make it clear, do you see where I'm coming from now?
I'll respond to the evidence stuff after we're both on the same page.
You know what? I think that I actually agree with Thisisnotanalt! Morality will be different from place to place. We may think that cannibalism is awful, yet on the other side of the fence, we can also be perceived as strange individuals.
However, even though, morality is relative, it is also continuously changing. Just compare R rated movies from the 70s and 80s to today's PG-13 movies and you'll find that there isn't much of a difference. That's why I believe that we need a written set of morals that will tell us indefinitely what is right and what is wrong. We need a Reference that will keep us in line and from doing things too inhumane in the future...IMO :P
1. Good and Evil exist. If they don't then morality doesn't exist
2.
Well, the who writes that list?
A. Humans-
If each human writes his own morality then how would evil exist? Every human would just define what they wanted to do as good. Morality would be no different than decision making.
B. God-
If God defined morality then Good and Evil would be easily defined. Good is what God wants and Evil would be the opposite. An example of this would be "that all men are created equal". Biologically and scientifically we know that this isn't true. Some humans are stronger, some smarter, and some are better looking. But, the reason "all men are created equal" is that all men are equally important to God and thereby equally good.
Ok, I see why we both seem to be spinning our wheels and getting nowhere. I'm not arguing all humans have the same morals. I'm arguing that right and wrong exist as absolutes regardless of what humans say. My opinion does not make an action any more right or wrong. Its my job using reason and experience to discover right from wrong.
There is a right and wrong based on what that person would believe in. To a Christian, using the Lord's name in vain is a terrible sin, but no one else would care. In an empirical case, there is an absolute existence of right and wrong, but what we count as right or wrong differs. -----------
Sorry I didn't make it clear, do you see where I'm coming from now?
Yep. But still, what would establish the absolute right and wrong? How would we know what it would be? -------------
If God defined morality then Good and Evil would be easily defined. Good is what God wants and Evil would be the opposite. An example of this would be "that all men are created equal". Biologically and scientifically we know that this isn't true. Some humans are stronger, some smarter, and some are better looking. But, the reason "all men are created equal" is that all men are equally important to God and thereby equally good.
That doesn't work, because God may or may not exist.
To a Christian, using the Lord's name in vain is a terrible sin.
It's not a terrible sin, because most people don't even get it. They don't believe in God, so they are just saying "Oh my God!" in surprise, not disrespect for what they don't believe in. Also, bad habits are hard to break, and wouldn't necessarily be considered terrible unless they involved life. Just so you know, Alt.
It's not a terrible sin, because most people don't even get it. They don't believe in God, so they are just saying "Oh my God!" in surprise, not disrespect for what they don't believe in. Also, bad habits are hard to break, and wouldn't necessarily be considered terrible unless they involved life. Just so you know, Alt.
The problem I have with Christianity (and with most religion) is their intolerance for others. I accept that people have their own views of creation and other things in life. I may not like it, but I'm not trying to convert people to Atheism. With most religion, their goal seems to be to get more people to believe in what they believe in, and the ones who don't will be punished by some wrathful god. Fear and intimidation isn't going to get me to believe in something...its going to do the exact opposite. If a religion has to resort to things like saying people who don't think what they think will suffer, then it seems like they don't necessarily care about the person they are trying to convert, they're just trying to convert them by any means necessary. I'm happy being Atheist, and laugh whenever people try and convince me otherwise. Religion has done too much harm in the world for me to support it, and I doubt I could ever actually believe in it
If a religion has to resort to things like saying people who don't think what they think will suffer, then it seems like they don't necessarily care about the person they are trying to convert, they're just trying to convert them by any means necessary. I'm happy being Atheist, and laugh whenever people try and convince me otherwise.
You don't need religion to be a good person, but when a religion resorts to telling you what they believe, they actually want to save you. Again, you may not agree, and you may not need religion, but they do care more about the person that they're trying to convert that you give them credit for. Just saying...
To the first two posters in this thread, being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you believe that the earth came from a giant explosion, and nor does it mean that we believe that we came from apes, i'm not sure if anyone has explained this to you or not as i haven't read all 131 pages of this thread. I happen to be atheist and while i don't believe that the universe was created by some cosmic giant that said let there be light and a giant ball of fire popped up, i believe that it's a reoccurring theme, as in for googilions(largest number i've ever heard of) of years the universe expands outward through well infinity, after a certain point though it starts contracting and draws back in towards the center over another period of time it contracts eventually reaching the focal point again, which results in an apocalyptic explosion from which stems the big bang theory, i'm not saying this is a scientifically proven but its an idea a group of friends and i thought of when we were talking. Nor do i believe in human evolution from apes its completely and utterly ridiculous until they have irrevocable proof i will not believe that i realize that the two species are closely related but there is no irrevocable proof yet... As for god, the human mind is nor great enough nor complex enough to understand the secrets of infinity and no matter how much you tell yourself it's never going to happen we just have too wait till we die. I have also noticed that nothing in the story of creation says anything about 'god' creating the universe nor do i hear about the solar system all i have read is the creation of the giant ball of mud and grass that we call home and the ball of fire that we call a sun that there happen to be about a 100 billion in our galaxy alone.
I hope that this got my point across, if this has offended anybody i apologize as that wasn't my intent.
