The fundimental nature of good.

[McCulloch]

Is something good because God says that it is good or is something good independent of God?

I am fairly new to this forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed. Please respond with a link if this is the case.

Here is the fundamental paradox.
If good is good because God says so, then, we are living with an arbitrary God. We can have no basis to determine if something is good other than some sort of revelation from God (written, natural, spiritual or otherwise). Genocide is good when God had commanded it (read Joshua) but bad in Rwanda.

On the other hand, if good is good independent of God then God is not the ultimate source. Something morally higher than God exists.

[AlAyeti]

Corvus,

That's a great post. I see why you have your title.

Since I was a fetus and you were too, I cannot deny the value of anyone else in the condition we once were from acheving what we have. Freedom.

Genitalia, sperm and ovum point to sexual orientation. I do not deny deviation of all three to occur, but I frame my positoin as to fend off the inevitable labeling of bigot, homophobe or fundametalist right-winger. . .blah, blah. . . I fear not science or the debate of it to settle issues.

I have the right to find deviant behavior offensive as well.

I use "wrong" in complete harmony with facts. If offends anyone that is not my fault. I wish the use of animal behavior (purely unreasoning) didn't enter then human expression of love that all humans use to frame their desires.

Atheists seem to always think Christians do not use logic for their choice beliefs. I am willing to challenge that time and time again. Athesism is not logical to me mathematically.

My kindergarten analogy is well reasoned to point out the "nature" of humans. The bully will get all of the toys soon, but the "victims" will cry. Even children no right from wrong by instinct from the get go.

I fully believe that animals live in harmony with life and have no sin nature. It concerns me that the Bible says that the young of the Raven cry out to God when they are hungry.

When we are noncorporeal, we will see things in all knowledge. The New Testament says this quite eloquently. "We see now like looking through a darkened mirror." What a scientific statement.

[AlAyeti]

Nyril:

1)"How does anatomy prove same sex mating is aberrant?"

2) "And why is the nuclear family "paramount" to the mental health of people?"

1) The answer to the first question is so obvious that answering it is painful. As is male same-sex mating according to anatomy. And female same-sex mating is of course impossible "naturally" so I won't get into that.

2) The studies are complete. The numbers of people in the criminal justice system that do not have fathers in a family setting is astounding. Please do yourself a favor and go down to any Juvenile Hall, visit any Group Home or Foster Care situation. The same numbers in the Menatl Health field of Nuclear Family-less children are running neck and neck.

Please do the research.

[Corvus]

Corvus,

That's a great post. I see why you have your title.

Thank you.

Since I was a fetus and you were too, I cannot deny the value of anyone else in the condition we once were from acheving what we have. Freedom.

I do see your point, but from my point of view, I cannot see it as a wrong thing if I kill a human before it has the opportunity to form such a thing as a conscious regret or a desire.

Genitalia, sperm and ovum point to sexual orientation.

I would say they point to sexual attributes, but it appears the most important thing of all, sexual orientation or attraction functions independently of bits. Then again, I believe Jose introduced some information that homosexuals have certain physical differences from heterosexuals. But that's a conversation for another topic. We are introducing our pet topic into a debate about the fundamental nature of good.

I have the right to find deviant behavior offensive as well.

Sure, I've never denied that. I just don't believe it's something at which one should take offense.

I use "wrong" in complete harmony with facts. If offends anyone that is not my fault. I wish the use of animal behavior (purely unreasoning) didn't enter then human expression of love that all humans use to frame their desires.

You would have to explain why "wrong" means "should not be done", which is what I think you mean by wrong.

My kindergarten analogy is well reasoned to point out the "nature" of humans. The bully will get all of the toys soon, but the "victims" will cry.

And if the victim doesn't cry, the victim is no victim. And if one of the victims successfully fights back, cooperation might start seeming more practical. But here are I think I'm introducing experience into your point about nature. Is there always a bully, and must we ignore the knowledge we learn from experience in considering what humans do in nature?

I really should stop now and get some writing done.

[LillSnopp]

Don't think we always find any challenge as insulting. I see my belief in the Biblical perspective grounded on what I experience everyday. (1)I was once an atheist, or maybe an agnostic (an I don't knower). Nothing in the Bible points to a great pat on the back and I find that compelling to say the least. (2)It demands that the people writing it write that they are degenerates and no good on their own. Not exactly the warm and fuzzy from so many other belief systems. Why would anyone write that there kings and great men were murderers and adulterers, idolaters and traitors? Doesn't make sense unless some greater force of accountabilty was working to point them to do so. Imagine what the Bible would say about the GOP if Republicans were the scribes and prophets?

1. I truly am ashamed by that you (bpth) turned away from knowledge (atheism) to ignorance (religion). But also the fact that you dont even know what you believe (atheism or agnostic). Thats tragic, that you admit it is even worse, instead of finding out and learning (what you actually believed).

2. We do this constantly in the contemporary world, I presume your American, and just because American movies and books constantly say how good humans are/Americans. This is called False Propaganda, thats all. The rest of the world have its share of negative movies/books/views of how we truly are. This may be so uncommon in the U.S, that you think it does not exist. But the U.S is not the World (for you it is, i know, but not for us).

Where does the atheist draw a moral view from? Fear or tyranny? Or fear of tyranny? Certainly we "people" are more like Lions than Sparrows. The nature of man is not one of sharing and caring by nature. Or, "congenital" to use a science word for original sin.

I draw my " moral" views from myself. I chose what i wish and like. And incidentally, this parallels with the laws of the contemporary World.


So, my dear friend, i Follow my own moral, I would be my Own God if you wish. And this clearly means i am above you in all possible ways, as i do not need help in knowing what is good or bad, as you clearly need.


I may even offer to enlighten you about it, Teach you. I have no problems with it, Ask for help and i will help you. Dont hesitate to PM me if you want me to explain how oyu should avt and behave. I will help you. I promise. I would love to help an ignorant to know how ot act in a society, like teaching a child what is right and wrong, and i see you as a very young child, on its way to learn, if he chose to right path.

[McCulloch]

You mean like a group of people who force the freedom of others out of the public square, because they don't believe like them?

So it seems that you disagree with your country's Supreme Court and Constitution both which assert the principal of separation of church and state and are against the principal of an established religion. Religious tolerance can only be protected by avoiding any appearance of sponsorship by the state of any and all religious groups.

Can you say Papa Joe? (That's what they called Stalin in WWII.)

Stalin seems to be the world's first horrifically evil atheist political leader. Proving only that atheism does not guarantee goodness.

Or how about ACLU? That's probably easier for you but just as totalitarian for my purpose.

I know little about the ACLU, I probably do not qualify for membership. My understanding is that they assist individuals and groups to legally protect their rights as defined by your Constitution, Bill of Rights and other laws. That aim sounds not very totalitarian. I do believe that the mostly deist founders of your country established a balance between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of your government in order to avoid totalitarianism. It didn't always work but it has seemed to work rather well.
(Except when certain states decided that they wanted out of the Union supported by the votes of the white males in that section of the country).

[AlAyeti]

So, my dear friend, i Follow my own moral, I would be my Own God if you wish. And this clearly means i am above you in all possible ways, as i do not need help in knowing what is good or bad, as you clearly need.


I may even offer to enlighten you about it, Teach you. I have no problems with it, Ask for help and i will help you. Dont hesitate to PM me if you want me to explain how oyu should avt and behave. I will help you. I promise. I would love to help an ignorant to know how ot act in a society, like teaching a child what is right and wrong, and i see you as a very young child, on its way to learn, if he chose to right path.

///

That above response proves my position on the godless perspective is well grounded. It is chilling to the bone as I'm sure every genocidal maniac hold those truths to be self-evident as well.

A self-made man always worships his creator. And like the nature of deity that causes the spark of life to dwell within us the person holding that egocentric belief wants to indoctrinate others into following.

The above belief system finds itself in murderous, genocidal, sociopathic individuals throughout history and the evidence is conclusive.

"Atheism" is not logical and "agnostic" literally meas "I don't know." I used both to describe my state of past ignorance in perfect context to the subject metter here.


Thank God sensible people invent laws - based somehow on intrinsic knowledge- so that people who are their own god won't continue to take that mindset to its logical and historically empirical conclusion time and time again.

[AlAyeti]

--- So it seems that you disagree with your country's Supreme Court and Constitution both which assert the principal of separation of church and state and are against the principal of an established religion. Religious tolerance can only be protected by avoiding any appearance of sponsorship by the state of any and all religious groups---

/ / /

Do you mean the writings compiled by just mere men? Those documents? So the Bible and all religions are not rusted because they are just the opinions of men but somehow the Cocstituation is absolute truth? Man, do the math!

The Constitution was a fundamental start to acheiving a decent society and nothing more. Why are we following the beliefs of traitors and rebels? One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, etc, etc, etc.

Why claim to be promoting "Progress" while using men who had wooden teeth to lead us into that "progress?" If child pornography and pedophilia "is a right," and that "right" has its origins in the Constitution, then burning that pathetic little rag of a treatise is not only proper but healthy for a better society.

The Supreme Court? Now that is a laugh! Oxymoron by perfect definition. Why would even a atheist allow that title? They are a gang of thug-elites and nothing more. Why not put Crips and Bloods in those positions? You would have the exact same outcome. One decision is applauded by one side and denegrated by the other. Ad infinitum ad nauseum. . .

And as history is being repeated right before our eyes with a little Marxism thrown in for good measure, civil war is not far over the horizon. Good people will no longer tolerate the rape and pillage of their children while the perpetrators hide behind a curtain made by constitutinal tailors.

Nature and natures God will usher in progress. It's only natural.

[MagusYanam]

The Constitution was a fundamental start to acheiving a decent society and nothing more. Why are we following the beliefs of traitors and rebels? One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, etc, etc, etc.

Why claim to be promoting "Progress" while using men who had wooden teeth to lead us into that "progress?" If child pornography and pedophilia "is a right," and that "right" has its origins in the Constitution, then burning that pathetic little rag of a treatise is not only proper but healthy for a better society.

Contrarian anglophile that I am, I have to agree that the Founding Fathers were terrorists and that the War of American Independence was largely uncalled for. But it would be an ad hominem to reject the Constitution simply on account of its authors (even though I would prefer that we be ruled by English Common Law). As to this argument, child pornography and pedophilia are not, never have been and will likely never be legal under the Constitution, so it would appear that your fears here are unfounded.

As an aside, I also think we should re-establish a monarchy, a nobility and a working democratic-socialist state, and also that the citizenry should be encouraged to wear more hats.

And as history is being repeated right before our eyes with a little Marxism thrown in for good measure, civil war is not far over the horizon. Good people will no longer tolerate the rape and pillage of their children while the perpetrators hide behind a curtain made by constitutinal tailors.

If you're going to wax Marxist on us, please tell us at the very least where the seeds of negation in our current age lie. Also, give some data showing that child rapists are being protected by the Constitution, since I know of none - child molestation in this country is a crime.

[AlAyeti]

It's hard to argue with a post I agree so much with!

I even like hats.

Marxismishness? Are we Americans not braiding the rope with which we are going to strangle our freedom to death? Licentiousness is like a venereal as well as communicable disease that kills without mercy. And if America is anything, it is licentious from coast to coast. In fact it is our way.

The ACLU - the totalitarian Constitution worshipping priest of sexual abomination - proves my point on the value of the Constitution as the arbiter of goodness. Of course abortion is the sexually hedonistic example to use as well that the Constitution is worthless on right and wrong.

As a Christian, I am awaiting the Righteous King. If we can find a good human one in the meantime, count me in with the insurrectionists to make it happen. A monarchy would be OK to me. Because you can always root them out if they get too oppressive.

I don't think Hillary Clinton qualifies so don't put me on her mailing lists. Of course George W. Bush is acting the part pretty good. . . Hmm, King George? Not bad.

[The Happy Humanist]

By the way. How does an atheist come to a moral position on anything? That form of thought seems to me to break down in only two camps.

Fear or tyranny.

This is a nonsensical question. It is like asking "What does an atheist eat?" An atheist is a person who is without a belief in God. Period. It says nothing of whence they derive moral direction.

If the atheist moves on to humanism, then they come to moral positions by asking themselves questions like, if I do this, will the net result be ultimately beneficial to myself without doing unnecessary harm to another? If everyone acted thus, would the net result improve or worsen the total human condition? (Categorical Imperative). Will this action advance human progress? Has this been tried in the past, and what was the result?

Even in the case of general atheists, many simply ask themselves the same questions you do, minus anything God-related. Non-theistic morality simply consists of subtracting religious considerations from the equations used to arrive at moral decisions.

You (atheists) base your laws on what could happen to you or what it is that can stop you from doing things to others.

This is a baseless generalization.

Once again:

• All animals will act in their self-interest.
  Humans, being intelligent, will act in their enlightened self-interest.
  Enlightened self-interest is the realization that acting out of compassion and refraining from acting out of baser self-absorbtion generally improves the human condition for all, including one's own self.

Why does any version of a deity bother an atheist? I have never been upset towards a tooth-fairy adherent. I can't understand the anger.

You are incorrect in stating that any version of a deity bothers any atheist. What bothers many atheists is having to live in a society dominated by fairy-tale believers. It is the fact that many laws and social mores are predicated on belief in a deity, and not the deity itself, that bothers us.

Certainly atheists have murdered milloins and millns of humans so if compared to religions religoins have yet to catch up to that amount of horror.

Please cite examples of atheists who have murdered millions in the name of atheism - for fair comparison against religionists who have murdered in the name of religion.