juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread - Page 2

Jeff · 07-31-2005, 06:21 PM

Jaun, are you saying that if your god didn’t say that it was immoral to kill or rape that you have no moral objection to these acts?

juantoo3 · 08-01-2005, 03:06 AM

Kindest Regards, Alexia, welcome to CR!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexia

(*...without some "God" concept, people would become immoral animals.")

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. People have the natrual desire to reproduce, protect themselves, and try to live as peaceful as possible. Being an "immoral animal" as you described as killing, raping, stealing, etc. etc. that only applies to people who are mentally damaged. The average Joe doesn't want to commit heinious crimes against society. MOST people don't need a list of laws of how to live, it usually comes natrually.

Indeed! I covered that further on. Perhaps I may have been somewhat inaccurate in saying "immoral animals", and I wish I could have edited but the time had already passed. I think more accurate would be "moral level of animals." Which, frankly, is not very high in comparison with the level of morality we require for civil society.

I feel the need to add, that the natural desires you mention are not the only natural desires. Rape, pillage and plunder are also natural desires. Natural desire does not necessarily equal ethical or moral. I would posit that morality, and by extention law, protects us from natural desires, both our own and those of others.

The point I tried to emphasize later in the post is that without acknowledgement of "God," meaning something above and beyond us and out of our control and to which we are helpless, we could not develop the farsightedness to perceive just what it is that we now call "good and bad." We could not see into tomorrow, to realize the consequences of our actions.

Does that help clarify?

juantoo3 · 08-01-2005, 03:15 AM

Kindest Regards, Jeff, welcome to CR!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

Jaun, are you saying that if your god didn’t say that it was immoral to kill or rape that you have no moral objection to these acts?

I said nothing of the sort. Morality says nothing of the sort. So, by implication, process of elimination, and evidence of sacred texts, God must not have said anything of the sort. Moot point.

Thanks for playing. Next?

juantoo3 · 08-01-2005, 03:52 AM

You know, it occurred to me that I am the only one answering questions here. How come no one answers my questions? What gives?

Quote:

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another? Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide?

Jeff · 08-01-2005, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Jeff, welcome to CR!

I said nothing of the sort. Morality says nothing of the sort. So, by implication, process of elimination, and evidence of sacred texts, God must not have said anything of the sort. Moot point.

Thanks for playing. Next?

Juan, You must excuse me for i might be misunderstaning your point, do you mean to say that most religons do not veiw rape, murder and other things of that sort as immoral acts.

lunamoth · 08-01-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jt3

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

I think it's an inescapable conclusion, Juan, that all in society, theists and non-theists alike, must admit that the basis of our morality comes from the Wisdom of the ages and sages reflected in scripture such as the Bible and from the implementation of this Wisdom through religions. Secularism is a rather recent invention (well, if you can consider a few hundred years recent). Now, whether one believes that the sacred writings and religions are the result of Divine Revelation or some kind of natural social behavior is a matter of faith (either way).

cheers,
lunamoth

juantoo3 · 08-02-2005, 12:14 AM

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Quote:

I think it's an inescapable conclusion, Juan, that all in society, theists and non-theists alike, must admit that the basis of our morality comes from the Wisdom of the ages and sages reflected in scripture such as the Bible and from the implementation of this Wisdom through religions.

I obviously am in agreement. I do not think our atheist friends in this thread so far are very willing to admit this.

juantoo3 · 08-02-2005, 12:37 AM

Kindest Regards, Jeff!

Quote:

Juan, You must excuse me for i might be misunderstaning your point, do you mean to say that most religons do not veiw rape, murder and other things of that sort as immoral acts.

No sir, I do not say anything of the sort. I have said what I meant to say, and meant what I said.

If one were so inclined to read between the lines of what I wrote, they would see that I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth.

They would also see that I must be a rare bird indeed to an atheist, because I am not "illogical."

They would also see that I have not, in any post I recall ever writing here, that I am *not* saying "God" said "let there be morality." If there is one point atheists could take to the bank is that I am saying "God" is a "description" by humanity. However, I will clarify this statement here by saying that if there were nothing to describe, then why have all cultures and societies from ancient times made the attempt to describe "God?"

Put another way, I have consistently argued not from the top down with the assumption God exists, but rather I have always argued from the bottom up. Explain to me please why "God," in the manner I have already laid out and explained, is such a consistent matter of fact throughout all societies and cultures across time if there is nothing there?

And finally, one would see by reading between the lines, that arguing "what if's" is a waste of time if there is no practical application to reality. Why discuss "what if" God said murder, etc, were moral if murder pretty obviously is not? It would be as practical a discussion as "why can't an invisible pink unicorn be blue once in a while?" "Why can't the sky be purple?" Who cares?

Whether one views atheism as a religion, as I do, or a philosophy, the end result is the same. What logical purpose is served by a "fantasy philosophy" of what if's when there is no practical application to the real world.

I have answered your questions, how about addressing mine now?

Or is this a witch hunt? You know, prove the theist is illogical...after all, we can't have a rational theist running around, they are as unbelievable as invisible pink unicorns!

Freedom of Opinion · 08-02-2005, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

The point I tried to emphasize later in the post is that without acknowledgement of "God," meaning something above and beyond us and out of our control and to which we are helpless, we could not develop the farsightedness to perceive just what it is that we now call "good and bad." We could not see into tomorrow, to realize the consequences of our actions.

Does that help clarify?

I'm sure I'll be sorry for sticking my neck out here, but I have to say that as an Atheist i can deifinatly see the consequences of my actions without any consequence from a "god". If i do something Illegal, I go to court. If I stand in the street during rush hour, I'll probably be hit by a car. If I play the lottery and win, i become financially richer. The consequence for my replying in this thread is that I will have to continue to disagree with you. Everything has some sort of consequence, whether good or bad. What consequences then are you speaking of?
Thanks for your reply!

juantoo3 · 08-02-2005, 01:28 AM

Kindest Regards, Freedom of Opinion, and welcome to CR!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom of Opinion

as an Atheist i can deifinatly see the consequences of my actions without any consequence from a "god". If i do something Illegal, I go to court. If I stand in the street during rush hour, I'll probably be hit by a car. If I play the lottery and win, i become financially richer. The consequence for my replying in this thread is that I will have to continue to disagree with you. Everything has some sort of consequence, whether good or bad. What consequences then are you speaking of?

Thank you for your response.

I am seeing that I am not understood correctly. Again, in my arguments I have yet to overtly state God exists. I do believe, but my evidence is subjective and personal, and not suitable for debate. So I have tried to remain within the facts, and what evidence there is, is circumstantial. Frankly, the "evidence" against is also circumstantial. People have held this argument for centuries, so I have no illusions of solving the riddle here.

My point in this discussion has always been, that without a "God" concept, we would not be able to think or "see" into the future, in the sense of understanding the consequences of our actions. I am not speaking of God "punishing" wrongdoers. I am speaking of crossing a boundary of time in our minds that no other animals can do, at least in the future sense. Read the transcripts from conversations with Koko the gorilla, and you will see that she has no sense of future time as we do. She thinks and realizes in the present tense, and somewhat in the past tense, but she has no realization of consequences beyond personal experience. Humans can learn from other human's experience through a variety of methods, and we are able to project our understanding forward to realize consequences even in actions we have not experienced before. Granted, not all people do this all of the time, people still make mistakes, people still have errors in judgement. But people are capable of "seeing" well beyond what any other animals can do. That is what I mean by "consequences of our actions."

brucegdc · 08-02-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

I obviously am in agreement. I do not think our atheist friends in this thread so far are very willing to admit this.

So without religion there's no morality? You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong? How sad. How depressing a view of humanity.

... Bruce (not an atheist...)

lunamoth · 08-02-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brucegdc

So without religion there's no morality? You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong? How sad. How depressing a view of humanity.

... Bruce (not an atheist...)

Hi Burce,

No, that is not what I meant nor what I beleive. I think most people are moral whether or not they beleive in God or adhere to a religion. Actually, I think that morality has a lot more to do with mental health than with one's religous or philosophical worldview, for the most part.

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

peace,
lunamoth

juantoo3 · 08-02-2005, 04:10 PM

Kindest Regards, bruce and Lunamoth!

Quote:

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

Indeed.

juantoo3 · 08-02-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

You need a scripture to tell you that killing someone else is wrong? That stealing their possessions is wrong?

Nah. For that, all you need is a conscience. And foresight. And realization of consequences. Which stem, in my argument, from a concept of something greater than ourselves. Which, by my definition, describes a personal religion.

Somewhere along the way came institutional religion and formalized morality. And society and culture. And politics. And civilization.

StarshipEnterprise · 08-02-2005, 04:44 PM

I think morals can be reached out of logic. one knows not to make another being suffer because there is no reason for the other being's happiness to be any more important than their own. We need to get beyond our impulses that value our selves over anyone else, and try to end the suffering of all beings. That is the logical thing to do. I don't think any god is required to make the rules.