Morality had to come from God [Copy from Why do you believe in God?]

[evangelical]

Copied from Why Do You Believe in God? (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=248199) in the EOG forum. evangelical insists morality must come from God, period. I thought the denizens of MF&P might wish to discuss this with him.

d

Dear Sot, I know there is a God on the basis of certain arguments. Including, but not limited, to the teleological, cosmological, and probably the ontological arguments for the existence of God. Now, there has been a lot of criticism of these arguments over the years. I think in philosophy courses at secular institutions these classical arguments are normally not given there due. And it seems that when unbelievers critique the classical arguments for the existence of God, from philosophy, they often shall misrepresent them. So you have to be very discerning when hearing about the classical arguments from non-believers. Once you see the arguments as they really are you have to ask yourself two questions. The first question is, "is this argument valid?" And the second is, "are the premises true." If a logical proof is valid, and has true premises, the conclusion must be accepted. So if the logical proof (which is also valid and has true premises) concludes with the real existence of God, we ought to believe (i.e. know) that God exists. And this is what we do, in fact, find. Again, some philosophers, and others, will object to the premises (and less often to the validity) but very often the objections betray a misunderstanding of the proof.

Here is a less classical argument, as an example:

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion). Thus we see that both premises are true. And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to. If you do reject it then you must reject morality (and that is very dangerous, at least in theory).

Anywho, there is my answer.

[wiploc]

Dear Sot, I know there is a God on the basis of certain arguments. Including, but not limited, to the teleological, cosmological, and probably the ontological arguments for the existence of God.

.

They all fail miserably.



1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.


.

P1 is indefensible.

P2 is arbitrary. The argument only even seems to work if you keep switching back and forth between conflicting meanings of "morality."




If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion). Thus we see that both premises are true.

.

Wait, your support for the P1 is that you repeated P1? We should believe that morality entails god because you said it twice? "[A] moral law could only have come from a God..." is a mere restatement of P1. You have given us no reason to suspect that P1 is true. What does god have to do with morality?



And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to. If you do reject it then you must reject morality (and that is very dangerous, at least in theory).

Anywho, there is my answer.

.

No rational person can accept an irrational argument. And, obviously, many people believe in morality without believing in gods. In fact, believing in god is more dangerous to morality than not believing. If, for instance, Son of Sam says he has to kill you because god told him to, how are you going to reason with him? Attempting to tie morality to religion is a means of making morality irrational and dangerous.

crc



[quote]

[Simen]

I responded (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5483187#post5483187) to this in the other thread you made (edit: er, that was made, but not by you, I see) about the exact same argument. Summary: the argument fails, hard.

[ahdenai]

The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality.

The atheist can also appeal to sociobiology and neuroscience.

[Simen]

Not to mention the proper place for ethics: philosophy.

[Joe Bloe]

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God
What if God told you to do the raping and abusing? Then it would be good, right? And I would be wrong to complain about it, right?

What? You say God wouldn't, indeed couldn't, command such a thing? What is stopping him? What standard must he live up to? What is this standard beyond God which constrains God's character and moral commands? And why can't we bypass God and appeal to that standard ourselves?

If morality is real, it must transcend any particular individual person, including God if God is a person. Otherwise it's just a case of might makes right.

What could be the source of morality if it isn't God?

Do you think that if I live according to the sorts of guidelines that are commonly accepted as good moral principles, I would be more likely to lead a long, healthy, happy life than if I do things commonly thought of as immoral, or short-sighted, narrow-minded, and self-centered? (Yes, there is a lot of disagreement about specifics of morality, but there is much more general agreement; all societies have some form of the "golden rule", even those existing long before Jesus's version.) Do you think that is just a fortuitous coincidence, or do you think there is something to it? Do you think that maybe the ground for moral judgments is what tends to be beneficial for individual humans and the societies we depend on for our well-being?

In which case, if there is an omniscient God then he would be better able than us to figure out what sorts of actions are better or worse for us to perform. But in God's absence, though our judgments would be fallible and imperfect, we would still have grounds for making reasonably good judgments about such things.

[GenesisNemesis]

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.



1. If there is morality, then there is a pizza.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a pizza.

:rolleyes:

[mrunicycler]

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.



1. If there is morality, then there is a pizza.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a pizza.

:rolleyes:

Sure sure, you did a great job of blowing a hole in his argument, but you failed to answer the important question: What kind of pizza is it?

[GenesisNemesis]

Sure sure, you did a great job of blowing a hole in his argument, but you failed to answer the important question: What kind of pizza is it?

Pepperoni, because I love pepperoni pizza. ;)

[mrunicycler]

[COLOR="Blue"] it seems that when unbelievers critique the classical arguments for the existence of God, from philosophy, they often shall misrepresent them.

It seems that when believers critique the classical arguments for the existence of God, from philosophy, they often misrepresent them.

[Sapho]

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.



1. If there is morality, then there is a pizza.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a pizza.

:rolleyes:

This argument is true, I have actually eaten pizza! therefore there must be morality! GN your a genius!:)

ETA and it was peperoni!

[mrunicycler]

1. If there is morality, then there is a pizza.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a pizza.

:rolleyes:

This argument is true, I have actually eaten pizza! therefore there must be morality! GN your a genius!:)

ETA and it was peperoni!

So, people who hate pepperoni are not moral?

Or just people who don't like pizza in general?

And, what about all those early americans who never knew of pizza, and so had no way of deciding if they liked it or not? For that matter, what about the old world before they found the tomatos in the new world?

Is it really a pizza without tomato sauce?

[Scifinerdgrl]

Copied from Why Do You Believe in God? (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=248199) in the EOG forum. evangelical insists morality must come from God, period. I thought the denizens of MF&P might wish to discuss this with him.

d

Dear Sot, I know there is a God on the basis of certain arguments. Including, but not limited, to the teleological, cosmological, and probably the ontological arguments for the existence of God. Now, there has been a lot of criticism of these arguments over the years. I think in philosophy courses at secular institutions these classical arguments are normally not given there due. And it seems that when unbelievers critique the classical arguments for the existence of God, from philosophy, they often shall misrepresent them. So you have to be very discerning when hearing about the classical arguments from non-believers. Once you see the arguments as they really are you have to ask yourself two questions. The first question is, "is this argument valid?" And the second is, "are the premises true." If a logical proof is valid, and has true premises, the conclusion must be accepted. So if the logical proof (which is also valid and has true premises) concludes with the real existence of God, we ought to believe (i.e. know) that God exists. And this is what we do, in fact, find. Again, some philosophers, and others, will object to the premises (and less often to the validity) but very often the objections betray a misunderstanding of the proof.

Here is a less classical argument, as an example:

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality.

I thought we were evil Darwinists! Humanity is one of several social species that will enforce a set of behaviors through punishment of offenders. Would it be beneficial for the species to allow a member of another social group to impregnate one of our group's females? Nope, there is a strong precedent of many species chasing off males who attempt to impregnate a female they don't have a claim to. Ever watch Meerkat Manor? Meerkats must believe in God according to this silly line of logic.

But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion).

I've thought about it and I didn't come to that conclusion. Actually, I've probably thought about it more than you have. "Moral law" could only have come from evolutionary forces that promote cohesion of social groups. Some "moral laws" promote behavior of group members toward each other and some relate to protection against members of other groups. Try studying animal behavior. Animals that live in groups seem to believe in the same "laws."

Thus we see that both premises are true. And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to. If you do reject it then you must reject morality (and that is very dangerous, at least in theory).

Anywho, there is my answer.

:rolleyes: It's a pity that Christian rationalization is so deeply flawed. Y'all have had 2,000 years to work these things out and yet circular reasoning, begging the question, and a bunch of other fallacies are so common in these "arguments."

[Keith&Co.]

So, people who hate pepperoni are not moral?I hate pepperoni. I think the pizza/god argument would be much more powerful if posed in the following manner:

1. If there is marijuana, there is a God.
2. There is marijuana.
3. Therefore....um. Heh. Heeheeheehee. Heh. Hey, you wanna call for pizza?

Is it really a pizza without tomato sauce?I spent a few years stationed in Scotland where they do not have a tradition of tomato sauce on their pizzas. So i have to say, no, without tomato sauce, there is no pizza.

[Nexus]

You mean not a true pizza.

[Scifinerdgrl]

So, people who hate pepperoni are not moral?I hate pepperoni. I think the pizza/god argument would be much more powerful if posed in the following manner:

1. If there is marijuana, there is a God.
2. There is marijuana.
3. Therefore....um. Heh. Heeheeheehee. Heh. Hey, you wanna call for pizza?

Is it really a pizza without tomato sauce?I spent a few years stationed in Scotland where they do not have a tradition of tomato sauce on their pizzas. So i have to say, no, without tomato sauce, there is no pizza.

In California they have pizzas without tomato sauce, which means they have no morality, and then you get gay marriage.

1. If there is tomato sauce, there is a God.
2. California has weird pizza.
3. Therefore California is Godless and should be nuked.

[mrunicycler]

You mean not a true pizza.

Lol.

[wiploc]

Evangelical,

Just in case you think this thread has drifted off topic, these posts have been illustrations of what can be done using the unsupportable logic of your P1.

crc

[mrunicycler]

Evangelical,

Just in case you think this thread has drifted off topic, these posts have been illustrations of what can be done using the unsupportable logic of your P1.

crc

I'm glad you put that in...I was just making lunch, thinking that a mod might come along, give this thread a quick glance, and call 'foul'.

This post, however, is a little off topic. Apologies :)

[Nice Squirrel]

Pizzadidit.

[hylidae]

If the simpler (fewer assumptions) answer is most likely correct, then pizza without sauce is true pizza. Once you remove the medieval religious assumption that tomato sauce is inexplicably linked with pizza (where pizza=sauce and sauce=pizza), you can then see the entire pizza concept as it truly is: flat, baked bread with stuff on top. Tomato sauce is just a type "stuff" and not a description of pizza itself. Ta-da! :funny:

[Joe Bloe]

Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do.
I hope no one minds if I make another serious comment ...

Who is this individual you are referring to as "mankind" who you think would not write laws for "himself"? "Mankind" doesn't write laws. People write laws. Perhaps sometimes they write laws to stop themselves from doing something, but mostly they write and enforce laws against other people doing things to themselves and to others they care about. Such as writing laws against raping people. I have no desire to rape anyone, and I don't want myself or anyone else to be raped. So I support writing and enforcing such laws. Why would anyone need to appeal to a god for that?

Or, suppose you and I both want a loaf of bread. We each want the whole loaf. But if one of us tries to take the whole loaf, the other will fight to take it for himself. Neither of us wants to have to fight since even the winner could be seriously injured and we want to avoid that risk. So we agree to a rule by which we each forgo what we want (the whole loaf) and agree to split it and each take half a loaf so that we don't end up fighting over it. Each of us forbids the other from taking the whole loaf. There, another example of "mankind" writing a law for "himself" even though "he" would rather take the whole loaf for "himself," and doing so without reference to a god.

So, why is morality dependent on there being a god?

The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law.
What if I appeal to physics and chemistry and biology which can produce a brain which can produce a mind which can recognize and think about our situation and come up with rules and laws and moral standards which serve our long-term mutual benefit and avoid the long-term harms of going for the short-term pleasures of acting in narrow-minded, short-sighted, self-centered ways?



(Note: you can substitute 'pizza' for 'loaf' in the argument above, but depending on how good it smells and how hungry I am, I may be willing to fight you for the whole thing. Which means that, in the presence of pizza, morality really is beyond the reach of mere humans, so if there is pizza then there must be a god.)

[WVIncagold]

But my Pizza has white sauce and i proclaim it is the only true pizza based on my recipe book. So people who eat white sauce pizza are more moral than those who eat red sauce pizza. and those that eat no sauce are Marxist pizza eaters and should be vilified. So
1. If there is white sauce pizza, then there is a morality.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, no sauce pizza =marxist pizza=no morals.

Anyone have shroom pizza from back in the hippy days?

[mrunicycler]

(Note: you can substitute 'pizza' for 'loaf' in the argument above, but depending on how good it smells and how hungry I am, I may be willing to fight you for the whole thing. Which means that, in the presence of pizza, morality really is beyond the reach of mere humans, so if there is pizza then there must be a god.)

>:D<

Way to bring it around full circle :)

[jab]

1. If there is morality, then there is a pizza.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a pizza.

:rolleyes:

Sure sure, you did a great job of blowing a hole in his argument, but you failed to answer the important question: What kind of pizza is it?
That depends on how spicy, meaty and cheesey you like your morality.

[jab]

So, people who hate pepperoni are not moral?I hate pepperoni. I think the pizza/god argument would be much more powerful if posed in the following manner:

1. If there is marijuana, there is a God.
2. There is marijuana.
3. Therefore....um. Heh. Heeheeheehee. Heh. Hey, you wanna call for pizza?

Is it really a pizza without tomato sauce?I spent a few years stationed in Scotland where they do not have a tradition of tomato sauce on their pizzas. So i have to say, no, without tomato sauce, there is no pizza.

tsk, tsk, isn't that an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
There, having disposed of that fallacy, we may safely and rationally conclude that there are God, pizza, and morality!

[jab]

If the simpler (fewer assumptions) answer is most likely correct, then pizza without sauce is true pizza. Once you remove the medieval religious assumption that tomato sauce is inexplicably linked with pizza (where pizza=sauce and sauce=pizza), you can then see the entire pizza concept as it truly is: flat, baked bread with stuff on top. Tomato sauce is just a type "stuff" and not a description of pizza itself. Ta-da! :funny::confused:
whatever the assumptions about pizza were in medieval times, they certainly did not include tomato sauce, which was unknown in Italy (and Europe) until the Renaissance.

[jab]

Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do.
I hope no one minds if I make another serious comment ...

Who is this individual you are referring to as "mankind" who you think would not write laws for "himself"? "Mankind" doesn't write laws. People write laws. Perhaps sometimes they write laws to stop themselves from doing something, but mostly they write and enforce laws against other people doing things to themselves and to others they care about. Such as writing laws against raping people. I have no desire to rape anyone, and I don't want myself or anyone else to be raped. So I support writing and enforcing such laws. Why would anyone need to appeal to a god for that?

Or, suppose you and I both want a loaf of bread. We each want the whole loaf. But if one of us tries to take the whole loaf, the other will fight to take it for himself. Neither of us wants to have to fight since even the winner could be seriously injured and we want to avoid that risk. So we agree to a rule by which we each forgo what we want (the whole loaf) and agree to split it and each take half a loaf so that we don't end up fighting over it. Each of us forbids the other from taking the whole loaf. There, another example of "mankind" writing a law for "himself" even though "he" would rather take the whole loaf for "himself," and doing so without reference to a god.

So, why is morality dependent on there being a god?

The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law.
What if I appeal to physics and chemistry and biology which can produce a brain which can produce a mind which can recognize and think about our situation and come up with rules and laws and moral standards which serve our long-term mutual benefit and avoid the long-term harms of going for the short-term pleasures of acting in narrow-minded, short-sighted, self-centered ways?



(Note: you can substitute 'pizza' for 'loaf' in the argument above, but depending on how good it smells and how hungry I am, I may be willing to fight you for the whole thing. Which means that, in the presence of pizza, morality really is beyond the reach of mere humans, so if there is pizza then there must be a god.)

I agree with everything Joe says here, I think.

[PassionFruit]

Mmmm..........pizza, yummy. :)

Anywho, this argument

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

I can only say since there is no real way of knowing whether God exist or not, it's wrong to assume morality comes from God. And just because morality exist, it doesn't prove the existence of God.

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion). Thus we see that both premises are true. And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to. If you do reject it then you must reject morality (and that is very dangerous, at least in theory).

This is one of those arguments that since a person is an atheist, therefore they have no morals. At least that's how I'm reading this. You say an atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry? What about philosophy and reason? What about morality and ethics? Are you really saying there is no other way for an atheist to appeal to morality?

I don't think a rational person should accept your argument, because it's flawed.

[Simen]

Mmmm..........pizza, yummy. :)

Anywho, this argument

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.

I can only say since there is no real way of knowing whether God exist or not, it's wrong to assume morality comes from God. And just because morality exist, it doesn't prove the existence of God.

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why? Because justice is not being served. But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong. In other words, there is morality. Where could this morality have possibly come from? The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality. But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law. Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times. Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do? Or punish himself for doing what he does do. If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion). Thus we see that both premises are true. And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to. If you do reject it then you must reject morality (and that is very dangerous, at least in theory).

This is one of those arguments that since a person is an atheist, therefore they have no morals. At least that's how I'm reading this. You say an atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry? What about philosophy and reason? What about morality and ethics? Are you really saying there is no other way for an atheist to appeal to morality?

I don't think a rational person should accept your argument, because it's flawed.

He's saying that there is no foundation for morality without God. Since ethics is based on God, if you remove God, you remove ethics. And when there's no ethics, you can't appeal to morality.

Of course the silly argument is flawed. It is irreparably, stupidly, obviously flawed. There is no connection between God and the foundations of morality whatsoever. Those who assert this never prove it, and they don't prove it because there is no possible proof. It's simply wrong.

[Sabine Grant]

Sure sure, you did a great job of blowing a hole in his argument, but you failed to answer the important question: What kind of pizza is it?
That depends on how spicy, meaty and cheesey you like your morality. It also depends whether you are a non conformist and you like your pizza with pesto instead of tomato sauce and you will use goat cheese instead of that yucky and sooooo banal American mozzarella....oh and fresh aragulla and prosciutto crudo. Bathe the whole thing in olive oil.

If God invented morality. he has to be Italian.

[ScuzzBuster]

What if God told you to do the raping and abusing? Then it would be good, right? And I would be wrong to complain about it, right?

What? You say God wouldn't, indeed couldn't, command such a thing? What is stopping him?

Nothing is or has stopped him. In the Bible, God condones rape, murder and abuse directly. Commands decreed these things to be so, they must be moral.

I can stone my children for disobedience (not the good kind of stoned that leads you that that pizza)
I can sell my daughter into slavery
I can kill my wife if she is unfaithful
I can murder any man that does not profess his belief in God

All per God, per the Bible, therefore by the original argument moral and ethical behavior.

[hylidae]

What if God told you to do the raping and abusing? Then it would be good, right? And I would be wrong to complain about it, right?

What? You say God wouldn't, indeed couldn't, command such a thing? What is stopping him?

Nothing is or has stopped him. In the Bible, God condones rape, murder and abuse directly. Commands decreed these things to be so, they must be moral.

I can stone my children for disobedience (not the good kind of stoned that leads you that that pizza)
I can sell my daughter into slavery
I can kill my wife if she is unfaithful
I can murder any man that does not profess his belief in God

All per God, per the Bible, therefore by the original argument moral and ethical behavior.
And you can make your daughter marry the man who raped her.

[Siderealexalt]

Nothing is or has stopped him. In the Bible, God condones rape, murder and abuse directly. Commands decreed these things to be so, they must be moral.

I can stone my children for disobedience (not the good kind of stoned that leads you that that pizza)
I can sell my daughter into slavery
I can kill my wife if she is unfaithful
I can murder any man that does not profess his belief in God

All per God, per the Bible, therefore by the original argument moral and ethical behavior.

There in lies plainly the dangers of ideological thinking overriding conscience, and I've always found it funny how many Christians see the danger in saying that as long as it's believed that "God" says it's ok, that makes it holy, and by that ideological definition, automatically moral.

It's not something only found in religious expression. Facism, Nazism and the Communist Regimes of Stalin and co. have shown that to be true. And all share the supplication to a figure or figures thought infallible.

[diana]

Hullo, evangelical.

Despite the amusement factor of this thread--which I believe is great--I'd like to seriously address some of your remarks. For your part, comments approximating "But it seems self-evident to me" shall not count as rebuttals.

Here is a less classical argument, as an example:

1. If there is morality, then there is a God.
2. There is morality.
3. Therefore, there is a God.Less classical than what? It's been with us almost 150 years. Longer than that if you count Kant's contributions.

If you dearly love your mother, and I savagely abuse her physically and rape her, what happens if I don't go to jail? What if I go to court and the judge says, "well, the defendant is obviously guilty but I'm feeling kind of crazy today so he (that is, I) am free to go. Would you get angry? No doubt you would. Why?Because I want an eye for an eye.

Here's a question: is this proof the bible is inspired, because it proclaims the "eye for an eye" rule, or that it is man-made, because it proclaims the "eye for an eye" rule? How do you know which to choose?

Because justice is not being served.So you aren't really interested in how I answer the question, then? Oh.

But there is no justice if there is no right and wrong.We're wading into murky waters here.

In other words, there is morality.Uh, okay.

Where could this morality have possibly come from?Evolved. We survive better in communities, being hairless and sans claws, huge muscles, etc. We do better with cooperation, overall, than we do alone. Thus, we need to excise those who threaten the cohesion of the community.

The atheist can only appeal to physics and chemistry for justice and morality.No. How about biological imperatives?

But physics and chemistry is impossible to write the moral law.Agreed. But will you agree this is a straw man?

Mankind could not have written the moral law for he wants to break it at times.What?

You're implying I cannot say I believe adultery is wrong (which I do) because I myself have wanted to "break" this rule at times (which is also true). How naive can you get?

More than that, you imply all people believe the same thing for the same reasons. Surely even you aren't that innocent.

Why would he forbid himself from doing what he wants to do?This would apply to my first response, I think. Because he knows this is the way to keep harmony within the group.

Or punish himself for doing what he does do.To give himself a very good reason to adhere to his own rules.

As any Christian will attest, there's nothing quite like a vicious threat to encourage compliance.

If you think about it, a moral law could only have come from a God (who may or may not exist, prior to the conclusion).And...if I decide moral law didn't need to come from a god (lower case "g," because the indefinite article states I don't have any particular god in mind), then I haven't "thought about it"?

Um, no.

A moral law could easily evolve the same way your cockroach infestation evolves resistance to Raid. Those who do not wish to respect the boundaries of others are excised from the community and tend to not reproduce.

Thus we see that both premises are true. And the conclusion follows of logical necessity. Modus ponens, is the logical law used here. Does everybody accept this argument? No. But every rational person, in my opinion, ought to.And therefore, if you don't accept it, you aren't rational.

Still more No True Scotsman.

If you do reject it then you must reject moralityAnd still more Strawman.

d

[Deleet]

What does "morality exists" mean? :huh:

[Doddy]

As Socrates would have asked Euthyphro, his pizza delivery man, "Is pizza tasty because the gods made it that way, or did the gods make pizza because it is tasty?"