The Important Arena in The Debate about God.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]




I understand what you are saying, but that works with reasonable people only. But does that make it WRONG! When others are not so reasonable? It may not be in their best interest to kill/rape/steal and you and I may think its wrong, but what makes it wrong? I'm sure over time many a great leader got there by doing many "WRONG" things. So where they wrong to do it? Were they BAD people? Is there even good and bad? I've seen animals eat their own young, I've seen kitten's or puppy's "raped" by older Cat's and Dog's. If it's not wrong for them and we are just another animal that happens to have the ability to remember things for a much longer period of time, why is it wrong for us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does anything have to be WRONG? If you are a regular member of society, you will behave mostly according to the rules forced on you by the society.
The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong, also the individuals in some societies are allowed to have their own sub-definitions provided they do not differ too much from the mainstream.
Most societies regulate permissible violence very strictly.
So, if someone commits murders (unauthorized killings) or other aggressive violent acts which are not allowed, rules are quickly enforced. It is up to an individual to choose what is right and wrong, but some choices are dangerous and very uncomfortable due to constraints imposed by society.
Individuals who acquired great political power (great leaders in your example), use it to their advantage, and it requires a larger effort from the rest of society to restrain them if they misbehave, therefore the range of things they can get away with is wide.
You can evaluate wrongness by the amount of damage inflicted on you personally, or on people close to you, or by extension, on your tribe or your nation or society at large. If powerful majorities agree with your evaluation they will have the power to restrain the wrong-doer. Sometimes, you have the power to restrain the wrong-doer by yourself, but our society in general learned not to trust individuals with the power to restrain wrong-doers.
Thus, the complex legal and political system.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what that means is that you are allowing others to make rules, (mostly taken from the 10 commandments) and you have accepted them to be true, because they make life nice to live. But if they are only some man made rules set to control the actions of the masses then they are fake! If one man kills another then these rules kick in, but they only control that man from doing these actions again. If that man had the ability to kill all that was against him and he set the rules, and the rules then became the norm, based on that his rules would be right and anything against his rules would be wrong. You can see this by just looking at the world over the last 50 years. Take abortion, it is now the norm to kill the baby in the womb, so what was murder 50 years ago is now a norm and is just fine in the eyes of the many many people. Next could be the old, maybe within 50 years from now the new rule will be ( a person get to live to the age of 75 and then is put to sleep ) Now you may try and tell me that could never happen but go ask people 100 years ago about abortion! I understand you don't like the idea of good and bad coming from a higher power because then you have to take responsibility for your thoughts and actions. My whole point is without good and bad coming from a higher power then what is good or bad is subject to change! So if you really believe there is no higher power and I kill your family/friend/neighbor, you can not like it, but you can't say I did something truly WRONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got it this time. 300 years ago owning human beings was normal and not wrong. If 300 years ago you believed that owning slaves is wrong, the society could not force you to own slaves, however, if you were a slave, tough - you were forced to slave labor.
Now it is wrong by general consensus. You are actively prevented from owning slaves. If you tried to force others to work for you against their will and without compensation, you'd be punished by society.
50 years ago abortion was wrong, by general consensus. If you performed an abortion 50 years ago, you'd be punished.
Now, the consensus is gone. Some people believe it is not wrong and others believe its wrong, but without general consensus, the society is unable to enforce either view. For example, if you as an individual believe that abortion is wrong, the society lacks the will to force you to have an abortion or perform an abortion.
If I believe that abortion is not wrong, the society lacks the will to prevent me from performing or obtaining an abortion.
So you are right. Good and bad are subject to change. As societies develop ideas and adapt to changing conditions, so the rules of right and wrong adapt and change. Change is a property of living things and society is a living thing.
Changes in our attitudes towards abortions are caused perhaps by the realization that without control over reproduction, we are in danger of over-population, because our fecundity is ill-matched with modern medicine and abundance of food keeping most born children alive.
Don't worry about the old people though. They got a lot of connections and a whole lot of associated political clout. The old folks are not in danger of mandatory euthanasia.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

I'm that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me where I'm wrong!


FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong in assuming that "right" and "wrong" can only stem from a higher being beyond our universe. We are a social creature and have developed norms of behavior which ensure our progress as a species, community, family, individual, ... These norms of behavior (right and wrong) need not be implanted in us like microchips from some other worldly being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what that means is that you are allowing others to make rules, (mostly taken from the 10 commandments) and you have accepted them to be true, because they make life nice to live. But if they are only some man made rules set to control the actions of the masses then they are fake! If one man kills another then these rules kick in, but they only control that man from doing these actions again. If that man had the ability to kill all that was against him and he set the rules, and the rules then became the norm, based on that his rules would be right and anything against his rules would be wrong. You can see this by just looking at the world over the last 50 years. Take abortion, it is now the norm to kill the baby in the womb, so what was murder 50 years ago is now a norm and is just fine in the eyes of the many many people. Next could be the old, maybe within 50 years from now the new rule will be ( a person get to live to the age of 75 and then is put to sleep ) Now you may try and tell me that could never happen but go ask people 100 years ago about abortion! I understand you don't like the idea of good and bad coming from a higher power because then you have to take responsibility for your thoughts and actions. My whole point is without good and bad coming from a higher power then what is good or bad is subject to change! So if you really believe there is no higher power and I kill your family/friend/neighbor, you can not like it, but you can't say I did something truly WRONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you got it this time. 300 years ago owning human beings was normal and not wrong. If 300 years ago you believed that owning slaves is wrong, the society could not force you to own slaves, however, if you were a slave, tough - you were forced to slave labor.
Now it is wrong by general consensus. You are actively prevented from owning slaves. If you tried to force others to work for you against their will and without compensation, you'd be punished by society.
50 years ago abortion was wrong, by general consensus. If you performed an abortion 50 years ago, you'd be punished.
Now, the consensus is gone. Some people believe it is not wrong and others believe its wrong, but without general consensus, the society is unable to enforce either view. For example, if you as an individual believe that abortion is wrong, the society lacks the will to force you to have an abortion or perform an abortion.
If I believe that abortion is not wrong, the society lacks the will to prevent me from performing or obtaining an abortion.
So you are right. Good and bad are subject to change. As societies develop ideas and adapt to changing conditions, so the rules of right and wrong adapt and change. Change is a property of living things and society is a living thing.
Changes in our attitudes towards abortions are caused perhaps by the realization that without control over reproduction, we are in danger of over-population, because our fecundity is ill-matched with modern medicine and abundance of food keeping most born children alive.
Don't worry about the old people though. They got a lot of connections and a whole lot of associated political clout. The old folks are not in danger of mandatory euthanasia.

[/ QUOTE ]

So as long as I can get 51% of the people to agree with me that we should cap the age of life at 65 even if you don't agree with it, does that now become "RIGHT"? Or if I get 51% of the people to agree it's ok to have sex with kid if the kids say it's ok, does that now become "RIGHT"? Or are there some things that are always going to be RIGHT or WRONG?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there right and wrong?

Is it right or wrong for the lion to eat the lamb?

Is it right or wrong for one man to kill/rape/rob/ another?

IF there is right and wrong there is a God, if not there is no God!

It's that simple!

[/ QUOTE ]



Ok, let’s go with that idea, you are your own god; you have decided what is right or wrong for you! But if there is no cost (afterlife) then it does not really matter. The cost is only what happens here and now. If I kill someone and another carbon based bi-ped with a black robe orders me to death. Then my existents here is shortened only a small amount of time compared to how long earth has already been here. So if you are an atheist it may be wrong in your mind to kill but that does not make it wrong! Tell me why I should not Kill/Rape/Steal if the cost is only a blimp of time. And if I'm just another animal, why can't I act like it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals behave in different ways. Where are animals that never kill another of their kind.
Ofcourse you can behave in any way that is possible to you. However, if you try to kill/rape/steal, you might be hurt yourself. So, try to estimate if this line is in your best interest. The society is organized in a way that makes overt violence against its members dangerous and unprofitable in general. The state likes to keep its monopoly on violence. Ofcourse the answer is always "it depends". If you like your well-being, acting violently against others is generally counter-productive. There are specific instances where this does not apply, but they are very rare. Moreover, to secure cooperation of others, a very good strategy is to create a strong impression that you will not betray them. If you think that stealing or robbing is not wrong, and you enter in business negotiations with intent of stealing from your business partners, you will not be able to honestly promise that you will not steal from them. Therefore you will have to lie. But humans are adept at telling when someone knowingly lies, and you are more likely to be caught than someone who honestly believes that stealing and robbing is wrong. That other person will be able to promise not to steal from their partners and not lie which makes that other person more likely to strike a successful deal. Since an organization of humans usually has advantages over single individuals in business, you will suffer if you don't believe that stealing is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]




I understand what you are saying, but that works with reasonable people only. But does that make it WRONG! When others are not so reasonable? It may not be in their best interest to kill/rape/steal and you and I may think its wrong, but what makes it wrong? I'm sure over time many a great leader got there by doing many "WRONG" things. So where they wrong to do it? Were they BAD people? Is there even good and bad? I've seen animals eat their own young, I've seen kitten's or puppy's "raped" by older Cat's and Dog's. If it's not wrong for them and we are just another animal that happens to have the ability to remember things for a much longer period of time, why is it wrong for us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does anything have to be WRONG? If you are a regular member of society, you will behave mostly according to the rules forced on you by the society.
The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong, also the individuals in some societies are allowed to have their own sub-definitions provided they do not differ too much from the mainstream.
Most societies regulate permissible violence very strictly.
So, if someone commits murders (unauthorized killings) or other aggressive violent acts which are not allowed, rules are quickly enforced. It is up to an individual to choose what is right and wrong, but some choices are dangerous and very uncomfortable due to constraints imposed by society.
Individuals who acquired great political power (great leaders in your example), use it to their advantage, and it requires a larger effort from the rest of society to restrain them if they misbehave, therefore the range of things they can get away with is wide.
You can evaluate wrongness by the amount of damage inflicted on you personally, or on people close to you, or by extension, on your tribe or your nation or society at large. If powerful majorities agree with your evaluation they will have the power to restrain the wrong-doer. Sometimes, you have the power to restrain the wrong-doer by yourself, but our society in general learned not to trust individuals with the power to restrain wrong-doers.
Thus, the complex legal and political system.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong"

So based on this things change, it used to be ok to own a slave, now its not! Abortion is now ok, 50 years ago it was not. Are there any things that will always be right or wrong or are all things changable?

[Girchuck]

I think, for the issues you've specified, its a lot more complicated than getting a simple majority behind you. Our society has complex mechanisms designed to protect minority opinion. In addition, most societies have mechanisms that resist change and urge conservative approach to new propositions. Both of these would resist the revolutionary changes you are trying to institute. Remember how bloody the revolutionary reversal of the slavery opinion was?
People will defend their interests.
In practical terms, you'd have to convince a vast majority of people that your proposed changes will benefit them more than they would hurt them. Even if you succeed, your changes will still not be accepted by large cohorts of conservatives that resist all changes. However, generations change, and so what was not acceptable to the previous generation, may become acceptable to the next one.
Everyone is entitled to their own definitions of right and wrong. However, a society already provides templates for you to use. Ethics is a product of society. You don't have to accept that product. You can make your personal ethics your DIY project and build it from scratch. To most people this route is prohibitively expensive, and so they accept the prevailing ethics that society provides with allowable personal modifications as needed.

Let us look at your examples. I believe that it would be impossible for you right now to convince a lot of people that it is right to terminate lifes of everyone over 65.
The changes in living conditions which will allow for such change to be viewed as beneficial to society is not easy to imagine, let alone bring about.
As far as your sex example goes, this is less-farfetched.
As long as you maintain that the proper sex must be consensual, the only disagreement you will have with the rest of society would be about child's age when her consent is meaningful. Here, you will have to do research in a lot of fields connected with sexuality and developmental psychology and come up with the results that show that age of consent may be reduced without harm to society. This research will undoubtedly be controversial, and you will encounter opposition from conservatives, who surely have a lot of data pointing to an opposite conclusion. If you make a compelling case, people may eventually come around to your point of view but it is going to take a long time. However, imagine what would happen if through some genetic accident or change in environment, children would completely mature emotionally, physically and sexually by the age of say 12. If this change happens very fast, the old rules will not fit a new situation, and they will have to be broken for society to deal with reality. A revolution will occur and old rules will be supplanted, perhaps violently.
One such sexual revolution already occured, when birth control became widely available.

[rodney]

the ends justify the means

[rodney]

if god does not exist, why are you talking about it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
"The consensus in society decides what is right and what is wrong"

[/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, because of western philosophy's roots in Democracy, this fallacy has been able to perpetuate for to long. It is not that society decides what is right and wrong. It is that man can know what is right and wrong based of that which he values, and to whom values belong. The proper recipient of ethics is not society, but it is man himself. To deny this, is to deny reality. Democracy has the right spirit, but it says that the recipient and arbiter of ethics is society and not man himself. Democracy's flawed placement of value and ethics on society is the reason why men's minds are taken to communism. The good of society is not above the good of the individual. Some may take the true benefactor of ethics - man himself - to mean that Hedonism is the correct philosophy, but that places the recipient of ethics as man's desires. Man's values, and Man's desires are not the same, although sometimes in harmony using desires in lieu of values will lead to erroneous results.

[DougShrapnel]

An interesting dilemma always arises from the religious, when asked to think about atheism, is the claim that Man's life is meaningless without god. This is the exact opposite of reality. If Man's life exists only to serve god then Man's life is without meaning. To misalign the receipting of ethics and values to god is remove the values of Man and any meaning in Man's life. Man's life has no meaning in the context of god. In the context of god, man's life is prescribed to his whim. In the context of god, man's values are prescribed to gods values. In the context of god the recipient of ethics is not man, but is god. When god talks about what is moral, he is saying that Man's life is not his own, but belongs to god and exist solely for the good of God. It is the despair of this realization that leads men away from religion. Those who say that life is without meaning without god, are removing any real meaning in life. To say that God exists is to say that life is meaningless, it is not, as others would have you believe the other way around.

[Cooker]

My goal is simply to show that your arguement is not logically valid.

First, lets clearly state your goal. Starting with the assumption that God created the universe you wish to logically argue that God is benevolent.

[ QUOTE ]

Through reason, we can see that for a god to create a universe, and who by virtue of his creative power is necessarily self-sufficient and has no need of creatures, he has either a malevolent purpose or a kind and beneficial purpose.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first bit of this states that God must not need the universe or the creatures within it. This of course does not follow from him creating it. So I am done and have established that from sentence one you have no idea how to present a logical arguement.

Now I know what you are going to say, "creation of the universe from nothing implies blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." No it doesn't. This statement is further assuming a ranking of powers that you would give to God and puts the power "created the universe" where it needs to be so that your assumption is correct. This is begging the question not presenting a logical arguement. You are assuming he doesn't need the universe and creatures within it, in order to show that he doesn't need the universe. So I have even done you the favor of pointing out the logical fallacy in your next post.

I also know that you will say that I haven't pointed out any problem since I haven't shown a way God could need the universe or creatures within it. Well first, I don't have to since the burden of proof is on you to show that him not needing the universe logically follows from him creating the universe. However, suppose that in fact the universe is simply a pacemaker for God and that the creatures are an elaborate self-sustaining clock for the timing. So now I have done you the favor of answering your ill posed and logically void challange.

Next, you will make a nonsensical post discussing how I don't understand logic or what we are talking about, and probably call me some deragatory name or take some shot at my intelligence or maturity in the process. At which point I will wish I didn't try to help you understand logical arguements and I will never reply to you again.

Having gotten that out of the way, I have shown that your arguement contains a logical error in sentence one which is crucial to your entire arguement. I will only reply to future posts admitting that you see the flaw and honestly attempting to correct it logically or stating that it is indeed a further assumption that God doesn't need the universe or creatures within it (which I believe you will certainly have to do). Once this is conceded I will discuss the next bit. However, I will warn you now, upon a brief look over your arguement I think virtually every point you make will have to similarly be included in the assumptions and eventually the whole thing will amount to begging the question.

I am not really hopeful that I will ever post in this thread again.