Question for Non-Believers

[KingMarc]

Question to all those non believers....

Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong. Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong? Don't say because it's against the law, because throughout history, there have been some laws that may seem right at the time, but in the absolute sense are wrong (example Nuremberg Laws).

[chezlaw]

Believer and non believers both have a sense of right and.

If non-believers cannot appeal to the law then believers cannot appeal to a supreme being (much the same thing really).

The question is where this sense of right and wrong comes from god/evolution etc which is the same question as where intelligent life comes from.

chez

[KingMarc]

[ QUOTE ]
\
The question is where this sense of right and wrong comes from


[/ QUOTE ]

That was essentially my question (I worded it badly). God set forth what is right and wrong..in the Ten Commandments, Noahide Laws, the Bible, etc.

People who do not believe in God, cannot believe in the above Works as that would be exactly the opposite of what they believe.

If you do not believe the Ten Commandments were given by God, then by logic, they had to have been given by man. Why, thousands of years later then, does humanity as a whole still believe that killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

If nothing Absolute said that killing is wrong, then killing would not be wrong. It is the same as Joe Schmoe saying poker is illegal, no one would listen to him. However, let us say thousands of years ago, poker was outright said to be the same as killing someone. Would there be less poker players? Yes. Would people still play poker? Yes..just like some people still murder others.

Just some thoughts

[BluffTHIS!]

Marc, there was some discussion of this in a previous thread I started which can be found here.

[chezlaw]

Evolutionists would argue that groups with moral instincts were more succesful than amoral groups. Survival of the fittest then leads to strong moral feelings even though it allows amoral individuals to florish as well.

Much the same as the instinct to nuture offspring. Where did that come from? Is there a commandment from god that the parents should defend their babies at all costs?

[ QUOTE ]
That was essentially my question (I worded it badly). God set forth what is right and wrong..in the Ten Commandments, Noahide Laws, the Bible, etc.

People who do not believe in God, cannot believe in the above Works as that would be exactly the opposite of what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not follow. Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong. Its also easy for the non-believer to argue that god is made up and the bible just layed out moral codes already accepted by man. Such a created god is sometimes refered to as the nobel lie.

chez

[lastchance]

Because evil dominates good, but I'd rather live good in a good society, than be evil in an evil one.

[[censored]]

the question of god aside. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that laws and concepts like right and wrong could advance and evolve the same way technology does. Slavery would be one such example. It follows that more destructive an act is to ability for man to form a society, murder for example, the sooner it would be deemed as "wrong".

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's what theists (claim to) do.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know that Shana Hiatt is hot?

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments just like it's designed to make judgments about sexual attractiveness. We don't need any gods to chime in with some kind of official list in either case.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists would argue that groups with moral instincts were more succesful than amoral groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really correct. The unit of selection is the gene, not the group. "Good for the group" always leads down the wrong path in evolutionary analysis.

[chezlaw]

[face saving waffle] Good point but its hard (for me anyway) to phrase an answer in terms of genes. At an imprecise level the idea is the same [/face saving waffle] [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

chez