tevinsolt:

I already answered your question, I'll do it one more time. If the God in the bible goes against his own moral code, there would be consequences, this would affirm the justness of God but not his perfect character or it could just be that God is willing to take upon himself the punishment of his creations to provide redemption at the same time satisfy justice, this way his perfect character, justness is upheld. A God that would go against his moral codes without, and punish his creations is a tyrant and a flawed God.

You certainly took your sweet time about it.

Okay. Your position is that God defines morality and He defines it in such a way that it is binding on Himself, so that He will have an incentive to not be immoral.

Firstly, I don't think that if God is the one who defines morality, the morality which He defines is an objective one. I said this earlier. Some of the reasons I think so are that

1. God is conscious and consciousness is subjective. It is difficult to see how a God with a subjective consciousness can decide what an objective morality is. Morality, having originated from His mind, cannot be objective.

2. I also said this earlier, what happens where there are two Gods (imagine something like the holy trinity) and each God has a different morality?

Secondly, and more to your point, I see a paradox when you say that God, because He is good, makes morality binding on Himself to prevent Himself from going bad. Is God all good or not? If He is not all good, what sort of morality has He defined? Provided the objective morality we speak of is one which is the encapsulation of all that is good, such a God could hardly have defined it.

What say you?






I notice that you don't capitalize properly when you use "his" to refer to God. I hope you are not one of these two a penny atheists on nairaland.

PastorAIO:


I think 'Doing mathematics' can be full of human error. That doesn't mean that mathematics is itself inconsistent. If there were no such thing as human error in mathematics then we wouldn't need people to check out our maths and make corrections. e.g teachers and peers.

I don't think we create mathematics. We discover maths.

However We do create scientific theories.

There are many instincts in Man. e.g. the Language Instinct. I believe that Mathematics is also an human instinct.

I totally agree with you in respect to "doing mathematics" and "mathematics". There is a world of difference between the two. Your illustration even makes the difference brighter.

Note that both science and maths are expressive, they try to depict the world outside ourselves. hence the use of words like 'discovery and creation' both play a role. Because we construct how we see the world.

science in turn, is an epistemological device and a type of enquiry amongst mysticism, religion etc. It is a comprehensive impersonal system.

sinequanon:


You are the only one mentioning "accuracy". You are out of your depth. We'll have to leave it there.

Ok, remove the word "accuracy" then.

tevinsolt:
Morality would only be a matter of individual or cultural opinion.

It is. I don't know what role the word "only" is playing there. Morality is a matter of "individual or cultural" opinion.

tevinsolt:
But this would mean that torturing babies for fun, rape, & child abuse are not really objectively wrong, and are only a matter of opinion.

There is no "objective wrong". And again, the word "only" is odd.

tevinsolt:
How likely is it, though, that these atrocities are not really objectively wrong? Can you live with this conclusion?

Of course I can and do live with this conclusion.

tevinsolt:
Our deepest intuitions inform us that these actions are horribly wrong.

That doesn't make it objective or independent of human judgement.

undercat:


You certainly took your sweet time about it.

Okay. Your position is that God defines morality and He defines it in such a way that it is binding on Himself, so that He will have an incentive to not be immoral.

Firstly, I don't think that if God is the one who defines morality, the morality which He defines is an objective one. I said this earlier. Some of the reasons I think so are that

1. God is conscious and consciousness is subjective. It is difficult to see how a God with a subjective consciousness can decide what an objective morality is. Morality, having originated from His mind, cannot be objective.

2. I also said this earlier, what happens where there are two Gods (imagine something like the holy trinity) and each God has a different morality?

Secondly, and more to your point, I see a paradox when you say that God, because He is good, makes morality binding on Himself to prevent Himself from going bad. Is God all good or not? If He is not all good, what sort of morality has He defined? Provided the objective morality we speak of is one which is the encapsulation of all that is good, such a God could hardly have defined it.

What say you?






I notice that you don't capitalize properly when you use "his" to refer to God. I hope you are not one of these two a penny atheists on nairaland.

Yeah I took my time, cuz I have a life, and things to do during the day
1) First off conciousness is not subjective, perspective is. I'm aware of my conciousness/existence there is no two way about it.
2) what does it have to do with anything? What happens when two people with equal abilities totally have different views on life have to live together, they either compromise or do their own thing.
3) you posed a question asking, If God is bounded by the morality he has created the way humans are bounded by it. You asked if there would be consequences If he breaks his own moral.......clearly it is you suggesting that he is not perfect. And I think I did fairly well explaining that scenario. Bible claims God is holy, Righteous, eternal. What he expects of us is in accordance with his being/essence. God cannot behold sin, wages of sin is death, but cause of his love and mercy, he himself paid the price to "offer" those who will recieve it a way out of condemnation and be presented spotless without blemish. This is the fundamental message of the bible.

tevinsolt:


Did you make a point? cause I didn't get it.

No, you made the point!

tevinsolt:


I'm saying we only get to do what we want for a short period in our existence, after that the soul goes back to the creator and he has the final say on what happens then. to answer your question, no it doesn't mean humans aren't bound by "my" God's moral laws.

What if the person doesn't want to go to your God's heaven?

Kay17:


I totally agree with you in respect to "doing mathematics" and "mathematics". There is a world of difference between the two. Your illustration even makes the difference brighter.

Note that both science and maths are expressive, they try to depict the world outside ourselves. hence the use of words like 'discovery and creation' both play a role. Because we construct how we see the world.

science in turn, is an epistemological device and a type of enquiry amongst mysticism, religion etc. It is a comprehensive impersonal system.

I don't agree with you when you say that science and maths 'try to depict the world outside ourselves'. Science,yes. But not mathematics. Mathematics is a world all unto itself. You can do maths without any regard for what pertains in the world. It is a fortuitous coincedence that the the world seems to work according to mathematics. But you don't need to observe the world before you can make mathematical discoveries. Discoveries are not created by us. They are there whether we discover them or not.

I also do not think that you can class science and mysticism and religion as different epistomeoligcal devices. especially religion. I think religion is a totally different affair from epistemological enquiry. It can employ science but it is the same kind of thing as science.

PastorAIO:


I don't agree with you when you say that science and maths 'try to depict the world outside ourselves'. Science,yes. But not mathematics. Mathematics is a world all unto itself. You can do maths without any regard for what pertains in the world. It is a fortuitous coincedence that the the world seems to work according to mathematics. But you don't need to observe the world before you can make mathematical discoveries. Discoveries are not created by us. They are there were we discover them or not.

I also do not think that you can class science and mysticism and religion as different epistomeoligcal devices. especially religion. I think religion is a totally different affair from epistemological enquiry. It can employ science but it is the same kind of thing as science.

A quick aside.

Mathematics is actually a language albeit a natural language. And just like all languages which are worlds in themselves. But above all, means of communication.

As regards religion and mysticism, they both have degrees of inquiries within them even though they might not be of an empirical nature

tevinsolt:

Yeah I took my time, cuz I have a life, and things to do during the day

I'm sure you do, but for a while it was not clear what your answer was:

tevinsolt:

If a God pays no heed to the moral law he has set, I don't think he would care if his creation do as they wish. the moral responsibility we have is a reflection of God's being and character.

tevinsolt:

it perfectly does, of course there would be no consequence, and I'm sure we his creation wouldn't have any moral code to uphold. Everything is allowed.

tevinsolt:
If the God in the bible goes against his own moral code, there would be consequences,

It's okay, anyway.

1) First off conciousness is not subjective, perspective is. I'm aware of my conciousness/existence there is no two way about it.

Really? I'm not saying that the existence of consciousness is subjective. I'm aware of my consciousness too.

2) what does it have to do with anything? What happens when two people with equal abilities totally have different views on life have to live together, they either compromise or do their own thing.

The point is about who gets to be the moral arbiter between them. Whose morality gets to be objective?

3) you posed a question asking, If God is bounded by the morality he has created the way humans are bounded by it. You asked if there would be consequences If he breaks his own moral.......clearly it is you suggesting that he is not perfect. And I think I did fairly well explaining that scenario...etc

You did do a good job. However, it's one thing to be capable of sin and another thing for one's sin to have consequences. You may have noticed that the bible's God does do things that would be considered sinful if done by man, such as getting jealous or allowing the sun to go down on his anger.

thehomer:


What if the person doesn't want to go to your God's heaven?

Hell is separation from God. There the person can rebel all they like it won't mean a damn thing.

tevinsolt:

Hell is separation from God. There the person can rebel all they like it won't mean a damn thing.

So it is merely separation from your God? Well that's better than those who say it is fire and brimstone.
If a person doesn't care about being separated from your God and doesn't want to be a reflection of your God. Does this mean the person isn't bound by him? Since it appears that being with your God after death is the reason for being bound by him.

.

thehomer:


So it is merely separation from your God? Well that's better than those who say it is fire and brimstone.
If a person doesn't care about being separated from your God and doesn't want to be a reflection of your God. Does this mean the person isn't bound by him? Since it appears that being with your God after death is the reason for being bound by him.

hell is said to be a place of fire and brimstone and a place of utter darkness. You didn't create yourself so you don't get to decide and you don't live even in this life recklessly thinking that breaking the law won't land you in Jail, how much more the person who created the universe and your being? Justice ultimately will be served, all things done in the dark will be brought to light, those who never had justice while alive, would after death.

Kay17:


A quick aside.

Mathematics is actually a language albeit a natural language. And just like all languages which are worlds in themselves. But above all, means of communication.

As regards religion and mysticism, they both have degrees of inquiries within them even though[b] they might not be of an empirical nature[/b]

I would say mathematics was more Rational rather than Empirical.


Rationalism vs. Empiricism
First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Thu Mar 21, 2013
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You can make advances in Maths that have no connection to reality as perceived by the senses.

It is the Scientific Method that insists on observation and experimentation. All maths requires is a tight Q.E.D.

PastorAIO:


I also do not think that you can class science and mysticism and religion as different epistomeoligcal devices. especially religion. I think religion is a totally different affair from epistemological enquiry. It can employ science but it is the same kind of thing as science.

To further elaborate, I think Religion is being used very loosely and we might not be sure of what we are saying. I'd like to make a rigorous definition of religion as something that helps us gratify our most fundament urges.

In order to work religion must identify what these urges are and how they are to be best gratified.

This would require an inquiry into human psychology and motivations, as well as an inquiry into the world and the context in which humans find themselves. The method of gratification is then developed according to the findings.

As creatures faced with choices religion must make a study of Morality (i.e. an evaluation of our options some of which will be classified as Bad and others would be classified as good and just a few will be classified as Ideal. Ideal is the greatest and highest good.), and pursuit of Moral Ideals will yield the greatest gratification.

PastorAIO:


I would say mathematics was more Rational rather than Empirical.


Rationalism vs. Empiricism
First published Thu Aug 19, 2004; substantive revision Thu Mar 21, 2013
The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

You can make advances in Maths that have no connection to reality as perceived by the senses.

It is the Scientific Method that insists on observation and experimentation. All maths requires is a tight Q.E.D.

That is why I see it as a language, but it does not quite fit in with rationalism; because at the base of rationalism is the belief in innate knowledge which feeds us with information which we otherwise wouldn't have. Neither does it fit in with empiricism because like all languages, they are hardly informed by external experience.

PastorAIO:


To further elaborate, I think Religion is being used very loosely and we might not be sure of what we are saying. I'd like to make a rigorous definition of religion as something that helps us gratify our most fundament urges.

In order to work religion must identify what these urges are and how they are to be best gratified.

This would require an inquiry into human psychology and motivations, as well as an inquiry into the world and the context in which humans find themselves. The method of gratification is then developed according to the findings.

As creatures faced with choices religion must make a study of Morality (i.e. an evaluation of our options some of which will be classified as Bad and others would be classified as good and just a few will be classified as Ideal. Ideal is the greatest and highest good.), and pursuit of Moral Ideals will yield the greatest gratification.

It is extremely difficult to define religion because the same fundamental urges that feed it, are the same that feed the founding of philosophies. Ethics itself, is more properly a philosophic subject than a religious one, because more thought and energy is given to it by philosophy. Same goes with the contemplation given to human existence and condition. Except we concede that religions are essentially philosophies.

I as a person prefer a traditional definition to religion. An necessary attachment to the divine with a connecting complex system of beliefs to which the masses of people subject themselves to.

Otherwise, we find ourselves with absurd definitions as such given by sinequenon to condemn the entire spectrum of atheism and agnosticism to the plainness of religion.

tevinsolt:


hell is said to be a place of fire and brimstone and a place of utter darkness. You didn't create yourself so you don't get to decide and you don't live even in this life recklessly thinking that breaking the law won't land you in Jail, how much more the person who created the universe and your being? Justice ultimately will be served, all things done in the dark will be brought to light, those who never had justice while alive, would after death.

Mr Tevinsolt,

Is this a moral justification or a legal justification?

Kay17:


Mr Tevinsolt,

Is this a moral justification or a legal justification?

It is moral justification, you can call it a legal justification in some sense. God created the universe and all that's is in it, so he is sovereign. Many of the laws around the world are based on what is moral but not all though.

Kay17:


It is extremely difficult to define religion because the same fundamental urges that feed it, are the same that feed the founding of philosophies. Ethics itself, is more properly a philosophic subject than a religious one, because more thought and energy is given to it by philosophy. Same goes with the contemplation given to human existence and condition. Except we concede that religions are essentially philosophies.

I as a person prefer a traditional definition to religion. An necessary attachment to the divine with a connecting complex system of beliefs to which the masses of people subject themselves to.

Otherwise, we find ourselves with absurd definitions as such given by sinequenon to condemn the entire spectrum of atheism and agnosticism to the plainness of religion.

I think categorizing life into religion, philosophy, science, psychology etc etc is very artificial, contrived and impractical. They all overlap. The bottomline is that we arrive in the world experiencing a great deal of urges and pressures and we are faced with choices and we need to make the RIGHT CHOICE.

A religious man seeks to live a RIGHTEOUS LIFE.
A philosopher seeks to live THE GOOD LIFE.

All are synonyms for the same thing. It is the basic existential problem of existence that they all address.

To say that Ethics is more properly a philosophic pursuit than a religious one is to fall into the trap that these contrived categorisations sets up.
Philosophy also addresses religion and religious matters.

Your traditional definition of religion as ...

An necessary attachment to the divine with a connecting complex system of beliefs to which the masses of people subject themselves to.

....Leaves out Buddhism, Jainism and a host of other religions.
Not to mention philosophies that address divinities and have a complex system of beliefs, e.g. Confucianism.

Otherwise, we find ourselves with absurd definitions as such given by sinequenon to condemn the entire spectrum of atheism and agnosticism to the plainness of religion.

I believe that Sinequanon finds it so easy to come up with these 'absurdities' precisely because this distinction of religions and philosophies etc is itself an absurdity.

They are all attempts to address certain basic existential questions. And to that extent they are the same thing.

Kay17:


That is why I see it as a language, but it does not quite fit in with rationalism; because at the base of rationalism is the belief in innate knowledge which feeds us with information which we otherwise wouldn't have. Neither does it fit in with empiricism because like all languages, they are hardly informed by external experience.

I agree that it is a kind of language, but I also happen to believe that Language is innate. There are linguists who have argued this and I agree with steven PInker.

The Language Instinct is a 1994 book by Steven Pinker, written for a general audience. Pinker argues that humans are born with an innate capacity for language. He deals sympathetically with Noam Chomsky's claim that all human language shows evidence of a universal grammar, but dissents from Chomsky's skepticism that evolutionary theory can explain the human language instinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

I also believe that Mathematics, as a language, is something that is innate. you don't have to physically show a child that 2 apples joined to 2 other apples will result in 4 apples. Instinctively it makes sense to us that 2 of anything plus 2 more results in 4. And we can continue to explore this manner of cogitation without any recourse to objective reality. Just by exploring the process in our minds. This is why I say that Maths is Rational not Empirical.

tevinsolt:


hell is said to be a place of fire and brimstone and a place of utter darkness. You didn't create yourself so you don't get to decide and you don't live even in this life recklessly thinking that breaking the law won't land you in Jail, how much more the person who created the universe and your being? Justice ultimately will be served, all things done in the dark will be brought to light, those who never had justice while alive, would after death.

The key phrase being "said to be". I don't think dead people would get justice that is why I believe in justice here on earth.

So why exactly is someone bound by God? Your parents gave birth to you but you're not bound by them are you?

tevinsolt:


It is moral justification, you can call it a legal justification in some sense. God created the universe and all that's is in it, so he is sovereign. Many of the laws around the world are based on what is moral but not all though.

My first intuition about morality is its restrictive nature. The fact I have an immense power and by its potential, I am precluded from exercising it freely. Otherwise I would inflict recognizable injustice. So in other to prevent injustice, I restrain myself.

Hence I asked if free exercise of God's power was a moral justification or not.

PastorAIO:


I agree that it is a kind of language,

but I also happen to believe that Language is innate

. There are linguists who have argued this and I agree with steven PInker.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_Instinct

I also believe that Mathematics, as a language, is something that is innate. you don't have to physically show a child that 2 apples joined to 2 other apples will result in 4 apples. Instinctively it makes sense to us that 2 of anything plus 2 more results in 4. And we can continue to explore this manner of cogitation without any recourse to objective reality. Just by exploring the process in our minds. This is why I say that Maths is Rational not Empirical.

Language is essentially an agreement on the means and codes of communication. In reference to the bolded, you must have meant the capability or capacity of language. Which is a cognitive function similar to our use of logic/reasoning. We innately have a cognitive structure, yes but it would be scary to realize English and Spanish are innate. Yet as with language, our experiences can drive it. When the Aztecs saw horses for the first time, there was no word for it in their language but they creatively invented a name for it. Same way I feel about mathematics.

PastorAIO:


I think categorizing life into religion, philosophy, science, psychology etc etc is very artificial, contrived and impractical. They all overlap. The bottomline is that we arrive in the world experiencing a great deal of urges and pressures and we are faced with choices and we need to make the RIGHT CHOICE.

A religious man seeks to live a RIGHTEOUS LIFE.
A philosopher seeks to live THE GOOD LIFE.

All are synonyms for the same thing. It is the basic existential problem of existence that they all address.

To say that Ethics is more properly a philosophic pursuit than a religious one is to fall into the trap that these contrived categorisations sets up.
Philosophy also addresses religion and religious matters.

Your traditional definition of religion as ...
....Leaves out Buddhism, Jainism and a host of other religions.
Not to mention philosophies that address divinities and have a complex system of beliefs, e.g. Confucianism.


I believe that Sinequanon finds it so easy to come up with these 'absurdities' precisely because this distinction of religions and philosophies etc is itself an absurdity.

They are all attempts to address certain basic existential questions. And to that extent they are the same thing.

I agree a great deal with the problem of definition and categorization.

thehomer:


The key phrase being "said to be". I don't think dead people would get justice that is why I believe in justice here on earth.

So why exactly is someone bound by God? Your parents gave birth to you but you're not bound by them are you?

I have answered this before I'll say it one more time. My parents gave birth to me, and all through infancy to my early adulthood, I was under their care and guidance. how much more God, I personally think it is pride asking why someone is exactly bound by God, compare your size to that of other things in the universe, your little time here on earth compared to space time. Well you were created by God, your soul and spirit returns to Him, Your decisions will determine where you'd end up after death. If there's no God Justice is meaningless, it is just delusion we've accepted to make ourselves feel better.

tevinsolt:


I have answered this before I'll say it one more time.

You may have answered something but not my question.

tevinsolt:

My parents gave birth to me, and all through infancy to my early adulthood, I was under their care and guidance.

But you're not bound by your parents in the sense that you won't necessarily do whatever they ask you to do without thinking.

tevinsolt:

how much more God, I personally think it is pride asking why someone is exactly bound by God, compare your size to that of other things in the universe, your little time here on earth compared to space time.

You think it is pride, I think it is simply exercising my ability to think that makes me ask this question. I don't see what size has to do with anything. After all, I'm bigger than ants, bacteria and atoms I'll exist longe than certain elements so I don't see what your point here is.

tevinsolt:

Well you were created by God, your soul and spirit returns to Him, Your decisions will determine where you'd end up after death.

Are you saying that one should do what God wants because you think that without God, they won't exist? Well without your parents, you won't exist so is that a good reason for you to do whatever they ask? I don't mind where I end up after death so that too isn't a reason to do what your God wants.

tevinsolt:

If there's no God Justice is meaningless, it is just delusion we've accepted to make ourselves feel better.

I disagree. In fact, I think that with God, justice is meaningless and is a delusion that religious people have accepted to make themselves feel better when they're suffering here on earth.

thehomer:


You may have answered something but not my question.



But you're not bound by your parents in the sense that you won't necessarily do whatever they ask you to do without thinking.



You think it is pride, I think it is simply exercising my ability to think that makes me ask this question. I don't see what size has to do with anything. After all, I'm bigger than ants, bacteria and atoms I'll exist longe than certain elements so I don't see what your point here is.



Are you saying that one should do what God wants because you think that without God, they won't exist? Well without your parents, you won't exist so is that a good reason for you to do whatever they ask? I don't mind where I end up after death so that too isn't a reason to do what your God wants.



I disagree. In fact, I think that with God, justice is meaningless and is a delusion that religious people have accepted to make themselves feel better when they're suffering here on earth.

I did answer your question, you only find answers in what you agree with.
Like I said, up until my early adult years, my parents served as a source of guidance. Now I'm old enough to make my own decisions. God, we can never match in essence and wisdom.

1) Exercising ability to think is being open to find out how we all got here, I'm pretty sure you've got your mind, it is your life live the way you see fit. Seriously dude ants?

2) Doing what God wants out of love is for ones good. It's all about the restoration of paradise to what it was before the first humans lost it due to sin. Only those who have gone through the renewal of their minds will be let in. Sin, death, rot, Satan will all be cast into the bottomless pit.

3) According to you, the universe doesn't have a creator, therefore we came by as a result of random chance and time, thus you and a rock on the ground, or a chicken are equal. Every day you eat that meat or fish, no that you're commiting murder, have at the back of your mind that those animals aren't getting justice.

tevinsolt:

I did answer your question, you only find answers in what you agree with.
Like I said, up until my early adult years, my parents served as a source of guidance. Now I'm old enough to make my own decisions. God, we can never match in essence and wisdom.

Are you saying that we are bound bound by God because we cannot match him in essence and wisdom?

tevinsolt:

1) Exercising ability to think is being open to find out how we all got here, I'm pretty sure you've got your mind, it is your life live the way you see fit. Seriously dude ants?

Yes ants. We're bigger than ants. You're the one who brought up something about sizes.

tevinsolt:

2) Doing what God wants out of love is for ones good. It's all about the restoration of paradise to what it was before the first humans lost it due to sin. Only those who have gone through the renewal of their minds will be let in. Sin, death, rot, Satan will all be cast into the bottomless pit.

Oh? Well I don't think it would be to my advantage to be doing what your God wants because I've seen the sorts of things that he wants and I don't like it. Secondly, are you saying that we should do what God wants because we would benefit?

tevinsolt:

3) According to you, the universe doesn't have a creator, therefore we came by as a result of random chance and time, thus you and a rock on the ground, or a chicken are equal. Every day you eat that meat or fish, no that you're commiting murder, have at the back of your mind that those animals aren't getting justice.

How does the fact of evolution make you equal to a rock or chicken? I really don't understand this leap please could you clarify?
Eating meat or fish isn't murder. Murder has an actual definition so if you want to redefine murder first state that it is what you want to do before you start.