Even if human accept that big sky daddy exists, human still have certain issues with morality, and what is good and bad.

Big sky daddy not solve moral problem

That's exactly what I'm telling you!
It has been solved in the midst of God's people that's why we have one spiritual government known as the GOVERNING BODY of JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES where people from all races have wholeheartedly subjected themselves without the use of weapons to intimidate anyone, what they're using is the book believed to be inspired of God for MORALITY!
So you're wrong!

Wilgrea7:
1) Human morality vs God's morality

It is commonly said, that if a God exists, then it would be the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore, we can only be good by aligning ourselves with its definition of good, and any deviation from that, would be evil.

For this position to make sense, anything, and I mean, ANYTHING, can be considered good, as long as a God says so. And even if we humans see something as subjectively good, that thing would not be objectively good except it is in line with what a God sets as good.

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad. But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

But here's the question. Are the bacteria wrong for not wanting to die? If I murder millions of them, are they somehow wrong for seeing my actions as bad?

Now let's bring God into this scenario.

If a God decides that it is moral and good to boil all first babies in hot oil till they die, and humans consider that bad, are they wrong for doing so?

Even if a God, who is the arbiter of good and bad exists, on what basis are we to say that it's definition of good and bad have to be the one we adhere to? If I choose not to boil my child in oil, that will be seen as bad as per the God's standard. But am I really wrong for not wanting to do so?

Why exactly do we need to adhere to this God's definition of right and wrong?

You have given a hypothetical suggestion that God could order that children be boiled in oil. Why not also including in your hypothetical analogy that God could order that NO child should be boiled in Oil.

I think, Jesus made it very clear by giving the second guiding rule to morality:
Love your neighbour as yourself!
Mat 5:44-45:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

In the above lies the second fundamental guide to morality by God! The above nullifies the arbitrariness of definition of what is right or wrong!

Wilgrea7:
...I'm still waiting for the proof that your God's moral laws are indeed objective and not subjective.

I have already answered this by telling you, you answered it.

Wilgrea7:
1)

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad.

But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

I believe this bold has cleared it up. For, for a law to be The Law, it must trump, surpass crush and prevail over and above all other things.

And since you are the custodian of what is good and evil, it is subjective to you, the one who prevails.

It's as simple as that!

------ ------------------------------- ------------------
So you see, it's done. I told you that I had taken the object so the shadows must follow.

Wilgrea7:

If we consider the existence of a God as the source of morality, what humans consider as right or wrong is irrelevant, just as the opinions of the bacteria in the toilet are irrelevant...

The word is "Only as relevant as is allowed or disallowed by God.

Which is why we have the concept of Appeals, High Powers, Confirmation and Affirmation of Judgement and Quashing of Judgement in this world.

Which is why you are the god (arbiter of good and evil) over the germs in your toilet, therefore it is your judgement that is supreme and only the germs you want to keep, shall be kept while the rest shall wiped away according to your will.

But I real-eyes that I am speaking from this world which belongs to God, therefore, I can understand if things are different in your supaghetti world.

TenQ:

You have given a hypothetical suggestion that God could order that children be boiled in oil. Why not also including in your hypothetical analogy that God could order that NO child should be boiled in Oil.

I think, Jesus made it very clear by giving the second guiding rule to morality:
Love your neighbour as yourself!
Mat 5:44-45:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

In the above lies the second fundamental guide to morality by God! The above nullifies the arbitrariness of definition of what is right or wrong!

Good day Sir.

I think you may have misunderstood my argument.

I'm not trying to argue for the arbitrariness of right and wrong according to the Christian God. Although I could make a strong case for it, that isn't the point I was trying to make.

It's not about what's right from our perspective... But what's right from God's perspective.

If a God thought it was right to boil children alive, by his standard which is supposed to be the highest standard, people who choose NOT to carry out the act would be considered bad.

The people who decided not to murder their children in that way would be right subjectively, but wrong objectively.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Also I think it's nice that your version of God doesn't like children being boiled alive. But that doesn't in any way prove that your God's moral standards are in any way objective.

Let me give an example

Person A believes in a God that wants humans to love each other. For person A, kindness to others is good, and wickedness is bad.

Person B believes in a God that loves violence. Person B's God says that kindness is a sin, while wickedness is good

Which one of these 2 is objectively right then? If we accept that objective morality exists, then one of these must be wrong. Maybe even both.

I talked about this in my second post here. Unless someone can prove that their God is indeed the one who created the universe, and is therefore the arbiter of good and evil, none of their claims to objective morality can be treated as objective.

Considering the nature of religions today, morality has shifted from being subjective among humans, to subjective among gods

KnownUnknown:
There is no moral dilemma. Morality is founded on the objective or goal of human welfare. That is the goal of every moral code, or should I say that is “objective morality”.

These moral codes have evolved over time as humans analyze and criticized them. Once you get rid of the god nonsense, it’s plain to see that morality evolved from the self interest of every human to protect life and property. The need for protection and cohesion also led to the moral codes applicable to groups.
When people’s intellect develop enough and those moral codes are truly beneficial , the code expand to include other groups, animals, and nature as a whole.

The whole concept of “god” guided morality was and is useful for the authorities who need to make people compliant.
The infamous saying of judaism, “the lord said”, is an example of god been used has a means for control.
Seriously, this “god” directed morality can be viewed as the farce that it is when you consider the abhorrent actions that “god” considers moral.

Stone someone to death. That’s moral according to “god”.
Rape and pillage. They deserve it according to “god”.

Morality is judged by the injury it prevents or the injury it causes to a person or people. Other than certain unscrupulous religious people, who else thinks stoning people is morally right?

Kudos Sir. You've made solid points here.

I think in respect to the “moral dilemna" i was referring to the idea by theists that in the absence of a God, morality becomes a matter of “opinion".

I agree that once we take human wellbeing as the baseline, we can make objective moral judgements in a lot of cases.

What I think I'll call a “dilemna" is a situation where someone doesn't take human wellbeing as the basis of their moral judgements, or a case where they take personal wellbeing as the basis of morality, as opposed to general or group wellbeing.

Of course introducing a God into the equation hardly solves anything, as I've shown.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these scenarios

Wilgrea7:


Good day Sir.

I think you may have misunderstood my argument.

I'm not trying to argue for the arbitrariness of right and wrong according to the Christian God. Although I could make a strong case for it, that isn't the point I was trying to make.

It's not about what's right from our perspective... But what's right from God's perspective.

If a God thought it was right to boil children alive, by his standard which is supposed to be the highest standard, people who choose NOT to carry out the act would be considered bad.

The people who decided not to murder their children in that way would be right subjectively, but wrong objectively.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Also I think it's nice that your version of God doesn't like children being boiled alive. But that doesn't in any way prove that your God's moral standards are in any way objective.

Let me give an example

Person A believes in a God that wants humans to love each other. For person A, kindness to others is good, and wickedness is bad.

Person B believes in a God that loves violence. Person B's God says that kindness is a sin, while wickedness is good

Which one of these 2 is objectively right then? If we accept that objective morality exists, then one of these must be wrong. Maybe even both.

I talked about this in my second post here. Unless someone can prove that their God is indeed the one who created the universe, and is therefore the arbiter of good and evil, none of their claims to objective morality can be treated as objective.

Considering the nature of religions today, morality has shifted from being subjective among humans, to subjective among gods

If the basis of morality of a God is not rational even to him nor can it be rationalized, then it is a pointless discussion .

TenQ:

If the basis of morality of a God is not rational even to him nor can it be rationalized, then it is a pointless discussion .

Two things

1) Rationality fails when you introduce the common theistic excuse, that "God's ways are above our ways"

2) That wasn't related to what I said about claims to objective morality, or the possible difference between human morality and God's morality

Wilgrea7:


For something to be objective, it means said thing applies, irrespective of personal opinion or sentiment. An objective standard for something would be a standard that exists irrespective of personal opinions.

I agree with everything you've said, but I would argue that "objective morality" doesn't exist. As morality is a social construct.
The more accurate word maybe intersubjective.

Wilgrea7:


Two things

1) Rationality fails when you introduce the common theistic excuse, that "God's ways are above our ways"

2) That wasn't related to what I said about claims to objective morality, or the possible difference between human morality and God's morality

If God made everything for His own purpose, then His ways are above our ways AND He is absolute with WHATEVER He does with His creations!

This is an inescapable truth!


Fela Anikulapo was said to have bought a brand new Mercedes Benz, cut it and used it to pack goods like a pickup! Then, Benz was seen as the car of the wealthy and a status symbol.
Has Fela Broken any rule?

Does it matter if EVERYONE in the world object to how Fela has mistreated "a Mercedes Benz"?

Wilgrea7:

Person A believes in a God that wants humans to love each other. For person A, kindness to others is good, and wickedness is bad.

Person B believes in a God that loves violence. Person B's God says that kindness is a sin, while wickedness is good

Which one of these 2 is objectively right then? If we accept that objective morality exists, then one of these must be wrong. Maybe even both.

How can both be correct?

How can one Commander say "go" and the same 'say" come?

Is "go", come?

Or is "come", go?

Only One can Rule, which is why we say 2 elephants are fighting,

TenQ:

If God made everything for His own purpose, then His ways are above our ways AND He is absolute with WHATEVER He does with His creations!

This is an inescapable truth!

Fela Anikulapo was said to have bought a brand new Mercedes Benz, cut it and used it to pack goods like a pickup! Then, Benz was seen as the car of the wealthy and a status symbol.
Has Fela Broken any rule?

Does it matter if EVERYONE in the world object to how Fela has mistreated "a Mercedes Benz"?

He is not here for Truths. He is just here for an unending argument (unless you agree with him) to blaspheme The Lord as prophecied!

So this serves no purpose.

Dtruthspeaker:


He is not here for Truths. He is just here for an unending argument (unless you agree with him) to blaspheme The Lord as prophecied!

So this serves no purpose.

I think he has built a god in his own image and this is the Strawman he presents as representing God the Creator!

It's a waste of time!

Shalom!!

TenQ:

If God made everything for His own purpose, then His ways are above our ways AND He is absolute with WHATEVER He does with His creations!

This is an inescapable truth!


Fela Anikulapo was said to have bought a brand new Mercedes Benz, cut it and used it to pack goods like a pickup! Then, Benz was seen as the car of the wealthy and a status symbol.
Has Fela Broken any rule?

Does it matter if EVERYONE in the world object to how Fela has mistreated "a Mercedes Benz"?

It feels like we're arguing 2 different things at this point. At no point in this discussion did I say a God could not do with it's creation as it pleased. You're accusing me of strawmanning, but it seems to be you who's committing the very thing you accuse me of.

I made 2 points. One about human vs God's morality. I never said anything about anyone objecting. I made reference to how something can be subjectively right and objectively wrong as per the example I gave.

The next point I made, was about proving objective morality, at least in respect to a God. You've dodged the question twice now, and now you're going on to say I'm the one creating god in my own image?

When did I make any such assertions? All I said was opinions among gods in respect to morality remain opinions until someone can prove that a specific deity is indeed the creator of the universe, and hence the arbiter of the objective moral laws.

So far you've failed to address it. If you want to accuse me of something, at least get the facts right. No offense

Dtruthspeaker:


How can both be correct?

How can one Commander say "go" and the same 'say" come?

Is "go", come?

Or is "come", go?

Only One can Rule, which is why we say 2 elephants are fighting,

Can you kindly show me where I said both can be correct? If it were someone else now, you'd be foaming at the mouth calling the person a lying snake and whatnot.

Wilgrea7:
Hello again everyone.

So I think it's about time the issue of morality be properly addressed.

One recurring statement I see theists make, is that without the existence of a God, then morality, or better still, the definitions of right and wrong would be subjective, or a mere matter of opinion.

It is believed that somehow, the existence of a God, would make the issue of morality more straightforward. I beg to differ.

Whether or not we assume a God exists, we still run into a number of problems.

I'm going to take some examples given to me by theists here, as well as some examples of my own, to show why the existence of a God doesn't really answer the questions of morality

This your logic is impossible to confirm. Every single society in this world stands on a religious foundation. Much of our laws and societal expectations with set by religions systems.
For more than 95% of recorded history, human laws, rules and standards were set by religion in every single society.

tctrills:

This your logic is impossible to confirm. Every single society in this world stands on a religious foundation. Much of our laws and societal expectations with set by religions systems.
For more than 95% of recorded history, human laws, rules and standards were set by religion in every single society.

Even if your claims are taken as true, your conclusion is still wrong. Aren’t religions man-made?

Human laws, rules, and standards were set and are set by humans.

Ifa can give divinations but the divinations still has to come out of the mouth of a man.

Allah can say it’s okay for Boko Haram to do what they do but we have to take Boko Haram’s word for it.

The Arabs said the Quran was sent by Allah but we only have their opinion.

The Hebrews say their god created the world but we are yet to confirm it from the mouth of their god.

The reason why religions had so much sway in early human history is probably because the people who were in charge of observing the heavens and helping to decide sowing and reaping period and thereby create civilization were the ones who organized themselves as Priests and founded religion in order to control said people. For more than 95% of recorded history, human laws, rules and standards were set by religion in every single society and religion is created by humans.

Wilgrea7:


Kudos Sir. You've made solid points here.

I think in respect to the “moral dilemna" i was referring to the idea by theists that in the absence of a God, morality becomes a matter of “opinion".

I agree that once we take human wellbeing as the baseline, we can make objective moral judgements in a lot of cases.

What I think I'll call a “dilemna" is a situation where someone doesn't take human wellbeing as the basis of their moral judgements, or a case where they take personal wellbeing as the basis of morality, as opposed to general or group wellbeing.

Of course introducing a God into the equation hardly solves anything, as I've shown.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on these scenarios

Well, that dilemma is with us for the foreseeable future as long as mankind can’t accept that it’s just a infinitesimal and temporary event in the big scheme of things. They say the universe has existed for 13.4 billion of our years. Mankind appeared on the scene 280,000 years ago and claim the whole thing was made for them. We are fucking crazy.

Wilgrea7:


Kudos Sir. You've made solid points here.

I think in respect to the “moral dilemna" i was referring to the idea by theists that in the absence of a God, morality becomes a matter of “opinion".

Morality is a manner of opinion. It's my opinion that human wellbeing is the foundation of morality and just because it probably is doesnt mean that every one will have the same opinion. If everyone could be made to realize that it is the most beneficial opinion there would be no need for gods. There is no morality in nature as far as we can tell. Nature takes its course whether it beneficial to life or not. The state of nature is fundamentally amoral. A coalition of lions can take over a pride and kill all the infants in order to bring the lionesses to heat and further their own lineage. There is nothing inherently wrong with it because that's how those particular organism function and they seem physiologically incapable of acting otherwise. A man can kill a child and impregnate the mother in order to further his own lineage. There is nothing inherently wrong with that except humans have decided that such behavior is inconducive to human well being and social cohesion. Morality is borne out of the human capacity to live unlike other animals due to our physiology.

Wilgrea7:

I agree that once we take human wellbeing as the baseline, we can make objective moral judgements in a lot of cases.

It's my opinion that the improvement of humanity's well-being is the highest ideal possible. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by many either through nature or nurture. Humanity is cursed with the knowledge of our own eventual death and the capacity to ask why the world exists but the answer to the question is unpalatable to many. Therefore God. Since god is the reason for everything, god has to be the reason why they have to act a certain way because that's how they get meaning from world that often appears meaningless and hostile. That won't change in the foreseeable future.

KnownUnknown:


Even if your claims are taken as true, your conclusion is still wrong. Aren’t religions man-made?

Human laws, rules, and standards were set and are set by humans.

Ifa can give divinations but the divinations still has to come out of the mouth of a man.

Allah can say it’s okay for Boko Haram to do what they do but we have to take Boko Haram’s word for it.

The Arabs said the Quran was sent by Allah but we only have their opinion.

The Hebrews say their god created the world but we are yet to confirm it from the mouth of their god.

The reason why religions had so much sway in early human history is probably because the people who were in charge of observing the heavens and helping to decide sowing and reaping period and thereby create civilization were the ones who organized themselves as Priests and founded religion in order to control said people. For more than 95% of recorded history, human laws, rules and standards were set by religion in every single society and religion is created by humans.

Again you are wrong. No religion is manmade.
Mohammed saw an angel
Jesus Christ was the son of God.
All religions have a spiritual origin.

tctrills:

Again you are wrong. No religion is manmade.
Mohammed saw an angel
Jesus Christ was the son of God.
All religions have a spiritual origin.

Mohammed saw an angel says Mohammed or the person who wrote the story.

Jesus Christ was the son of god says the writers and editors of the story

All religions have spiritual origin created by people.

All religions are manmade.
All of human culture is man made.
All gods are man made.
Your god is manmade.

If I were wrong, the gods would holler. However, they remain silent in their nonexistent emails. Whatever the “the lord says” will forever come punt of the mind of man until man is no more and if man is no more, all the man made gods are no more.

The only “God” is the universe that generated us and that we are a part of and that is forever as far as we are concerned.
The puny gods “created heavens and the earth”, but wise ones know there is no difference between the earth and the heavens. Stand on the surface of Mars and we are part of the heavens. Stand on the surface of Earth and Mars is part of the heavens.

tctrills:

Again you are wrong. No religion is manmade.
Mohammed saw an angel
Jesus Christ was the son of God.
All religions have a spiritual origin.

Lol, Jesus claimed he was the son of God while Mohammed says Jesus was just a prophet.
Why does God seem to tell these prophets different things? Isn't he supposed to be straightforward??

And why should we base our morality on spirits that do not even seem to agree with themselves?

Wilgrea7:



It feels like we're arguing 2 different things at this point. At no point in this discussion did I say a God could not do with it's creation as it pleased. You're accusing me of strawmanning, but it seems to be you who's committing the very thing you accuse me of.

I made 2 points. One about human vs God's morality. I never said anything about anyone objecting. I made reference to how something can be subjectively right and objectively wrong as per the example I gave.

The next point I made, was about proving objective morality, at least in respect to a God. You've dodged the question twice now, and now you're going on to say I'm the one creating god in my own image?

When did I make any such assertions? All I said was opinions among gods in respect to morality remain opinions until someone can prove that a specific deity is indeed the creator of the universe, and hence the arbiter of the objective moral laws.

So far you've failed to address it. If you want to accuse me of something, at least get the facts right. No offense

Your first Point:
Humans don't have any morality outside God's yardstick of morality. Human morality doesn't exist: we don't set the rules QED!

You seem not to get the point!

Humans have NO SAY in what is Moral or not. It doesn't depend on his rationale or rationality as it all depends on God to set His standard.

Simple Example:
Sex outside marriage is a VIOLATION of Gods moral standard.

Now, as humans, we want to rationalize to say:
Sex should be okay
1. When it is by freely consenting adults
2. When neither party is harmed
3. When both are in love
4. When there is protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancies

Unfortunately, all these even though good does not invalidate the fact that sex outside marriage is a violation of Gods moral code.

When it comes to moral codes, sorry, you have no say in the matter.

Your Second Point:
Since you know that by Description of the Creator God by Christians, He is immaterial, Conscious, Intelligent, timeless and infinitely powerful, how do you intend to "Measure/Detect Him". Do you suppose that God can be dragged into the laboratory?

It is sufficient to know that
1. Infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
2. The Universe and everything called matter, time and space had a beginning
3. Order from Data and Instructions are products of an intelligent mind

Then, Ask yourself if God doesn't Exist!

AuthenticKing:


Lol, Jesus claimed he was the son of God while Mohammed says Jesus was just a prophet.
Why does God seem to tell these prophets different things? Isn't he supposed to be straightforward??

And why should we base our morality on spirits that do not even seem to agree with themselves?

I said all these religions have a spiritual origin, I never said all are correct.
Just as in our moral lives, there are many incorrect principles, it's same for the spiritual.

My point remains that every single human civilization takes root in religion.
Religion remains our first teacher and all our modern laws still retain much of the religious foundation even in every so called nonreligious nation.

KnownUnknown:


Mohammed saw an angel says Mohammed or the person who wrote the story.

Jesus Christ was the son of god says the writers and editors of the story

All religions have spiritual origin created by people.

All religions are manmade.
All of human culture is man made.
All gods are man made.
Your god is manmade.

If I were wrong, the gods would holler. However, they remain silent in their nonexistent emails. Whatever the “the lord says” will forever come punt of the mind of man until man is no more and if man is no more, all the man made gods are no more.

The only “God” is the universe that generated us and that we are a part of and that is forever as far as we are concerned.
The puny gods “created heavens and the earth”, but wise ones know there is no difference between the earth and the heavens. Stand on the surface of Mars and we are part of the heavens. Stand on the surface of Earth and Mars is part of the heavens.

Now I don't see the sense in your early statements. The fact that Jesus Christ and Mohammed did not record their experiences but rather had others do it for them does not mean it did not happen.

tctrills:

Now I don't see the sense in your early statements. The fact that Jesus Christ and Mohammed did not record their experiences but rather had others do it for them does not mean it did not happen.

My point is people say things but these things are not necessarily true.
So maybe Mohammed said an angel appeared to him in a cave but that is meaningless to a person that regards angels as fiction.
Maybe Jesus existed and said he was the “son of god” but that is meaningless to a person that regard gods as fiction.
If you say miracles exist in your religious stories then those miracles should be possible in the present time.
If you make an extraordinary claim you better bring extraordinary evidence.

So, they can say Jesus was the “son of god” but if his father is as real as the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder, what does “son of god” mean except bullshit?

Wilgrea7:
1) Human morality vs God's morality

It is commonly said, that if a God exists, then it would be the arbiter of good and evil, and therefore, we can only be good by aligning ourselves with its definition of good, and any deviation from that, would be evil.

For this position to make sense, anything, and I mean, ANYTHING, can be considered good, as long as a God says so. And even if we humans see something as subjectively good, that thing would not be objectively good except it is in line with what a God sets as good.

Now, on to my example. This was given to me by a brilliant Christian here, by the name of TenQ. He made reference to a toilet owner, and the germs of a toilet.

If I, the toilet owner, decides to disinfect my toilet, I will be killing millions of bacteria. To me, disinfecting my toilet is good. To the bacteria, it is clearly bad. But assuming I'm the arbiter of good and evil, my moral standards trump that of the bacteria.

But here's the question. Are the bacteria wrong for not wanting to die? If I murder millions of them, are they somehow wrong for seeing my actions as bad?

Now let's bring God into this scenario.

If a God decides that it is moral and good to boil all first babies in hot oil till they die, and humans consider that bad, are they wrong for doing so?

Even if a God, who is the arbiter of good and bad exists, on what basis are we to say that it's definition of good and bad have to be the one we adhere to? If I choose not to boil my child in oil, that will be seen as bad as per the God's standard. But am I really wrong for not wanting to do so?

Why exactly do we need to adhere to this God's definition of right and wrong?

I love this topic so much that I don't even know the best way to reply.

But, the answer to this question is that the humans who wrote holy books made up these laws themselves, they made it to suit their desires, they made the laws to suit their culture, etc. As KnownUnknown wrote,"God said" was used (and still used) as a scheme to control people, to promote personal opinions, etc.

And sorry for deviating a bit from the thread,
Among all religions, Christianity seems to be at the forefront of trying to present their God as the best basis for morality. They successfully capitalized on Judaism, introduced Jesus as a "fulfiller of the laws" by trying to change the barbaric laws of the Jewish God and providing us with the sentiments of death and resurrection to appeal to our emotions. But that doesn't still prove anything. In a sane society that tries to promote human affairs (which Christianity claims Jesus teaches), we can't use the death of a man to atone for the evil actions of others. A victim can't die for the offense of his offender, not to talk of a man who had the power to save himself from death dying for the crimes of others. It's completely erroneous.
At the same time, Jesus always had this idea that there will be last days where he would come back and the whole world will be destroyed bringing justice to the wicked and then believers would be in a better place. History shows that things have only been better when humans have decided it was time for it to.
There were teachers, philosophers, cultures, etc who promoted the morals that Christians say Jesus gave as an objective standard before Jesus came, and yet these people claim objective standard came from their God.
There are some animals that naturally exhibit sympathy and love for fellow animals, there were no gods telling them that it's right to love one another. This is basically for those who say that we humans can never think of something good without God telling us so.

The thing is that humans have always created morality and in most parts of the world, we base our morality on what could advance human affairs. Many even extend it to animals and the rest of nature. The holy books, seem to be an attempt for humans to create laws that would better guide humans but as we can see, they haven't really done so well.

tctrills:

I said all these religions have a spiritual origin, I never said all are correct.
Just as in our moral lives, there are many incorrect principles, it's same for the spiritual.

My point remains that every single human civilization takes root in religion.
Religion remains our first teacher and all our modern laws still retain much of the religious foundation even in every so called nonreligious nation.

No. There were laws that guided humans before religions came, religions borrow their morality from the morals already created by humans and capitalize on them. Religions ain't our first teacher, we humans are.

AuthenticKing:


In a sane society that tries to promote human affairs (which Christianity claims Jesus teaches), we can't use the death of a man to atone for the evil actions of others. A victim can't die for the offense of his offender, not to talk of a man who had the power to save himself from death dying for the crimes of others. It's completely erroneous..

Erroneous? Brother, you misspelled ridiculous. If Christianity was really about bettering human affairs, the Catholic Church would be more powerful than it currently is. The period when the CC and Christianity held away in Europe is known as the “dark ages”. Is Africa, now in the throes of Christianity and the disgusting Arab nonsense, not experiencing its “dark
ages”?

AuthenticKing:

No. There were laws that guided humans before religions came, religions borrow their morality from the morals already created by humans and capitalize on them. Religions ain't our first teacher, we humans are.

Do you have any evidence of human law before religion or is it just what you believe? From Egyptian to Babylonian and other civilizations we have founded on religion

KnownUnknown:


Erroneous? Brother, you misspelled ridiculous.

Lol, it's both erroneous and ridiculous

KnownUnknown:


My point is people say things but these things are not necessarily true.
So maybe Mohammed said an angel appeared to him in a cave but that is meaningless to a person that regards angels as fiction.
Maybe Jesus existed and said he was the “son of god” but that is meaningless to a person that regard gods as fiction.
If you say miracles exist in your religious stories then those miracles should be possible in the present time.
If you make an extraordinary claim you better bring extraordinary evidence.

So, they can say Jesus was the “son of god” but if his father is as real as the leprechaun sitting on my shoulder, what does “son of god” mean except bullshit?

The truth in religion does not take away individual believe.
If you don't believe then it's meaningless to you.
But back to my earlier point, all our laws and regulations that guide modern society are rooted in religion.

tctrills:

The truth in religion does not take away individual believe.
If you don't believe then it's meaningless to you.
But back to my earlier point, all our laws and regulations that guide modern society are rooted in religion.

And religion has a “spiritual” origin. But guess who created the “spiritual”.