Divepen: No matter how atheist bring out researches they can never proof ...
No matter how much they try even in cars and buses whenever something bad want to happen everybody shout Jesus-even muslims

Joshthefirst:

Alfa Seltzer:

Deep Sight:

Logicboy03:


long story....

Kay 17:

Is God obliged to follow such absolute morals too?

Logicboy03:

The other guys weren't there when I needed support

wiegraf:

Yet you dared argue with me when I pointed out superman is faster than a speeding bullet? It's written there in my comics...

Deep Sight:

Well the simple point you miss is that what is being discussed here is human morality, and not nature's morality, or lack thereof.

wiki: The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so.

Deep Sight:

It is simple to see that foresight is not the same thing as deterministic control.

Deep Sight:

Not entirely. If your white blood cells were conscious, it would remain true that they live within you, and yet could never ever see you, no?

As to your revert to mine above, you are still wrong. It seems to me that you never even grasped the depth of your own statements on the other thread, for you spoke about the mind, and what it is conditioned to see. Quite simply this destroys everything that can be argued to exist or not. Howevet I am typing from a phone and will revert comprehensively once back before my laptop.

Logicboy03:



no.

wiegraf: @ihe, so god can make 1 + 1 = 3?

Deep Sight:

You bold what you wish to bold - and ignore what you wish to ignore.

Same statement again - - - see my bold - - - >



Contrast that with your statement - - - >



I hope you can now see how your position means contradicts the existence of mala in se.

The concept of mala in se devolved on the supposition that somethings are naturally and intrinsically evil.

Your declared position, is that nothing is intrinsically evil Your exact words.
_________________________________________
WARNING: Now, do not let us descend into a plaetonnish rigmarole over the words "as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community" - because that applies to every single thing we know and can say. For example, when you say there is no "natural evil", that too is a statement you can make as a product of the thinking of a civilized society. Everything we know and can discuss is a product of same. So it is a common denominator with all things that we observe, all things that can be discussed. We can only discuss things based on what we observe as members of an evolved society, so do not even go there.
_________________________________________

To simplify the discussion -

1.

"Mala in se" - presupposes the existence of natural evil

Whereas -

Mr Troll, says that there is no natural evil.

2.

If nothing is intrinsically evil, then there are no atrocities. You would have no right to be morally outraged by any atrocity, however grave. You side-stepped this point. If a million children are rounded up and amputated and then killed, you should have no sense of moral outrage: rather you should only state mechanically that it is tactically and strategically not in the interest of group survival. Why do you avoid this point?

"a malum in se offense is naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

Deep Sight:

I see the error everywhere: where people conflate knowing what you will do, with being the one to have made you do it.

Even you, a mere mortal, know some people so well, that you can accurately predict their reaction to certain situations. This does not mean that you dictated those reactions. Mere mortal human parents would often accurately predict what their children would do. Because they know the child very well.

Therefore saying that God has such a transcendent view of every component of your being, that it knows what you will do, is not the same thing as saying that it made you do it, or that it was not your choice, to do it.

Nor does this obviate the need for your own experiencing within the world: otherwise you would not be what you are.

bolaino: what do you guys seek to gain from all this?

Deep Sight: Very good.

You therefore have no right to be outraged at any "atrocity" - however grave the atrocity.

You have no right to be outraged at the rape, torture or amputation of little children, even. You say that this is NOT intrinsically immoral.

A scandalous statement, frankly.

Your only recourse is to say that it tactically and strategically is not in the interest of your society.

You can never be outraged at anything that is done - there is no basis for any moral outrage whatsoever.

Indeed - there is no such thing as an atrocity, in fact.

Well done. Your worldview is absolutely inspiring and lofty.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\- - - > Please look up the concepts of mala in se and mala prohibita

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

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

You state, that there is no such thing as mala in se.

This is your position.

wiki: The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community"

Deep Sight:

And the position of God, if it exists, as creator, resolves your conundrum.

Deep Sight:
Well let's take it slowly then.

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with genocidal ethnic cleansing?

- - - > Do you think that there is anything intrinsically morally wrong with expansionist wars?

Please answer me these, and we take it from there.

Thanks.

Mr Troll: Nothing in nature is intrinsically wrong or right. earthquakes are neither wrong or right, only how it affects us humans. yes if you murder my wife, you have not done anything intrinsically wrong, only wrong based on human moral standards of which you will be punished. i'm sure nobody will punish you if you kill a chicken...you did see where I marked Culture, Locality and Time in different colours abi? I actually anticipated this question.

Deep Sight:

Even the Abrahamic God escapes your reach of judgment so long as he is not considered to be a human being.



Does God "dictate" your morality?

Is it not the case, in fact, that you have just opened a thread where you argue that human interests dictate morality?

As such, your morality is not "dictated" by God, if it exists, is it?

It rather comes from your own mind, does it not?

God, if it exists, would be far too transcendental for me or anyone to circumscribe as moral or immoral in the human sense.

1. God, if it exists, would be higher than us.

3. As we, being higher than the lion, know that which is natural to it - - - >

4. God, if it exists, could know that which is natural to us.


In assessing this study case/ small example I have placed above, please remember that the key point is judging a non-human by human morals. As such, if we were to judge lions, we cannot judge them by human morals, can we? We can judge them by "lion morals" however.

So long as we know these "lion morals"

If God exists, it would be higher than human - and therefore know human morals (especially if it is the creator of humans), and be in a position to judge us by human morals.

Deep Sight:

1.

Why should man be interested in the future extinction of the human race?

How does it affect anyone alive today, if, 200 years from now, mankind suddenly goes extinct - say from a meteor hit, for example?

2.

If you contend that it is man's rationality and bigger brain that leads to morals, then what explains the instinct of animals who also desperately protect their young, and their families?

What makes my dog desperately protect her puppies?

Does she do this because she is trying to raise an army to protect herself?

3.

If your argument holds up, then it leads to the inevitable conclusion that killing, stealing, and the like, are not intrinsically wrong, but that it only makes better group-survival strategic sense not to do these things.

As such, if I murder your wife today, I have not done anything intrinsically wrong - I have only done something that is not wise (i.e: f.oolish) and not in the tactical and strategic interest of group-survival.

Is f.oolishness therefore immoral?

4.

Still going with your logic - your logic would render expansionist wars moral and legitimate. Your logic would also render genocidal ethic cleansing moral and legitimate - for these are acts geared towards the survival, prosperity and well-being of a group.

This would render every form of foreign imperialism, colonialism, and slavery, morally worthy and legitimate.

Deep Sight: What makes anyone think that God, if it exists, is, or should be either moral or immoral, in the human sense?

Is God, if it exists, expected to be a human being?

If you say that God does not exist, fine. But if you agree that God, if it exists, would not be a human being, then why ascribe human moral standards to it, or judge it by human morailty?

When a lion kills lion cubs in taking over a pride, do you accuse him of murder and then sentence him to the electric chair? You do not. Why? Because he is not human and has a different moral paradigm, if any at all.

You consider the lion lower than you. You agree that God, if it exists, would be higher than you. If you cannot judge that which is lower based on your human standards of morailty, how can you judge that which is higher based on your human standards of morality.

Think again.

Donmichaelz: in the recent typhoon hayen,many people where quick to question Gods love.forgeting he gave them the ability to see it two weeks before now,who should be blamed for a students failure?the teacher who gave note or the student who didnt read the note?

maryam8080: Indeed sexual exploitation (as in the form of pornographic movies and unclad pictures) should be termed and indicted as violence against humanity.

free radical: When I already believe in God y would I need a wager. It is only one that has serious doubts about God's existence that can apply the pascal's wager just incase he's wrong and there really is a God.
Really its an intelligent theory based on sound reason which I think y'all shud consider. As a christian my belief in God stems from my faith but as atheist you have lost that virtue so dont you think that if you apply this kinda reason you can eventually have a reason to believe in God?

HumbledbYGrace: Ask Ishiwawa lol

On the real, is the Op a deeper life member