The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Doug Shaver]

I referred to consequences that rational people will want to avoid. I don't assume that ruthless people who happen to be in a position to force others to do their bidding are acting rationally.

[Tassman]

So? If atheism is true then why ought I care about the consent of others?

Because you are an evolved social animal living in community among other evolved social animals. If you are to do so to do so successfully, there are certain basic principles that must apply...including respect for other individuals and informed consent re sexual activities.

[lilpixieofterror]

I referred to consequences that rational people will want to avoid. I don't assume that ruthless people who happen to be in a position to force others to do their bidding are acting rationally.

[Tassman]

You are not making sense Tass, yes the death penalty was applied in the Mosaic civil code for adultery, because we no longer do that doesn't make adultery moral. Do you think adultery is moral? Things are moral or immoral despite what civil penalties we may or may not apply.

Well I certainty doubt their fidelity to Scripture.

So I guess rape and child molesting weren't that important to Him either. Christ came to fulfill and keep the law of God, and that law included prohibitions against homosexual behavior.

BTW Tass, it is the more devout Christians who study Scripture and attend services more regularly who believe that homosexuality should be discouraged - by a wide margin.

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/

Nevertheless, from your own link, 54% of US Christians think homosexuality should be encouraged.

[seer]

No Tass, the fact remains, not matter how a culture deals with it (it used to be against the law in most western countries) it is still immoral.



Remember Tass, we are Christians not Hebrews under the Mosaic legal code.


There is no rape there Tass, we have been through this. Nor is there murder, unless you think all war is murder. Unless you think the fire bombing of Dresden was murder. And remember as Christians, our moral marching orders are largely found in the New Testament. And you left out verse 25: In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Obviously these were not the commands of God.

Nevertheless, from your own link, 54% of US Christians think homosexuality should be encouraged.

No, it is not nevertheless, a higher percentage of Christians who are Biblically more literate say it should be discouraged. As those who pray more, attend services more, or who put more importance on faith in their lives. And sure, there are a lot of Biblically illiterate Christians out there.

[Mountain Man]

If atheism is true then why ought I care about the consent of others?

Because not caring will have consequences that you'll want to avoid if you're rational.

Sure, and those who are sufficiently careful, or sufficiently rich and powerful can do whatever they want without having to worry about the consequences. And why shouldn't they, if atheism is true?

I referred to consequences that rational people will want to avoid. I don't assume that ruthless people who happen to be in a position to force others to do their bidding are acting rationally.

I see, so you're begging the question.

[Mountain Man]

Because you are an evolved social animal living in community among other evolved social animals. If you are to do so to do so successfully, there are certain basic principles that must apply...including respect for other individuals and informed consent re sexual activities.

That doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. Just because there might be certain advantages to cooperating with others and regarding their consent as sacrosanct does not prove that I ought to behave in a certain way. Suppose disregarding someone's consent brings great advantages to me in the form of pleasure and material wealth with no consequences. If atheism is true then why I shouldn't I?

[Tassman]

That doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. Just because there might be certain advantages to cooperating with others and regarding their consent as sacrosanct does not prove that I ought to behave in a certain way.

As members of a social species we are instinctively altruistic and reciprocal. And finding such qualities in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

Suppose disregarding someone's consent brings great advantages to me in the form of pleasure and material wealth with no consequences. If atheism is true then why I shouldn't I?

That says more about you than anything else. Do you really believe that without your religious beliefs you would run amok on a hedonistic rampage?

[Charles]

This just shows what a philosophical dunce you are. See William Craig's "Can We Be Good Without God?"

Oh, so you could not explain it... Argument by weblink?

[Doug Shaver]

I see, so you're begging the question.

No. I would be if I were assuming my conclusion, but that isn't what I'm assuming. I'm just not assuming a proposition that is contrary to my conclusion.

Do you believe it is rational to do evil things? If you can prove that it is, then you will prove me wrong.

[Mountain Man]

As members of a social species we are instinctively altruistic and reciprocal. And finding such qualities in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.



That says more about you than anything else. Do you really believe that without your religious beliefs you would run amok on a hedonistic rampage?

That still doesn't answer the question. Just because there might be certain advantages to cooperating with others and regarding their consent as sacrosanct does not prove that I ought to behave in a certain way.

[Mountain Man]

Do you believe it is rational to do evil things?

I believe that if atheism is true then good and evil are irrational concepts. Is it evil for a loin to kill a rival? No. It's just a lion doing what comes naturally. And what is man but nothing more than an animal who happened to go down a different evolutionary path? There's nothing inherently special about us in an atheistic universe.

Source: Can We Be Good Without God

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

© Copyright Original Source

[Mountain Man]

Oh, so you could not explain it... Argument by weblink?

Try reading the essay. You might learn something.

[Doug Shaver]

I believe that if atheism is true then good and evil are irrational concepts.

Then you either don't understand atheism or don't know what it means to be rational.

Oh, and you didn't actually answer my question.

[Tassman]

That still doesn't answer the question. Just because there might be certain advantages to cooperating with others and regarding their consent as sacrosanct does not prove that I ought to behave in a certain way.

As social animals we have evolved to act with mutual reciprocity, it's a natural survival mechanism of our species. And we spell out these natural instincts in the form of laws governing our community.