Morality without God is impossible

Fictional.

Is this about some subset of the Bible or the whole thing, because accurate historical information does appear in some places in the Bible. For instance, there's Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem during the reign of Hezekiah. 2 Kings 18:13–19:37 contains much detail that may or may not be true, and naturally those who do not believe in God or gods completely discount the conversations with them that are described, but we know historically that Sennacherib did lay siege to Jerusalem while Hezekiah reigned.--Percy

AZ, you and the other atheists on this forum believe that
there is no difference between humans and animals.Yet, all of you have a double standard. If it is acceptable
for other animals to be serial killers; and, if it is acceptable
for mothers to eat their own offspring; then how can you
deny humans this same freedom?Since we are all just filthy animals, with brains made up
of random atoms, how do you justify holding humans to
a different standard?If a cat is caught randomly killing small creatures just for
the fun of it, should they be charged with murder? Would
they not then be serial killers?You like to criticize God of committing evil acts. But
where do you get a definition of evil? If you say that you
get if from God, that is nonsense. You do not believe in
God.Why should a human who has been found guilty of
killing humans of another race be punished if he truly
believes they are out to harm him? What if he believes
they are more fit than he?Isn't this all about survival of the fittest? Suppose he
honestly believes that others are more fit than he. How
can he be held accountable if he kills those he believes
are more fit. He wants to be the fittest.Or in the case of the Nazis, who accepted Darwin's
premise that some races are superior to others; why do
we judge them so harshly? Why was it wrong for them
to kill others races less fit than them?Social construct is simply humans knowing that we are
different. We know that we are far above mere animals.There can be no reason for the different standard that
we hold humans to in comparison to animals, other than
we know we are different than they are.We are so far above them that we know we are their
caretakers, just as God instructed us to be.This is why I volunteer at two animal shelters. This is why
I have ten cats and two dogs.Every one of them found their way to my house looking
for food and safety.They know that we are far superior to them. They are not
nearly as naive as atheists.

Who said these things are acceptable? Are you that sick?They smack too much of religious sacrifice and are abhorrent in modern morality. You think it is "freedom" to torture and kill? Do you accept these in human society? Good god, Candle2, you already have my answer to that stupidity. Read my responses. Message 371Yes, in the areas of problem solving, critical thinking, intellectual awareness, we humans are superior. But then a bear is superior in climbing trees to a fish. Bears and fish are different but they're both animals. Still, we judge tree-climbing standards different between them. One even eats its young. That doesn't alter the fact that fish, bears and humans are animals with differing controls over their instincts.So, we're different from the other animals in the same way a fish is different from the other animals. The fish's super power is to breath water. Ours is intellectual.None of that requires a god. Aristotle's rational soul is one of physio-chemical intellect, not pixie dust. There is no need nor evidence for anything majik.

Fine, but as in the parables of Jesus we can see a greater truth by understanding the mythical tale that Jesus gives us, so that we can understand a greater truth. I would say that there is no rational reason to believe that we are the result of mindlessness. If I'm not grown up at this point then it's probably too late.

quote:

---

I would say that there is no rational reason to believe that we are the result of mindlessness

---

Since you regard disagreeing with your opinions as irrational - and you have made obviously irrational claims in the past, that doesn’t mean much.I’ll trust science over the opinions of someone with a long record of promoting falsehood and misrepresentation. Not to mention boasting of the “research” he’s done which is not where evident in his claims or falsely claiming that it’s “all about the truth” - when he’s only looking for excuses to prop up his belief. Or reacting with anger when his nonsense is exposed as nonsense.(One really wonders why the “still small voice” has put in no objection to this behaviour).

That kind of put down is the most pathetic form of argument around.Out of curiosity oh wise one is the science that tells you how the scientific processes and laws came into existence.

quote:

---

That kind of put down is the most pathetic form of argument around.

---

Oh, no. The behaviour it describes is certainly more pathetic.The real point is to show that - contrary to your view - disagreeing with your opinions is often the rational position.And, of course the fact that your “still small voice” doesn’t protest shows that it is internal and quite fallible.

quote:

---

Out of curiosity oh wise one is the science that tells you how the scientific processes and laws came into existence.

---

To answer what you said they were invented by humans, obviously.To answer what you probably meant I believe that they are a consequence of a basic level of reality that simply exists. And that is as good an answer as anyone can provide.

..and that is your idea of a scientific answer.

quote:

---

..and that is your idea of a scientific answer

---

No, that’s just one of your inventions again. It’s a philosophical answer for something beyond the reach of science. So there’s another “pathetic” answer from you.

If this is The science of science is philosophy. Karl Popper, Galileo and friends. Pretty much evidence-based falsification.If this is The physical laws and processes of this universe are simply our chicken-scratchings representing what we see. That math, those models (as we overly pretentious science geeks call them), are tested and refined until they match pretty much precisely what we see so we call them laws. They don't really rule anything. They're just there to remind us of our limits ... oh, and to build a space-faring technological society set on destroying itself.There is no law giver. We have to observe, make up a reason this would happen then test the hell out of it to see if it's really real.The scientific processes and laws come into existence when us evolved monkeys think real hard for real long.I lied. There is a law giver. Us.

The world is stuffed full of stories and parables - all the world's religions have them. I asked Chat GPT to create one - it was as good as any.Why you would think a story is evidence of gods, is only explained from previous indoctrination. You believe the stories that were prevalent in the society you were brought up in. You reject the stories and parables of related religions. You even - and rightly - reject many of the stories and parables in the OT because you don't like them. The rational reason is that we know that everything we've ever discovered about the natural world and the universe as a whole does not show any evidence of supernatural involvement and at every turn we find we can reject it as an explanation. We have yet to find any evidence at all for the supernatural or any of the claims of any religious institutions. None. Oh defiantly. Luckily, your delusion is pretty harmless, the major concern is for the likes of fundamentalists like candle.​

Just because a book includes a historical event does not mean it us not mythology or fiction.

​
It's neither acceptable nor unacceptable, it just is. Animals do what evolution has required of them to survive. Or they die.In your view animals were put here as we see them now by your god which requires them to kill other of god's creation just to stay alive. Their "serial killing" behaviour is ordained by your god.So by each of our views, animals are released of any need to act by human or godly moral standards. Not so much of the filthy and random - humans are the animals that are destroying our planet and there’s nothing random about the organisation of an animal’s brain - try not to be dumber than you are.We don't hold ourselves to different moral standards to other animals, we hold no moral standards for other animals.Man is the moral animal - though several animals show behaviour that we could call moral. We, as a civilisation attempt to evolve our moral behaviours over time, we are making progress but it’s slow and not uniform. Too often the real animal side of our make-up interferes and your god is nowhere to be seen. He's not part of this process.

I'm not an atheist, but those who accept science do not believe there is no difference between humans and animals. All animal species are different from all other animal species, humans included, the degree of difference inversely proportional to their degree of genetic relatedness that is a function of their evolutionary past. All species, including human beings, behave according to their own evolved innate behavior and definitely not according to the innate behavior of other species. And there are outliers in all species. Dogs have a wide range of behavior, for instance some being aggressive and some friendly. Humans also have a wide range of behaviors, for instance most understanding that they don't have to type a carriage return at the end of each line, others not. The cleanliness habits of species range widely, and within the human species hygiene habits vary widely. In some cultures daily showers are common, while in others it can be less than once per week. In the historical past there were cultures and regions where bathing was very infrequent, for example, farms in the United States in the 1800s. The atoms are not random at all. The atoms in molecules follow the rules of chemistry, and the structure of brains is dictated by DNA. Since you said nothing true, you don't have an argument. By the logic of your question one should ask if an employee of a slaughterhouse who kills a hundred cattle a day should be charged with murder. Is he not a serial killer?You're not making any sense. I think it's more that people question why you would worship a God who committed the evil acts described in the Bible, for example, wiping out all of humanity except for one family. Our moral sense is an evolved trait that people display to varying degrees. I don't think anyone here on the science side believes that our moral sense comes from God, but many who accept the scientific explanations of origins, of the universe, of the world, of life and of human beings, believe that God is responsible for it all, that he unobtrusively puts his hand on the scales of natural processes to obtain his desired outcome. Much of the world finds United States law regarding homicide incomprehensible, e.g., stand your ground laws, laws protecting police if they believe there's a threat, etc. The idea that a person merely believing there's a threat being sufficient grounds for killing another human being makes no sense to many around the world, and even to many in this country.Recently an elderly gentleman in Kansas shot a black boy who knocked on his door by accident. He believed he was threatened by the mere presence of a black person on his doorstep. Kansas has a stand your ground law that requires that the threat assessment be reasonable. It was judged that this man's assessment was not reasonable and he was arrested for first degree assault.But the gentleman was 84, and I'm guessing that his defense at trial will be some form of mental impairment, quite common at that age. Paranoia is one symptom of dementia, and living alone can cause isolation and fear. But he shouldn't have had a gun. Issues of aging are outside the scope of this discussion, so let it suffice to say that taking away people's rights as they age, such as driving or owning a gun, is a worldwide problem. You're babbling now. Darwin's view that some human races were more advanced than others is not one that is accepted by evolutionary science today, but even Darwin viewed all races as human and killing them as murder. None of us today would regard the killing of a mentally challenged person as anything but murder.What Darwin expressed that *is* still accepted today is that species and races that are more fit for their environment will win the differential reproductive race, i.e., they will outcompete other species and races by producing more offspring.Good examples of intra-species competition are provided by lions, rams and chimpanzees (among many others). Male lions, rams and chimpanzees compete with each other for the dominance that provides primary access to females. This competition usually takes the form of physical battles where one eventually backs down. Death, while possible, is not the goal. Dominance and access to females is the goal. You seem to know many things that aren't true. What I said earlier still applies. Races and species differ from one another according to their degree of evolutionary relatedness. Again, you seem to know many things that aren't true. Looking at the state of the world today, how well do you think we're really doing as caretakers? Aren't we more exploiters, which is what the Biblical God actually instructed?

quote:

---

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
...
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”
  —Genesis 1:26, 28

---

As you feed all these animals, walk the dogs, pick up their poop, and clean the litter box, you might ask yourself which is the dominant species. Perhaps it is actually dogs and cats that domesticated humans over the past 10,000 years. --Percy