Human evolution vs Genesis

[Kurieuo]

I would probably also be more agreeable with Mastermind's view, but this is something I've not thought much on.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

“ And from an atheist point of view, there are no morals. “

This is quite plainly wrong.


“ His answer is likely to say that the majority decides, but that is not good enough, as we saw with Hitler's Germany. The fact that the majority of Germans agreed with Hitler does not make it any less evil. “

Why not? What's 'ethical' can be defined as 'conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior'. If, in Germany, Hitler's actions were acceptable, then they were ethical.


“ As for the existence of values or morals, try to insult him by telling him that his opinion is worth nothing and if he gets upset, that proves your point about absolute morals existing, the very thing he was trying to deny, since you are trying to deny him the right to express his point of view. “

He values the right to voice his opinion. This has nothing to do with whether morals are absolute, because for something to be valued it doesn't need to be an objective value. The fact that many people agree on certain instances of injustice is no reason to believe that morals are absolute. In fact, the people who disagree with the majority are evidence that morals aren't unclouded by personal bias and emotion (because that's what morals are!)

Primates are social creatures, and it's no coincidence that we have a feeling of right and wrong to help us live together easier.

Also, you fail to give any sort of reason at all why a moral law giver has to be God. Your logic is terribly flawed.

I hope it doesn't look like I'm hostile or anything. Just trying to show you guys where you're wrong.

[Mastermind]

If I like to kill people and don't believe in any morals other than my own, who are you to say that you're right and I'm wrong? If we believe God decrees morals, then we can. Since in your case nobody decrees anything, your point is no more valid than the murderer's.

[Deborah]

I want to know how morels can even come into a converstation such as this when the law of biogenesis decrees that life does not come from nothing it has to come from life.
While micoevolution is proven, the fact still remains that the very first life had to have come from life. We believe it was from our living God.
So what I wonder is all this extra garb meant to cover up that we actually have something here, and that they are trying to win their arguments by confusion and theories.

[August]

“ And from an atheist point of view, there are no morals. “
This is quite plainly wrong.
“ His answer is likely to say that the majority decides, but that is not good enough, as we saw with Hitler's Germany. The fact that the majority of Germans agreed with Hitler does not make it any less evil. “
Why not? What's 'ethical' can be defined as 'conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior'. If, in Germany, Hitler's actions were acceptable, then they were ethical.

So killing 10 million civilians in Germany is morally acceptable to you, since the majority approved? And you say that the statement about the atheist point of view of no morals is wrong?

Primates are social creatures, and it's no coincidence that we have a feeling of right and wrong to help us live together easier.

So if it is no coincidence, where did it come from? Other primates don't have these feelings of right and wrong, why do humans have them?

Also, you fail to give any sort of reason at all why a moral law giver has to be God. Your logic is terribly flawed.

OK. you are in favor of mass murder if everyone approves, human feelings of right and wrong falls out of thin air, and my logic is flawed? I don't have to give any reason here, since the post was addressed to a fellow Christian. If you want reasons, then ask.

What makes your life worth living? Why should your opinion be considered worthy?

[Anonymous]

If I like to kill people and don't believe in any morals other than my own, who are you to say that you're right and I'm wrong? If we believe God decrees morals, then we can. Since in your case nobody decrees anything, your point is no more valid than the murderer's.

What makes God's morals absolute(objective)? Can they be evaluated without argument or bias from scripture?

So killing 10 million civilians in Germany is morally acceptable to you, since the majority approved? And you say that the statement about the atheist point of view of no morals is wrong?

Right. If ethics are the accepted form of conduct, and Hitler killed people and it was socially acceptable, then it was ethical. Then again, it obviously wasn't(isn't?) socially acceptable. Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?

So if it is no coincidence, where did it come from? Other primates don't have these feelings of right and wrong, why do humans have them?

But other primates do have them. Actually, lots of other animals have a... 'code of conduct' that makes it possible to live together. /And/ they're godless. The only explanation is that moral belief and behavior is possible without any divine presentation of them.

OK. you are in favor of mass murder if everyone approves, human feelings of right and wrong falls out of thin air, and my logic is flawed?

I'm part of everyone, so if everyone approves, you and I both are either in favor or tolerant towards mass murder. Human feelings of right and wrong don't fall out of thin air.

I don't have to give any reason here, since the post was addressed to a fellow Christian. If you want reasons, then ask.

Er.. alright. I figured that since you were giving 'ammo' for debate, you would try to avoid non sequiturs. I really would like reasons, though. Besides, what's 'moral law'? Obviously, there isn't any moral code that everyone follows.

What makes your life worth living? Why should your opinion be considered worthy?

Life is worth living for whatever reason I want to live for. It can change. What does my opinion need to be worthy of? I understand that Christians believe their purpose is to live for and to serve God. How is this satisfying?

[Mastermind]

What makes God's morals absolute(objective)? Can they be evaluated without argument or bias from scripture?

The fact that He creates everything. Of course, to accept this, you have to believe in God. Obviously you can't evaluate them without argument from scripture, since that would be taking an atheist(or at least a non-christian chance). It's like me stapling your eyelids shut and demanding that you prove you can see.

Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?

God is not on the same level as us. It's like me considering you a mass murderer for killing bacteria everytime you take a step. In addition, God decides when everybody dies so it doesn't matter.

But other primates do have them. Actually, lots of other animals have a... 'code of conduct' that makes it possible to live together. /And/ they're godless. The only explanation is that moral belief and behavior is possible without any divine presentation of them.

What's your point? They have instincts because God/Nature put them there to ensure their survival. But what if an atheist like Stalin realises the only thing that matters is his own well being, and discards the natural compulsions to be half-decent because it makes him weaker? Humans are sentient, and have the ability to make such a choice. You won't see animals fast or abstain from sex of their own free will. That is what I would consider moral behaviour. If instincts are the only thing that stop you from hurting, it's not morality.

Life is worth living for whatever reason I want to live for. It can change. What does my opinion need to be worthy of? I understand that Christians believe their purpose is to live for and to serve God. How is this satisfying?

Our purpose is to love God and redeem ourselves. This is achieved before you die, and if it happens early enough, you can't imagine how much better your life gets. From experience, I'd say it is far more satisfying than the few shallow social freedoms atheism grants you.

[Kurieuo]

If I like to kill people and don't believe in any morals other than my own, who are you to say that you're right and I'm wrong? If we believe God decrees morals, then we can. Since in your case nobody decrees anything, your point is no more valid than the murderer's.

What makes God's morals absolute(objective)? Can they be evaluated without argument or bias from scripture?

What makes them objective? The fact moral values are rooted in God, being apart of who God is, and therefore they are as eternal and objective as He is.

Can they be evaluated without Scripture? Yes, your conscience has born witness to them.

Kurieuo.

[Kurieuo]

Right. If ethics are the accepted form of conduct, and Hitler killed people and it was socially acceptable, then it was ethical. Then again, it obviously wasn't(isn't?) socially acceptable. Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?

You've cross the line here on this board, and have shown your position is already decided against Christianity. I encourage you to find another board, and consider yourself warned.

As for your comments, such Atheistic arguments have been responded to somewhat at http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=108.

Kurieuo.

[August]

Right. If ethics are the accepted form of conduct, and Hitler killed people and it was socially acceptable, then it was ethical. Then again, it obviously wasn't(isn't?) socially acceptable.

So was it or wasn't it right? I asked for your opinion, is your opinion it was both right and wrong?

Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?

So you believe in God? Here I was, thinking you're an atheist. Sorry. Since God created all, He has the right to deliver justice. If you look at the instances in the Bible, which I'm sure you can quote, where God delivered justice, it was in His opinion justified, and as a Christian, I accept that. God is fair, but also warns of consequences. It is at your own peril that you don't heed His warnings. Since God is the ultimate judge of right or wrong, who gave us as humans the ability to distinguish between those, we do His will, and serve Him in that way. Those that don't are ultimately judged by Him, not us, and He ultimately punishes, not us. His Word is the foundation of our laws today, and we abide by those, since they were given by Him.

As for God being excused from His own punishment, do you punish yourself if you do something wrong? Also, God is the highest authority, so He can't punish himself. However, the whole argument is moot from a Christian point of view, since God is the ultimate righteous one, whom we trust and love, and He does it right back to us. Do we sometimes question His motives and judgement? Sure we do, we are inquisitive humans, after all. Do we ever fully understand? No, I don't, nor do I think it's possible to ever fully understand. Sometimes it boils down to faith, and I'm ok with that.

But other primates do have them. Actually, lots of other animals have a... 'code of conduct' that makes it possible to live together. /And/ they're godless. The only explanation is that moral belief and behavior is possible without any divine presentation of them.

Please present your proof, 'just so' statements won't do. I have read quite a few studies on this subject, and they are inconclusive at best. Most are written by either animal activists, who wish to afford animals the same rights as humans, or evolutionists, who wish to make man equal to animals, so as to prove the non-existence of a higher power. The group behavior of animals are dictated by the wish of the strongest, and seldom contributes to every animals welfare. There is absolutely no proof that animals can distinguish right from wrong. If the leader of a baboon troop kills a baby baboon, there is no indication that he knows he did the wrong thing. There are no signs of regret in the animal kingdom in the wild, nor punishment for making a morally wrong choice. Regardless of motive, animals exhibit no empirical evidence of making moral decisions. Hierarchy, communal foraging for food, etc does not constitute moral behavior, merely co-dependence, as can be seen in any ecosystem.

Your explanation hinges on the proof that animals exhibit moral behavior, so until you can show conclusive evidence that animals behave in a moral fashion, the issue of divine intervention is moot.

I'm part of everyone, so if everyone approves, you and I both are either in favor or tolerant towards mass murder. Human feelings of right and wrong don't fall out of thin air.

Sorry P, I don't quite get your point here. How are you "part of everyone"? Are you saying that your morality is determined by what everyone else thinks? Back to Germany, would you have driven the trains to the gas chambers without feeling guilty? I must also ask for more specifics of where you think morals came from? What made the first humans moral? Again, saying merely that it was a survival technique for the purposes of community does not work. That would imply purpose, which by definition no naturalist process can include and thus points to the meta-physical.

Er.. alright. I figured that since you were giving 'ammo' for debate, you would try to avoid non sequiturs. I really would like reasons, though. Besides, what's 'moral law'? Obviously, there isn't any moral code that everyone follows.

You're right, it was a stupid answer. My apologies. To answer this, I need to reverse the order of the question. You are saying that there is obviously not a moral code that everyone follows. Well, there is no place on earth where murder is morally acceptable, or rape, or theft etc. Every society has morals, which remain the same wherever you go. I have travelled deep into rural Africa, where 'jungle justice' is served, with no influence from the outside world, yet the same moral principles were present in those communities. In essence, that is what absolute moral law means, it is the same wherever you go, like 2+2=4. And if you don't believe that every human deep down knows those things are wrong, regardless of environment or convictions, look at the pre-execution repentence of murderers. They are always unhappy and apologetic. There is no reason for them to be apologetic, since it won't make any difference to their fate. Displaying true morality at that point does not save them, yet they still do it. Why? Because they know deep down, inside their innermost being, that they were wrong. That deep conviction of wrong and right cannot be denied, nor explained by any natural process.

So back to my earlier "terribly flawed logic". We see morality all over the world, and administered in some sort of legal system of laws and punishment. Those laws were put in place by someone, i.e. a law giver or givers. Every law has to have a law giver or creator or author etc, or it simply own't exist. If we then see this absolute moral law, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, which is the same wherever we go, then that has to have a law giver too. Since the ToE states unequivically that naturalism cannot plan for a specific outcome, there has to be an explanation outside of the biological or anthropological. That explanation lies in the book that gave us all our laws in the first place, namely the Bible. Our moral obligations are neatly documented in there, and incidentally forms the basis of all Western law (You know, those things we need to do to live together. ). Since we know that the Bible is historically proven to be a true reflection of what the authors observed and experienced, by virtue of non-Biblical history, and other forensic proof, we also accept that the Bible was written through divine inspiration. That must lead us to believe that the giver of absolute moral law is God, since absolute moral law is documented there and nowhere else, and we see it all over His creation.

Life is worth living for whatever reason I want to live for. It can change. What does my opinion need to be worthy of? I understand that Christians believe their purpose is to live for and to serve God. How is this satisfying?

C'mon P, aren't you being just a little intellectually dishonest here? Your life is not just worth living for 'whatever reason'. Surely you have goals related to your personal life, career etc which stay fairly constant. I would also venture that it includes staying out of jail or off the electric chair as a fairly constant objective. Is it fear that drives you to have those goals? Love? Hate? Greed?

Serving God is immensely satisfying, you should try it sometime.

Serving God brings inner peace, patience and humility. It brings hope and deep satisfaction. It brings huge responsibility, carried out with love. It brings a non-negotiable covenant of everlasting life. It brings enlightenment, an understanding of the deeper purpose of existence, and it brings wisdom.

I encourage you to open your heart and mind, and search for the truth.

[Deborah]

Life is worth living for whatever reason I want to live for. It can change. What does my opinion need to be worthy of? I understand that Christians believe their purpose is to live for and to serve God. How is this satisfying?[

I believe that the ultimate lesson of the bible is to teach us to truly love mankind. God's word even provides the steps to achieve this. He has stated everything we need to know all we have to do is put the effort in and learn to understand exactly what his word means and tells us. Once we achieve this ultimate lesson I believe everything else god tells us to do would have already fallen under this most important lesson.
Tell me how learning to love mankind with all ones heart, mind and soul would not be satisfying?

[Anonymous]

I take it that since I've been warned, I shouldn't reply unless I agree?

[Mastermind]

You can reply as long as you don't insult us or our faith, or say we're wrong as an absolute fact. Calling God a "mass murderer" is not acceptable.

[Deborah]

Parody wrote

Right. If ethics are the accepted form of conduct, and Hitler killed people and it was socially acceptable, then it was ethical. Then again, it obviously wasn't(isn't?) socially acceptable. Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?

I am going to bite the bullet here so to speak.
Man executes man for crimes; man does not have the wisdom of God and does not have the knowledge of God.
When god passes his judgement there can be no wrong judgements because we can't hide truth from God, We can't bribe him and we can't lie our way out of it.
When god Judged Sodom, he did promise to spare them if 10 righteous people could be found. He promised to do this for the sake of the 10 righteous people, but there was not 10 righteous in Sodom. Therefore he allowed the righteous that were there to leave.
Gen 18:25-33

Far be it from You to act in this manner, to kill the righteous with the wicked. And far be it from You, that the righteous should be as the wicked. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And Jehovah said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak to Jehovah, who am but dust and ashes. Perhaps there will be five lacking from the fifty righteous. Will You destroy all the city for lack of five? And He said, If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it. And he spoke to Him yet again, and said, Perhaps there shall be forty found there. And He said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said, Oh let not Jehovah be angry, and I will speak. Perhaps there shall be thirty found there. And He said, I will not do it if I find thirty there. And he said, Lo now, I have taken upon me to speak to Jehovah. Perhaps there shall be twenty found there. And He said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh do not let Jehovah be angry, and I will speak only once more. Perhaps ten shall be found there. And He said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And Jehovah went His way as soon as He had left off talking with Abraham. And Abraham returned to his place.

If god made us, (I believe that he did) he has some say in how we live our lives, but he gave us choices and if we make the wrong choice then we have to accept the judgment and the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Not to mention a statement like that shows your lack of understanding of christianity or the bible. In fact perhaps its that you want to make such a claim without delving into the facts of the matter. Every evolutionist i talk too, simply accepts evolution without ever knowing about the alternative.
Talk about blind faith! (this is referring to what Parody said)

P.S.
Did you guys here about the the elaborate scam that an archaelogist and a group of evolutionists in Britain tried to pull in order to fill in the missing links in the human ancestry?