Atheists.
Out of context: Reply #169
- Started
- Last post
- 184 Responses
- gramme0
Moth & Miko:
Do you believe in right and wrong? Where does this sense come from? Do you think it's wrong to murder, cheat, or steal? If so, then why?
A common answer I've heard to this question is that as mankind has evolved physically, we have also evolved socially. We have found systems and codes of behavior that are beneficial for all. For example, not killing other people is beneficial to the perpetuity of the human race.
OK, I can buy that idea in theory, just like I can buy socialism in theory. But when the bullet leaves the barrel, the above answers fall apart.
Ever since the beginning of recorded history, there have been moral codes. Who first made those? What evidence do we have that they evolved into place over the millions of years since the dawn of man? For those who believe morality is merely the product of social evolution, do you really believe we are improving as a global society? I think the increasing incidence of war, greed, and corruption (the two latter brought us to our current economical conundrum), says otherwise. I think in some ways, we are going backwards. I think that when we ignore the source of the moral code which to some extent is written on the heart of every man, woman, and child, we begin to forget who we are, why we are here, and how we begin to ignore external, overriding moral codes in favor of our own personal codes.
My brother was just telling me about a paper written by an atheistic scientist who is a student of evolution. This person was writing about social patterns of sex and procreation, and was discussing rape in particular. He concluded that rape is acceptable, because it is a man's natural inclination to spread his seed and ensure the perpetuation of his race. He believed that because this is our natural physical bent—to take without asking—that it is acceptable to ignore moral codes in favor of natural ones. What's next, pedophilia?
This is the "natural" conclusion of a paradigm which refuses to acknowledge God. When they metaphysical doesn't exist, there is nothing but natural law, and anything in man's nature that goes against his conscience becomes acceptable.
Though God is extra-human, above our full understanding, he is a reasonable God as shown in Scripture. When I accept that the only moral code was authored by God—a being smarter and wiser than any human ever born—then I can rest assured that said code was created for my benefit and betterment.
I'm not sure that someone maintain contact with logic and honestly claim that the above is delusion. I submit that it is delusional to believe that our natural tendencies must override any metaphysical promptings. Because I see evidence of the soul in each person by reason of the evidence above (i.e. moral code), I think that to ignore conscience and absolute truth is to de-man man and make of him an animal. And I for one, my friends, and not a fucking animal.
- Furthermore, how does defense of the poor and needy fit in with the survial of the fittest?gramme
- When and how did we decide that it is beneficial for humanity to look out for the weak?gramme
- this is a decent explanation: http://plato.stanfor…spifflink
- don't claim something doesn't work out because you don't understand itspifflink
- that's just the thing, I do believe I understand it. You will of course disagree...gramme