The fundimental nature of good.

[McCulloch]

Is something good because God says that it is good or is something good independent of God?

I am fairly new to this forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed. Please respond with a link if this is the case.

Here is the fundamental paradox.
If good is good because God says so, then, we are living with an arbitrary God. We can have no basis to determine if something is good other than some sort of revelation from God (written, natural, spiritual or otherwise). Genocide is good when God had commanded it (read Joshua) but bad in Rwanda.

On the other hand, if good is good independent of God then God is not the ultimate source. Something morally higher than God exists.

[AlAyeti]

McCee:

"What does bother me is that so many Christians believe that it is their sacred duty to impose their belief on others."

You mean like a group of people who force the freedom of others out of the public square, because they don't believe like them?

Nausea floods me when I hear an atheist or humanist or "freethinker" mention this. Like emotional lemmings following the one and only unchallengeable paradigm far unlike the Christians that come in many varieties.

Modern science shatters humanism and atheism and cognitive dissonace is suffered by any atheist that is forced to view their totalitarianism. DNA proves personhood starts at conception. Anatomy, physiology and biology prove same sex mating is aberrant behavior and the fact that a nuclear family is of paramount importance to the mental health of people is no longer debatable. Visit any juvenile hall or prison for empirical verification! All of the positions trumpeted by un-moralists or to be fair "relativists" are crumbling before their eyes every day on the Five O'Clock news and laboratory as well.

Christians do not fear questions but like the neo-dark ages that have descended on the science community today, don't get to ask any. Any questioning of the "orthodox views of science" (that somehow change daily) must first and only come from those that nod like drunkards to those that hold absolute power. Circular reasoning is not the basis of cheap and inexperienced religious adherents any longer, it is now the exclusive property of the leftist/secular/humanist/freethinker. And why are these people right about everything? Because they are the ones who say who's right about everything. Unless evidence agrees with them it's not valid.

Can you say Papa Joe? (That's what they called Stalin in WWII.) Or how about ACLU? That's probably easier for you but just as totalitarian for my purpose.

[MagusYanam]

AlAyeti,

Please keep the discussion civil. This statement from your last post looked to me like a personal attack, which is a violation of Forum Rule 1.

You're emotional lemmings following the one and only paradigm far unlike the Christians that come in many varieties.

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.

Pointing out a logically fallacious appeal to emotion is okay - indeed, if one is made, point it out by all means - but calling a fellow debater an 'emotional lemming' seems to be counterproductive to civil discourse. I'll give you a warning here; please remember to debate courteously.

[Nyril]

Modern science shatters humanism and atheism and cognitive dissonace is suffered by any atheist that is forced to view their totalitarianism.

Wow, this is new, care to maybe explain this?

DNA proves personhood starts at conception.

Wrong. DNA proves nothing of the sort.

Anatomy, physiology and biology prove same sex mating is aberrant behavior

Wow. So I suppose what happens in a pen of stallions never really occurs. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Do you think child rapists should be allowed to live? The ACLU (and of course every Liberal-Leftist) does.

Yes. First off, trials are not 100% for such an emotional topic, you'd be killing innocent people. Secondly, I consider rape a horrible thing beyond words, and a child even worse, but is it enough to kill a person for? I don't really think so.

To be honest, I've never seen such a collection of misconceptions in a person before. Where do you get your information?

[Corvus]

It does matter, as I explain in the rest of my post. When we call something good we are saying that person is a doer of good things. These good things are done towards people. Don't you agree? This is why I disagree with attempts to redefine goodness as an attribute of God or God Himself. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously i agree with you on this point. But the main Christian theme is of how good the Christian God is. And are defined as goodness itself, whatever this is, we shall never know, as they never define it.

Agreed.

And my question to you Corvus, would be, is there another none-subjective view on this instead?

No, I don't think so, and I believe this is what is behind attempts to say good is God or a characteristic of God or proceeds from God.

As Christians claims the goodness of this God, what makes them formulate these views?

Some Christians probably won't look favourably on me for saying so, but I think it's a fear of meaninglessness. Without a God, they would contend that the only values are subjective ones based on selfishness. So they construct elaborate means to make goodness a universal thing which everyone is obliged to follow if they are at all rational. I believe those attempts fail. Belief in God and acceptance of His rules can only be grounded in subjective reasons.

[AlAyeti]

Atheists frame the debate as much in a closed-minded way as any garden variety TV Evangelist. Holier-than-thou and all. You can't possibly not agree with that. How many pompous professors did you have in college? And funny thing is that the liberal educator and the TV preacher make money from their captive mesmerized followers.

A finger found off a body belongs to the body of origin. DNA is used in forensics time and time again. (That is, I presume, what you would have used to decide innocence of an accused rapist.) If the finger belongs to a fifty year old or a five year old, or an unborn baby or a zygote all of the same genetic code is there. At conception. Just give it a name and it's a person.

The stallions are acting wrong. Put a mare in the stable for my empirical absolutes to be proven as such. Aberrant behavior is not a debatable subject when it comes to sexuality. Only emotionalism clouds the facts. Cognitive dissonance is not something that should be caused by observable facts. Exactly the opposite.

To be honest, I rarely think honesty comes into play when beliefs are challeged by empiricism.

My misconceptions? I hope you can edit your post.

But don't change your view on the death penalty. Jesus claims that God wanted mercy not sacrifice. Well done. It proves that righteousness is an absolute as well.

[AlAyeti]

Corvus:

"Some Christians probably won't look favourably on me for saying so, but I think it's a fear of meaninglessness. Without a God, they would contend that the only values are subjective ones based on selfishness. So they construct elaborate means to make goodness a universal thing which everyone is obliged to follow if they are at all rational. I believe those attempts fail. Belief in God and acceptance of His rules can only be grounded in subjective reasons."

///

Atheism also strives for meaning with every stroke of the pen. But the futility in the venture is somewhat sad.

Don't think we always find any challenge as insulting. I see my belief in the Biblical perspective grounded on what I experience everyday. I was once an atheist, or maybe an agnostic (an I don't knower). Nothing in the Bible points to a great pat on the back and I find that compelling to say the least. It demands that the people writing it write that they are degenerates and no good on their own. Not exactly the warm and fuzzy from so many other belief systems. Why would anyone write that there kings and great men were murderers and adulterers, idolaters and traitors? Doesn't make sense unless some greater force of accountabilty was working to point them to do so. Imagine what the Bible would say about the GOP if Republicans were the scribes and prophets?

Where does the atheist draw a moral view from? Fear or tyranny? Or fear of tyranny? Certainly we "people" are more like Lions than Sparrows. The nature of man is not one of sharing and caring by nature. Or, "congenital" to use a science word for original sin.

Christianity has not constructed any "goodness as a universal thing." I think it is exactly the opposite. And until we are all noncorporeal, everything is subjective/objective based. That is precisely why I am a Christian.

[Nyril]

A finger found off a body belongs to the body of origin. DNA is used in forensics time and time again. (That is, I presume, what you would have used to decide innocence of an accused rapist.) If the finger belongs to a fifty year old or a five year old, or an unborn baby or a zygote all of the same genetic code is there. At conception. Just give it a name and it's a person.

I can find DNA in hair, is hair a living person? I can find DNA in trees, in ants, in seals, in turnips, DNA is not special in any way shape or form other then it's tendency to promote protein growth. To say a fetus is alive because it has DNA is like saying turnips are people because they contain the Carbon atom, an atom that many people have.

The stallions are acting wrong. Put a mare in the stable for my empirical absolutes to be proven as such.

Then go tell them that. As it stands, when a woman isn't available, animals will tend to mate with any male willing to put up with it, it happens often enough in nature that I am presently unwilling to classify it as unnatural.

My misconceptions? I hope you can edit your post.

Why? Did I make a spelling or grammar mistake?

[AlAyeti]

That response was lacking.

"I can find DNA in hair, is hair a living person? I can find DNA in trees, in ants, in seals, in turnips, DNA is not special in any way shape or form other then it's tendency to promote protein growth. To say a fetus is alive because it has DNA is like saying turnips are people because they contain the Carbon atom, an atom that many people have."

In fact the above borders on goofy.

Using unreasoning beasts as an example is not a good position for deviant human sexuality to find apologia. And you proved that by claiming that "if a female was present. . ." I know you didn't mean "woman" when referring to the horses, so I edited your grammar. You did mean to write "mare" right?

The hair would belong to one and only one person. As would the DNA in it. Turnips by empirical proof do not develope into first grade students. Do the math. . .

Your attempts at a logical rebuttal to my facts fell flat. You tried good ol' spin.

Though, I'm glad you are good at spelling. You seem to take pride in that and I wanted to acknowledge you when you are right about something.

[Nyril]

Using unreasoning beasts as an example is not a good position for deviant human sexuality to find apologia.

However, is something deviant if it occurs in nature at the drop of a hat? It isn't like we're taking stallions and rubbing them with mare scent, we're just not making any mares available to them.

Lets take my little digression back to the root before we blossom into a serious tangent.

Anatomy, physiology and biology prove same sex mating is aberrant behavior and the fact that a nuclear family is of paramount importance to the mental health of people is no longer debatable

How does anatomy prove same sex mating is aberrant? And why is the nuclear family "paramount" to the mental health of people?

The hair would belong to one and only one person. As would the DNA in it.

Your attempts at a logical rebuttal to my facts fell flat. You tried good ol' spin.

Okay, the hair example is hereby admitted as being faulty. Lets move onto the carbon atom example you dropped. The carbon in an adult and a child is the same. Cut off a finger and the carbon is the same as the carbon you find in a person. By your logic, the presence of carbon at conception indicates life.

Correlation does not show causation.

Though, I'm glad you are good at spelling. You seem to take pride in that and I wanted to acknowledge you when you are right about something.

Thanks. The spell checker offered by the website is annoying and useful at the same time, it often lets me know I spelled something wrong, but fails to offer any suggestions, so I need to try and remember the correct spelling. Annoying, but good for spelling practice.

[Corvus]

Atheists frame the debate as much in a closed-minded way as any garden variety TV Evangelist. Holier-than-thou and all. You can't possibly not agree with that. How many pompous professors did you have in college? And funny thing is that the liberal educator and the TV preacher make money from their captive mesmerized followers.

A finger found off a body belongs to the body of origin. DNA is used in forensics time and time again. (That is, I presume, what you would have used to decide innocence of an accused rapist.) If the finger belongs to a fifty year old or a five year old, or an unborn baby or a zygote all of the same genetic code is there. At conception. Just give it a name and it's a person.

I don't think any atheist is disagreeing with a foetus being human. But when the words person and personhood are used, it is with the expectation of the individuality and psychology - personality - that we find in those we consider persons. Of course we aren't expecting to find a foetus who likes mozart and dressing casually, but we do expect a certain level of consciousness before we can pronounce that human can be victim or not.

The stallions are acting wrong. Put a mare in the stable for my empirical absolutes to be proven as such. Aberrant behavior is not a debatable subject when it comes to sexuality. Only emotionalism clouds the facts. Cognitive dissonance is not something that should be caused by observable facts. Exactly the opposite.

The word "wrong" is also just a label applied to something that is not fitting. Fit for what, though? We would have to identify why the stallions are doing it, and if it's just to relieve a little sexual pressure or to establish authority, then labelling it with such an absolute term as "wrong" is, well, wrong.

Wrong also has other meanings, but you will have to explain which you mean.

I can agree that homosexuality is "aberrant behaviour" if we remove the perjorative connotations from the word. Statistically, yes, it is uncommon. But that doesn't make it wrong in absolute terms, unnatural or in any way something that "should not be done". Studies seem to be showing that the occurence of homosexuality is a constant across cultures and nations and that people are born with their attraction. A while ago I did my own informal poll on the subject where I asked the forum what would happen if their lover suddenly turned into the opposite sex. Surprisingly, physical attributes are more important than personality.

Corvus:

"Some Christians probably won't look favourably on me for saying so, but I think it's a fear of meaninglessness. Without a God, they would contend that the only values are subjective ones based on selfishness. So they construct elaborate means to make goodness a universal thing which everyone is obliged to follow if they are at all rational. I believe those attempts fail. Belief in God and acceptance of His rules can only be grounded in subjective reasons."

///

Atheism also strives for meaning with every stroke of the pen.

By atheistic philosophers perhaps. When the pen is dipped in the ink, it is usually for a purpose. But I think there are many people who don't believe in a god and who simply don't care for anything other than their immediate reality, and they make up the majority of nonbelievers. Their country, their job and their bills to pay is the limit of their meaning. I think this is the way for most people. This forum is different in that the people present here actually have a concern for belief or nonbelief.

Where does the atheist draw a moral view from? Fear or tyranny? Or fear of tyranny?

Where does the Christian draw moral obligations from? Submission to tyranny?

To answer your question, I would have to ask "which atheist"? I don't think anyone lives their entire life according to the principles in a book, manifesto or other statement.

As for myself, I do good things to get good things in return. I refrain from doings bad things so that bad things are not done unto me. Selfish, I know, but as I stated earlier, selfish motives are grounded in solid rationality.

Certainly we "people" are more like Lions than Sparrows. The nature of man is not one of sharing and caring by nature.

Hm. By nature? I cannot say what we are "by nature." Certainly some primitive peoples live in an commendable state of community, even if they do war with other tribes. As do many primates. But it's difficult to separate what is natural from what is forced upon us by habit. Being such intelligent animals, we are presented with unique situations in which we have to justify our acts of goodness or badness, while animals simply live life as their instincts dictate.

Christianity has not constructed any "goodness as a universal thing." I think it is exactly the opposite.

I applaud you for saying so, though I don't think you believe it for the same reasons I do.

And until we are all noncorporeal, everything is subjective/objective based

What do you mean "until we are noncorporeal"? What will happen then that significantly changes how we perceive things?