Is evil nurtured, or natural?

[pion]

pigs represent mud and dirt.

I disagree. Pigs represent beauty and cleanliness. They are cute and loveable. They are intelligent and have wonderful personallities. If you cannot feel love and empathy towards as wonderful and as beautiful a creature as a piggie, then I simply cannot take you for a good human being.

[pianistimo]

God allowed hitler to show the world that evil exists.  people would not be convinced otherwise.  they do not have eyes to see.

agreed that it can happen again!

and, that Christians can be tormented and abused.  but, did you know that Christ gave His own power of casting out demons to the disciples.  that if they proclaim the name of Jesus - the demons flee?  that means that world governments have already been superceeded by Christ's.

[pianistimo]

are you saying that millions of murdered people were murdered by a sane person? i think hitler was into the occult and was possessed.

and, if Christ cast out 'unclean spirits' -what difference is that than curing someone who is insane?  clearly some people who are sane can 'go' insane.  what causes this.  yes. some brain chemicals.  but what causes the chemicals to go haywire?  noone knows!  the bible tells us.  God can cast out evil.  demons. 

pigs represent mud and dirt.  we sometimes use them for meat today - but in old testament times - they were considered unclean meat - and also unclean to touch.  if you've ever been near wild pigs - i wouldn't say that you'd want them in your neighborhood anyways.  wild pigs can be dangerous.  Christ can do anything he well pleases - but it proves a point - the demons GO ELSEWHERE.  they can be in animals as well as humans.  i don't know much about how it can be - but if God cast them out and they went into the pigs - it wasn't God who sent them over the cliff - it was the demons.  that's what they could have influenced the human to do.

did you also know that the demons begged Christ to permit them to enter the swine?  why?  well, this is where 'limbo' comes in.  hahahahah.  limbo isn't a catholic doctrine per se (and isn't anymore anyways) it is that state where demons are not in anyone.  if we were supposed to be in limbo - the bible would mention this state.  there is no word 'limbo' in the bible.  but, demons experience it...because they have to ask God for permission to enter anyone!  God is power.  if God allows someone to be possessed (as pharoah and saul) he watches them and allows them to see what it means when you seek the advice of the occult.  the person asks for 'divine' assistance from someone other than the true God.  the demons enter.  and, they are possessed.

ps we don't know if it was 6000 pigs do we.  in my bible it just says a 'herd.'  and also, noone mentions the miracle of what happened to this man.  he was tortured by this evil spirit for years.  'it had siezed him many times; and he was bound with chains and shackles and kept under guard; and yet he would burst his fetters and be driven by the demons into the desert.' 

when Jesus asked him his name - he said 'legion.'  that means a person can actually be possessed by many demons.  they begged to enter the swine because luke 8:31 says they were SCARED and entreating Christ not to enter the abyss.  the ocean.  limbo.  God can cast them right back down where He sent them when they descended from his throne.  that is where Jesus also went right after the ressurrection.  he actually preached (told the demons) that He had overcome them and the world and that they did not have power over the population anymore. 

this demon possessed man was cured!  'and the people went out to see what had happened; and they came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting down at the feet of Jesus, clothed (apparently he was naked before) and in his right mind (obviously he wasn't in his right mind before); and they became frightened.'  that shows that no matter how nice Jesus was - his power astonished people and they were more curious about the power than the actions.  they feared him because of the power - not for curing the man.  but, the disciples of Christ were different. 

[pianowelsh]

The pigs one is easy. People and pigs are not the same. Pigs are not created in the image of God - people are. Jesus NEVER advocated even by implication that killing people was ok and He certainly didnt preach a class systen that some people were of more inherant worth than others...However the whole story is completely out of context and off topic. So' ill say no more on that one. Our Hearts = ultimate Evil. The bible says the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things. Which is one reason why we have such a hard time sometimes deciding what is Good and what is Evil.. there is a capacity in a man to know and to choose but because of Sin - which in our 'natural' condition we are born with we are predisposed to choose wrongly. Not God's fault that is as pianistimo said a direct result of Lucifers intervention. Now its incomplete to say that Evil is just natural because to an extent (an such an extent where it separates us form God) it is natural. Thats why Jesus (emmanuel) was born to us (by us I mean whole world not just those who are called Christians) It is However also nurtured. We teach our kids a sense of getting even with others when they do bad things to us (Ive seen parents actually encourage it) we demand what we want when we want it even if it means someone else has to do without etcetcetc.. this is all a product of Sin..its evil in practice on an everyday level. In some circumstances and because of specific lifeshaping events these are exacerbated and we end up with people who are brutalised and extremely vengefull and we then see what most of us would know as extreme acts of evil and violence.  Now whether its natural or nurtured the answer to it is found in Jesus who came not to condemn us for the evil we have done but to save us from it. He is not the prince of darkness and wickedness but is referred to as the Prince of Peace, king of light etc etc etcetc. Those who are his are changed and become increasingly like him as they have been given a new nature. They are no longer fundamentally Evil because the Holy spirit lives with in them and darkness has no fellowship with light. Light drives out darkness..hence Jesus would never advocate Sin or Evil practices.

Sorry if anyone forund this excruciating but It is a question with blantantly religious overtones and had pianistimos views not been so shamefully mocked at the opening of this thread I wouldnt have bothered posting because she had said all that really needed be said.

[pianistimo]

it is my understanding that when the angels rebelled - they were cast into hell then.  IIpeter 2:4 'for if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgement; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved noah; a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; and if he condemned the cities of sodom and gommorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter; and if He rescued Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by  what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation and to keep unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement...'

so - if the angels are already in an abyss - and christ preached to them - they know they only have a very short time to attempt to do anything more with humanity.  that is why evil can grow very quickly.  because 'satan has been loosed a short while - to decieve the nations.'  if he's decieving them - that is why huge amounts of war, killing, violence is happening.  it's not ALL people.  it's a spirit of evil.

rev 12:9-12'and the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and satan, who deceives the whole WORLD; he was thrown down to earth, and his angels were thrown down with him...woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, knowing that he has only a short time.'

[pianowelsh]

certainly Evil originates form Satan and his time is short and the final reackoning will come. Im not sure how much end times theology the majority of readers will grasp though pianistimo  - it may not be the most helpfull aspect to discuss.

[prometheus]

How many people did Satan kill according to the bible?

[pion]

The pigs one is easy. People and pigs are not the same. Pigs are not created in the image of God - people are. Jesus NEVER advocated even by implication that killing people was ok and He certainly didnt preach a class systen that some people were of more inherant worth than others...However the whole story is completely out of context and off topic. So' ill say no more on that one. Our Hearts = ultimate Evil. The bible says the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things.

The Our Hearts = ultimate Evil one is easy. This is just the basis of Christianity, which is one of hundreds, if not thousands of different religious doctrines put forward by different groups of people throughout history and throughout different parts of the world. There is no basis for singling out as TRUE any one of these doctrines over any other, so singling out Christianity's verion of Good and Evil is a bit too restrictive for the present discussion.

If, nevertheless, your starting point is that God made people in His own image, then of course this gives you license to treat pigs differently from people. Now suppose, for argument's sake, that sometime in the future we meet up with an intelligent life form from some distant part of our galaxy. Suppose further that these beings are even more intelligent than us. According to the Christian point of view, as only people were made in God's image, torture, killing, and perhaps eating of these intelligent beings is morally ok. I guess the intelligent aliens may disagree!

So you see, the discussion of the pigs and what Jesus allowed to happen to them, is MORE relevant to the present discussion than the extremely narrow Original Sin hypothesis espoused by some.

[ahinton]

Like so many other things in life, "evil" is a matter of personal viewpoint. Clearly, those of certain religious persuasions will take a differnet view of it to those taken by non-religious people and, even here, different religious people will have different takes on it, just as will different non-religious people. When it comes to matters of "crimes against humanity", there is probably far less divergence of opinion but, given the vast differences of interpretation of the term "evil", it is surely better to define such crimes as what they are rather than attempt to brand them as acts of "evil".

Bush's "axis of evil", for example, is just one case in point where his claimed and much-vaunted view of "evil" will inevitably be rather different to that of the average citizen of Iran.

Anyway, let's turn the table abit; "is pianistimo nurtured or natural?"...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Bushes 'axis of evil' is neither evil nur an axis.

Reminds me a bit of the Holy Roman Empire-thingy.

[pianistimo]

if the holy roman empire claimed a true religion for it's basis - then it would have fulfilled the word 'holy.'  but the emperors sometimes crowned themselves and considered themselves god before the true God.  their word was law.

when God is the ruler - there will be peace without war.  weapons will be destroyed.  right now we are constantly building our weapons up.  why?  we have enough, don't you think?  this is evil!  the romans liked weapons too.  to keep the peace, of course.

agreed with pianowelsh that teaching ones' own family is really important.  how else would people hear the word of God.  is anyone preaching it anywhere else (besides church).  no. so people don't often hear the Word and what God REALLY says.  there are many FALSE RELIGIONS.  they do not utilize all of scripture and do not think that it is all inspired.  if only half is inspired and the other half stories - it is all ***.  i tend to think the former - that it is entirely inspired.  God is real. the bible is real.  prove otherwise!

[musik_man]

Bushes 'axis of evil' is neither evil nur an axis.

Reminds me a bit of the Holy Roman Empire-thingy.

You really wouldn't consider North Korea evil?  Starving one's population and forcing them practically to worship you sounds evil to me.

I have to agree with Prometheus on Hitler's sanity.  It seems a cop-out to attribute Hitler's and Germany's actions to mental disorders or demonic possession.  Pianistimo, you in particular should know that all men carry the innate capacity for sin and evil.

[prometheus]

There is no such thing as evil.

But apart from that N-Korea is the most bizarre country on the world. And if one has to believe the stories, and there seem to be good reasons to, then there are quite some cruel things happening in N-Korea, to put it mildly.

[debussy symbolism]

To respond to a certain post somewhere back, I can certainly point out some factors that are initiators of mental disorders. For one, drug abuse leads to chemical imbalances and thus tends to deviate one's thinking from the "norm." Hitler himself was subject to substance abuse. His doctor Theodore Morell(sp.) prescribed him regularly an addictive substance with euphoric side effects. I think it is known that Hitler suffered from syphilis and couldn't function later in life. For these reasosn Hitler's actions were more drastic and impulsive, and thus were deemed to be labeled as evil.

[pianowelsh]

Theres no such thing as God theres no such thing as eveil! Im not sure prometheus actually exists atall - I think there is no such thing as prometheus! Pion - I can only present my views - which are founded upon scripture - im sorry if you find them to restrictive, but this is actually highly relevant to the discussion. As for alien life forms we havent even worked out what is going on with this planet yet and God in his word makes no reference to creation of anyother life forms that were made in his image so I am inclined not to follow your arguement. the bible never advocates evil. In fact Jesus gave a new commandment 'Love oneanother as I have loved you' - the very antithesis of evil. And really that isnt so very new if you look at the 10- commandments where we are told to honour honour families and in other places where we are told to Love our neighbours and pray for those who spitefully use us etc etc - its not a waring religion. Christianity is an expression of Love. Jesus said I am the light of the world..we know from other places in scripture that in him there is NO darkness, we also know that the Christian (or follower of Christ) is indwelled by the Holy spirit which is truth and light, therefore one would expect the deallings of a christian to match this. As prometheus is like a broken record on the 'crusades' and the torture administered therein. It befits to quote 'not all israel is israel' which means not everyone who talks the talk walks the walk, many would claim the name Christian have neither seen him or known him. But in relation to the actual qeustion my reasoned belief like in music that talent is both born but also nurtured. The same with evil. we are born into it because our world is sinfull, bad stuff undeniably happens all the time. We also practise it and infact get very good at it. the bible teaches if you say you are without sin then you lie and the truth is not in you. - quite plain i think!

[prometheus]

Theres no such thing as God theres no such thing as eveil! Im not sure prometheus actually exists atall - I think there is no such thing as prometheus!

No Prometheus doesn't exist. There is no evidence for him. It's just a myth.

But I do exist. My real name is Mark. There is tons of evidence for me.

[pianowelsh]

i dont believe it - I have never seen any evidence!! and how do I know it hasnt been tampered with or engineered by some funky cult group who are just trying to foist their views on the world!

[prometheus]

How do you know that if you see a curtain move it isn't a ghost or a fairy push it and thus not the wind blowing against it. All three ideas explain it equally.

The answer is occams razor.


I don't really doubt I exist. You seem somehow confused about how logic can help you to understand the world around you. And because of that you think it is as absurd to say god doesn't exist as it is to say that I don't exist.

Did god ever post on this board? Did god ever post a picture of himself? Can god provide you a phone number? Can you travel to the other side of the world, or ocean, to meet him?

If you really want you can do it with me. But you can't do that with god.

This is elementary. What is your real point?

[pianowelsh]

God has posted on this board by his Holy spirit. God dosent need a telephone connection where there is potential for areas of no coverage - He speaks to us direct. God showed himself in human flesh in the form of Jesus - who was widely known, and reveals himself to people now by his Holy spirit and through his word. you dont have to travel anywhere to meet him. He isnt far from anyone of us and we can call to him at anytime. he also indwells the believer - hence the promise I will never leave yu or forsake you. My real point is you didnt have a point. the question is evil, nature or nurtured and you said - it doesnt exist. Clearly in the eyes of many people it does. Whether indeed it exists or not is really a different subject.

[prometheus]

Show me this message posted by the holy spirit. I always wondered what happened to the literary ambitious of the holy spirit. Finally an answer!

God doesn't speak to me. And neither does he speak to many of us. I do. Maybe you think that god does speak to you. But that doesn't mean it's true.

If this is really true then you need to seek mental help. People who hear voices may have issues.


Basically you are saying I am wrong in asking for evidence for god. Would you believe me when I said that Hamelin posts on this board? By your reasoning I don't need to show you his posts.

I doubt you have the same burden of proof on god as on everything else. Otherwise yo wouldn't believe in god. But there is no reason to do so.

[pianowelsh]

God has spoken you dont listen - John wirtes that that is the condemnation of the world. God speaks through his word, it is given by inspiration of God (2tim3:16/17) by the Holy Spirit and you are always telling me how familiar you are with his word, not that you acknowledge it as such. Mindue I speak to you often too. I dont think you listen to me either!!?!? I think this has ventured far enough from the initial topic..this thread isnt about you its about evil and whether it is nurtured or natural so comment on that. If your so bothered about Gods existance and whether or not he speaks start another thread - then moan about the amount of religious posting that goes on.

[prometheus]

God speaks through his word? Well, at least he doesn't speak through his [...].

You claimed God posted messages on this message board in the same way as I did. Show me his posts. Or admit there isn't the same proof for god as there is for me.


As for this whole discussion, you started it. Don't whine about me having stronger arguments when you started to address me specificly.


Anyway, you are using childish circular logic. God exists, the bible says so. The bible is the word of god, god says so.

[jpianoflorida]

God speaks through his word? Well, at least he doesn't speak through his [...].

You claimed God posted messages on this message board in the same way as I did. Show me his posts. Or admit there isn't the same proof for god as there is for me.


As for this whole discussion, you started it. Don't whine about me having stronger arguments when you started to address me specificly.


Anyway, you are using childish circular logic. God exists, the bible says so. The bible is the word of god, god says so.

But I really have no proof of you.   You could be some computer program programmed to respond with certain messages.  YOU could be 10 years old . You could be 100.   All i know is that someone or something that goes by the name prometheus has posts on this forum and a profile.    I dont' know you really exist.  You could be someone posing as someone else. etc.    But I have FAITH that you are what and who you say you are.

[prometheus]

Yes. But science doesn't work through proof.

The point is that that is very unlikely. Just as god is very unlikely. Both can be true. But I will need evidence to make them probable.

This idea has made it possible for us humans to understand the world that well that we can now send messages all over the world using our computers. And quite complex physics is involved. So clearly this way of thinking is very sound.

Do you have an alternative?

[pianowelsh]

No actually I didnt start it I was speaking about the nature/nurture of evil and YOU picked up on a sub point and wouldnt let it go - you are off topic and you are RUDE and ungracious. Get back on topic or go discuss something piano related for a change.

[thalbergmad]

No actually I didnt start it I was speaking about the nature/nurture of evil and YOU picked up on a sub point and wouldnt let it go - you are off topic and you are RUDE and ungracious. Get back on topic or go discuss something piano related for a change.

Yes oh great one we obey thy command.

[pianistimo]

occams razor = proof of no outcome of evil that is known
God = proof that curses for evil exist - and blessings for right behavior exist

impasse.  on this thread anyways. 

actually, i've never seen any babies start out terribly evil.  i think if it's natural - it is an outgrowth of something in the chemical make up that is part of the inclinations of temperament.  i do believe that people have varous temperaments.  but, God warned cain that his anger could get away with him.  so God was aware of the temptations for cain - because perhaps even his temperament was more high-strung than his brother.  he should have started understanding the idea of 'restraint.'  to go somewhere else and vent.  but, he didn't.  for one brief moment - he didn't control his anger.  and, his brother was killed.  i don't think particularly he wanted his brother dead.  i think satan got to him.  through anger.

[thalbergmad]

yawn

[chopiabin]

occams razor = proof of no outcome of evil that is known
God = proof that curses for evil exist - and blessings for right behavior exist

impasse.  on this thread anyways. 

actually, i've never seen any babies start out terribly evil.  i think if it's natural - it is an outgrowth of something in the chemical make up that is part of the inclinations of temperament.  i do believe that people have varous temperaments.  but, God warned cain that his anger could get away with him.  so God was aware of the temptations for cain - because perhaps even his temperament was more high-strung than his brother.  he should have started understanding the idea of 'restraint.'  to go somewhere else and vent.  but, he didn't.  for one brief moment - he didn't control his anger.  and, his brother was killed.  i don't think particularly he wanted his brother dead.  i think satan got to him.  through anger.

So there's no way you could ever say that there's nothing truly "evil", but perception and perspective influenec some people to believe it is?
 

Morality is not, cannot be absolute. The fact that it has evolved an changed throughout history, not to mention that different moralities are held throughout the world, shows that it is completely changeable - most people look at the world through the lenses of their cultural- moral paradigm.

[pianistimo]

but, it hasn't evolved.

the murderers on death row today are just like cain.  they cannot control their anger.

[musik_man]

Chopiabin, if you don't believe in an absolute morality, what guides you in your decisions about how to live your life?  And how do you analyze whether another person's actions are moral?

[prometheus]

Throught reason, actual thinking, etc. There are many moral philosophers. Only a very few of them believe in divine morality.

[musik_man]

Throught reason, actual thinking, etc. There are many moral philosophers. Only a very few of them believe in divine morality.

Reason can only be used to apply basic moral principles.  Reason can take the principle that murder is wrong and use it to condemn genocide, but nothing in reason can tell us that murder is wrong.  That is either a subjective belief or an objective truth.  If it's the first, it has no meaning, and it can only be the second if there is an enduring moral order.

You embrace atheism.  Without a God there is no such thing as morals outside of the individual.  Your morals are determined by your genetics and environment.  You possess your genes through your ancestors.  They got their sense of morality through random mutation.  The morals that are widely shared are those that increased the ability of those that had them to survive and procreate.  There is no real significance to them.  No enduring value.  Sorry, but life in an atheistic universe must be inherently devoid of meaning, which means that morals must also be meaningless.  That's what a logical adherence to your assumptions about life entails.  Moral philosophers attempted to make an objective morality outside of God, but once you exclude God, the idea of an objective morality is impossible.  Plenty of people in this thread have acknowledged that to some extent.  They are merely unwilling to keep applying that idea to it's logical conclusion, which is absurdity.  A subjective morality is a useless morality.

[prometheus]

Yes, society and genetics have a big influence.


But humans share their genes. So here we have something that is universal to all humans already. And the world is globalising, which is a good thing, so that means there is now a potentional to have universal morals on all levels.

Look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


There is no objective morality. That's why you need to think about them.

[musik_man]

As an empirical belief the idea that there is naturally a common morality is absurd.  Many cultures around the world hold completely different beliefs regarding fundamental questions, the questions that rely on assumptions instead of reasoning.  Are men and women equal?  Is killing men always wrong?  Do animals have rights?  Should people be free?  How does one derive the correct answers on these questions?  Reason is of no help here.  For example, there's no way to objectively prove that all men are created equal or that they possess natural rights.  One has to take that as an unproven assumption.  Some would hold that those two ideas are self-evident, but this is clearly wrong.  Many people don't find them self-evident.  Without an objective morality, there can be no right or wrong assumptions and therefore no immorality on any question.  Murder can't be immoral, because you only think that based off of the assumption that humans have a right to their lives, and that assumption has no inherent validity.

You say that a lack of objectivity means that we need to think about our morals, but it's just the opposite.  Moral subjectivity makes thought about morals impossible, or at least worthless.  Something can only have worth in relation to an ideal.  Imagine a test with no right answers.  You couldn't be graded on it.  There would be nothing against which to check your answers.  None of your responses would matter.  A poorly drawn smiley face would be as good as a 2 page essay.  Similarly, when you've rid yourself of the notion of objective good and bad, there can be nothing to compare your morality too.  There is no right or wrong morality.  All moralities would have the same value and that value would be nothing.  The belief that toppling stone walls on gays is alright would be as valid as the belief in gay rights.  Pacifism would be just as valid as genocide.  Objective morals give one the room for thought, in two directions.  What is the objective principles to which I should adhere, and how do I apply them to my life?

Of course this is only relevant if we exclude the effects of atheism on moral thinking.  Atheism leads to the same belief regarding morals but through a different channel.  You say that society and genetics have a big influence under your atheism, but that's not what I said.  Genetics and environment are the only influence under your worldview.  There simply is no other input possible.  You've made a big deal about how one needs to think rationally, but you fail to see how that would not be logically possible without God.  Rationality implies the ability to choose.  We can weigh the evidence in favor of two viewpoints and make a choice.  Whether or not that choice is the one that is rationally correct is irrelevant.  The important notion is that we can choose.  Underlying the idea of choice is the notion that someone is doing the choosing.  A rock can't make choices.  Computers can't make choices.  They are only heaps of matter, which are subject to the laws of physics.  Humans can as our everyday experience shows, which means that there must be something transcendent of the material world in us, a soul.  Since atheism rejects the soul it must also reject free will and therefore thought and rationality.  If you reject thought in general, you must reject thought about morality.

Atheism implies a lack of free will.  Morality only has value in a world with free will.  It is a framework for deciding which is the right path to take.  If one doesn't choose one's path, there is no need for morality.

[prometheus]

That what you propose goes against all that almost all philosophers on the subject have proposed. Believe what you want.

You make all kinds of absurd claims. That subjective morality means you cannot think about the subject. How is that possible? If there is objective morality that means a morality defined by a theistic god. And that means we can think about it all we want but in the end it is god who defines what is good and what is evil.

Imagine a test with no right answers.

There is no test and there are no answers. We have to make them up and then debate which one is better than the other.

Murder can't be immoral, because you only think that based off of the assumption that humans have a right to their lives, and that assumption has no inherent validity.

This already makes the assumption someone needs a right to their life to prevent someone else from taking it away.

You propose that atheism implies a lack of free will. Atheism means a nonbelief in deities. It is not assosiated with any philosophical idea.

Morality does not only have value in a world with 'free will'.


I don't understand why one would make the statements you are making. Even religious people get their morals from the same sources as non-religious people. If they would really get them from god through the bible then they would be killing about everyone because that is what the bible teaches.
No, what they do is cherry pick bible verses based on their morality.


Anyway, we know already that there is no objective morality. Like you say yourself all kinds of societies have all kinds of different ideas on some topics, eventhough on some topics all people on earth have the same view.
So do you really think that murder is ok? If you don't then why do you think murder is wrong?

[musik_man]

There is no test and there are no answers. We have to make them up and then debate which one is better than the other.

Calling it a debate instead of a test doesn't answer my point.  A fruitful debate is contingent on a 'correct' answer just like a test.  We could hypothetically argue over whether a capitalist or a socialist economy is more productive because productivity is an objective notion.  Our debate would be factual.  We couldn't, however, debate whether oranges or apples taste better.  That is entirely subjective.  Once you remove the idea of objective good and evil, you lose the ability to have a rational discussion.  Prove that rape or murder is wrong.

This already makes the assumption someone needs a right to their life to prevent someone else from taking it away.

That's not an assumption.  That's the definition of a right.  A right to life means that it's immoral for you to take my life.

You propose that atheism implies a lack of free will. Atheism means a nonbelief in deities. It is not assosiated with any philosophical idea.

Free will is impossible in a materialist universe.  As I said in the last post, choice requires someone to choose, which necessarily implies a soul.

Morality does not only have value in a world with 'free will'.

If I have no control over my actions, it does not matter what I believe.

I don't understand why one would make the statements you are making. Even religious people get their morals from the same sources as non-religious people. If they would really get them from god through the bible then they would be killing about everyone because that is what the bible teaches.
No, what they do is cherry pick bible verses based on their morality.

You know as much about the Bible as those creationists you link to know about evolution.

Anyway, we know already that there is no objective morality. Like you say yourself all kinds of societies have all kinds of different ideas on some topics, eventhough on some topics all people on earth have the same view.
So do you really think that murder is ok? If you don't then why do you think murder is wrong?

The differences in moral codes doesn't prove that there is no objective morality, only that it is not self-evident.  It merely necessitates a source outside of humanity.

BTW as of this moment, you have exactly 2000 more posts than I do
 

[prometheus]

Let's say I am wrong. Then what is the alternative?

I don't understand where you are comming from.

[counterpoint]

Atheism implies a lack of free will.  Morality only has value in a world with free will.  It is a framework for deciding which is the right path to take.  If one doesn't choose one's path, there is no need for morality.

Atheism implies a lack of free will.  

Why that? Why should a person who doesn't believe in some sort of "creator" don't have a free will? Very strange idea...

Morality only has value in a world with free will.

That's correct. If I was not responsible for what I do, social behaviour was not a matter of morality but a matter of brain chemistry and genetic dependencies.

[preludium]

The idea that you need either a personal god or a consensus to have a set of moral principles is proven wrong by the fact that there is buddhism, an atheistic religion. Religions express values which are as old as mankind itself in the form of myths. The core of these myths is not wrong just because their historic truth is questionable. In fact, they express truth in an idealized way and come even closer to the real thing than proven historic events. The same holds for the modern replacement of myths, which is called novels.

The relativity of some values doesn't mean there are no absolute values, like the existance of white sheep doesn't prove there are no black ones. Furthermore, if there is no absolute moral truth, moral relativism cannot be absolutely true. Reason cannot give itself its own foundation but needs concepts a priori to create abstractions from the concepts of comprehension. (This is expressed a bit clumsily, due to the fact that English language uses the word "reason" for both comprehesion and abstraction. You may correct me if I'm wrong with that.) To claim reason can do without a given foundation would mean that you're trying to get out of a hole in the ground by pulling your own hair like Baron Münchhausen.

[pianistimo]

then why was the first act of the continental congress to publish a bible?  because america was built on freedoms that people found given to them by GOD.  now, people often bring up the subject of slavery, but abraham lincoln reminded them of the same things musik-man is saying.  mankind makes choices for OTHER human beings - but they are not right choices.

slavery is proof that we need laws in place to keep humans from overstepping boundaries regarding the lives of other equally important human beings. 

**also, for the record - the people that came up with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (based on the humanistic approach) have really done nothing for peace.  in fact, some - who may claim a love for it - also exclude nations who do not (in their OPINION) cling to the values that one should for human rights.  but include nations who are worse!  explain that!  for instance, in the european union - people are FORCED to give up national identity more and more - for a universal form of money and possibly a larger military system to keep things 'safe.'   did they vote on this.  did everyone agree they wanted to be a part of a larger system - or was it expected in return for some 'bonus points?'

there's a simple answer, imo, and that is that the governments of man will always fail because even if they attempt to follow God's laws or man's laws -there is always the element of greed and sin.  governments become ruthless to 'keep the peace.'  but, killing off intellectuals and people who disagree with the prescribed government at the time - may change 100% toward the other side within 50 years or less.  this implies to me that there is no objective standard for governments.

i believe america to have had one of the longest peaceful governments (but still corrupt) on the earth today.  why? because people have had a say in their government.  they can participate.  they are not excluded from decision making.  of course, there is corruption - but it is equally shared amongst the population who participate in government.  democratic elections put the blessing or blame of whomever is elected upon the people who elected the person/s.  so we do at least temporarily still have the freedoms we always had.

but, where are they going?  if we agree to give our national identity away for a bowl of porridge - then we are going to see a much different government in 50 years.  one in which many others have infiltrated our country and started making decisions for us based upon a one -world system.  if you want to fight this system - don't buy into it.

[pianistimo]

i think one world systems originated with babylon, then persian, greek, roman.  this fourth 'style' is now termed 'reich.'  why else would hitler have called his the 'third.'  in the book of daniel - all this is representative of a tall statue - which represented each of the world's major world governments.  if we are at the 'end of the ages.'  we are at the ten toes. 

[thalbergmad]

i think one world systems originated with babylon, then persian, greek, roman.  this fourth 'style' is now termed 'reich.'  why else would hitler have called his the 'third.'  in the book of daniel - all this is representative of a tall statue - which represented each of the world's major world governments.  if we are at the 'end of the ages.'  we are at the ten toes. 

What the hell are you talking about?

[cmg]

in the book of daniel - all this is representative of a tall statue - which represented each of the world's major world governments.  if we are at the 'end of the ages.'  we are at the ten toes. 

This, uh, statement is either:

a) an obscure metaphor

b) a series of embarrassing typos

c)  proof that medications need more frequent adjustments than we earlier thought.

[musik_man]

Atheism implies a lack of free will. 

Why that? Why should a person who doesn't believe in some sort of "creator" don't have a free will? Very strange idea...

Belief in something that transcends the material world is necessary to believe in free wil  This is how I derive that:
1) Free will in it's simplest form is that individuals can make some choices about their lives
2) A solitary atom lacks free will.  It is subject to the laws of nature.  The very thought of it making a choice is absurd.
3) The human body is nothing more than a very complex collection of atoms.
4) Since humans are made of many components all of which are bound by physical laws, they are similarly bound, including their thoughts.  At no point can the complexity of the human body confer the ability to choose.
5) Therefore, free will is not logically compatible with materialist atheism.

That is not to say that Atheists don't have free will.  Only that a wholly rational Atheist would have to reject that notion or be inconsistent.  If there is no God, there can be no free will.

[thalbergmad]

This, uh, statement is either:

a) an obscure metaphor

b) a series of embarrassing typos

c)  proof that medications need more frequent adjustments than we earlier thought.

c

[musik_man]

This, uh, statement is either:

a) an obscure metaphor

b) a series of embarrassing typos

c)  proof that medications need more frequent adjustments than we earlier thought.

She's referencing a chapter in Daniel in which Daniel prophecies of a statue.  The statue is made of four types of material, each representing a empire that was to come.  I believe the bottom was iron and considered to represent Rome.  The passage also has some Messianic prophecies.

BTW I think that Thalberg has been replaced by a computer program that automatically posts a rude follow-up to anything Pianistimo posts.

[thalbergmad]

BTW I think that Thalberg has been replaced by a computer program that automatically posts a rude follow-up to anything Pianistimo posts.

I wish there was one, it would save me a lot of time.

[jpianoflorida]

She's referencing a chapter in Daniel in which Daniel prophecies of a statue.  The statue is made of four types of material, each representing a empire that was to come.  I believe the bottom was iron and considered to represent Rome.  The passage also has some Messianic prophecies.

BTW I think that Thalberg has been replaced by a computer program that automatically posts a rude follow-up to anything Pianistimo posts.

YES I think Thalberg needs some new hobbies.  His only purpose on this forum seems to be to harass pianistimo and put down religion.     Come on thal, can you post something positive, exciting anything nonreligous.  You complain about religion but then that is all you post about.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

YES I think Thalberg needs some new hobbies.  His only purpose on this forum seems to be to harass pianistimo and put down religion.     Come on thal, can you post something positive, exciting anything nonreligous.  You complain about religion but then that is all you post about.

I hope that you take the time to examine just how much material he has posted for the use of others in the sheet music requests section and retract that comment.