jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (220 posts)

Morality

  1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago

    So if morality does not come from God and is a inherant idea that has come from generation to generation of tradition and culture. Example, in the animal kingdom, male sharks forcably mate with female sharks but is not called rape. Animals of a multitude of breeds copulate within family trees but is not called incest. So if there is no God, and moralsand values do not come from him and we are but another monkey biting a banana so to speak, why is it wrong for humans to behave in a way that is traditionally offensive? If we are just an ape in the animal kingdom, responding to instinct then how can war be "bad" we see chimps have tribal warfar and it isn't characterized as bad. We see this also happen with ant colonies but that isn't "bad".....so if we are just an animal in the evolutionary process how can we say that acting on our impulses is bad?

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We see humans having tribal warfare that is not 'bad'.
      We see primates doing 'adultery' which again is not 'bad' but the perpetrator will have to pay with his life if he is caught by the alpha.
      So your point?

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So my point is if we are another animal where does this idea of "bad" and "good" come from? These animals don't see these actions as anything other than natural. So where did humans get the notion?

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know what these animals see?
          We too don't see it as anything other than natural, a part of being a social animal. The simple motion is you harm me, I harm you, we both lose as we are society. In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive.

          1. aguasilver profile image88
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "The simple motion is you harm me, I harm you, we both lose as we are society. In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive."

            Would the Germans be a good example of that notion?

            Seems they started a world war, lost it, but now rule Europe and have the highest prosperity!

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, they tried it with a leader who was committing atrocities in the name of God, but now they're doing it to help each other. Good example!

            2. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is it the same people?
              Was their anything in common other than they are Germans?

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Gobbledegook, the Germans defy your statement:

                "In evolutionary terms those societies that don't follow these rule perish, while those follow survive."

                The Germans did not follow the rules, they have 'evolved' into the most prosperous country in Europe.

                The English did follow the rules, they are now in a bad shape, they have 'devolved' from being the rulers of most of the world down to a small island nation.

                TM (not worth a separate reply) Hitler was never working in the 'name of God' he was working in the name of Germany and himself, and was also a satanist.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Reading Hitlers own words would refute you. He specifically wrote in his own book why he was doing what he was doing. He was no different than any other believer who committed atrocities in the name of God. That's what religion does to people.

                  Religion also keeps people in states of denial. smile

                  1. deblevey profile image61
                    debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Whether he said he was working in the name of God (which is debatable) the literature  Hitler wrote suggests he thought of himself as God. He certainly was never known to adhere to any particular branch of Christianity. Quit slandering the Christian faith! Also quit slandering Germans.  Hitler carried 12% of the popular vote. Germany didn't 'choose' hitler; Germany failed to put in place a fail-safe to keep demigogs like hitler from gaining power. Many German citizens risked life and limb to help the Jews escape hitler's final solution. Many Germans today remain Christian, largely Catholic or Lutheran, or as they call themselves in Germany...Reformed.

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Evolution  does not occur in one generation. Germans are a society, rather a closed society, and if Germans were fighting against each other(as individuals) while the rest of humanity is helping each other, Germans will perish.You need a have a little more understanding about evolution, at the least to know it takes many many generations.

                  Sounds more like Claire, who ever approves you is god's people, and who ever goes contrary is a satanist. Delusion, I say.

          2. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jomine, If I started having sex with my kids it would be seen as evil but if this happens in a "lesser" animal's sociaty it is seen as nature being nature. Where is the distinction that seperates what a human does verses animals?

            If there is no sense of right and wrong other than what we personally feel than it isn't that far a stretch to say that Hitler did nothing wrong, the rapest is just doing what is in his nature, that a man who risks his life to save another isn't actually heroic, he was just being a human animal.

            A dog that is hungry sees nothing wrong with fighting another dog over a scrap of meat. Other dogs around don't have an issue with this either. Yet when we see starving people fighting for food we cry out, "Feed the children! Feed the children!" Why? Accourding to Mischeviousme the starving of babies amounts to nothing  more than population control and should be allowed to happen as to not upset the delicate balance of nature.

            1. mischeviousme profile image60
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's taking what I said out of context, though without death, life would not exist.

              1. aguasilver profile image88
                aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Will do in eternity!

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wishful thinking!

            2. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Do you know Pharaoh Ramses II married 2 of his daughters. Some present societies, it is not a "bad" thing either. In some parts of India, girls marry their uncle and cousins, which is considered the norm.


              Hitler was not considered wrong by a good many of his contemporaries. We learn as we go, so right and wrong changes, there is no hard and fast rule.


              A dog gives its puppies food. The rest is a learned behavior.There was a time when one tribe of humans feel no compunction in killing another tribes children, or selling them as slaves. Indeed if you read the bible Joshua even killed animals of other tribe.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @Mischeviousme, didn't mean to take it out of context. I just applied what you said with the situation. It seemed to fit and still does in my understanding of what you said. I apologize if I painted you in a bad light. Didn't mean to.

                Jomine, still my point is this we have an idea of what right and wrong are no matter what point on the lattitude, longitude of the globe you are on. It may be ok to marry your niece but harm a cow and you're in hot water. To us in America this sounds rediculous......or redonkulous depending on how old you are in America.

                Plenty of moral controversy in the bible, that's for sure!  But how does Morality matter in the grand scale then? If it differs from person to person and culture to culture, is there any real value in it?

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Only to the individual that accepts it...

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Are we saying the same thing?
                  There is no absolute right or absolute wrong, that is, there is no right that can be universally applied. We define right and wrong and it changes over time. 100 years before slavery was a right in america, but now it is not.
                  Animals also have the same. Lions in a pride know, not to attack each other.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So the acts of Ted Bundy, Gacy, Adolf so one and so forth did nothing wrong by any standard because there is no absolute right and wrong, morally. Slavery was ok because of the time period? I am trying to understand what you are saying, I am not trying to be difficult. I just want to be clear as to what it is you're saying.

    2. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      *******************

      The difference in animals and Human animals is that Humans have reasoning abilities and the ability to put themselves in another man's/woman's  shoes.

    3. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Morality is our way of preserving the species, a technique we developed for survival. What we consider to be immoral ie; murder, rape and genocide, is natures way of controlling an exploding population. A disease is natural, for a time though, people believed it was the wrath of God, it was population control. When a species of animal overpopulates (such as rats or whatnot) or grows beyond natural limmits, disease whipes out a good chunk. The mutations that preserve the few individuals, is a natural preservation mechanism, maintaining a ballance.

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Morality is not our way of preserving the specie since it is relitive to each person.

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Each idea is like that of flowers, same thing, different petals.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So hitler and mother tereasa were infact doing the same work just in different methods?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Mother Teresa also committed some evils in her religious quests. Didn't you know that?

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure she only helped those that were catholic. This is actually cutting to my point but we arn't there yet. smile

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this
                  1. deblevey profile image61
                    debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    positive athiesm=oxymoron

    4. hawkdad73 profile image74
      hawkdad73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution. Human and other species of animal have the ability to see what harms them or what is good for them and tradition changes.  For example, past civilizations thought it was beneficial to sacrifice.  Now, since certain types of killing are frowned upon, it is not acceptable to sacrifice...unless it is an animal and for certain religions.

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How is an action proved on a genetic level where evolution is observed?   
        Evolution is physical, a change in behavior is mental.

        1. hawkdad73 profile image74
          hawkdad73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not necessarily...what's learning? At one point I didn't know math, but I learned, and now I do.  Evolving has to do with change.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You have to teach a child math. Every child who has ever been born has had to learn math. You do not have to teach a child how to grow hair.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    positive atheism=oxymoron. Hows that?

    1. deblevey profile image61
      debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      the words are opposed to each other...duh..iametrically!

      1. pedrog profile image17
        pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Positive Atheism AKA Strong or Hard Atheism, maybe you like this better...

        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not interested...thanks anyway....whazzamatta? Don't athiests have a sense of humor????

  3. pedrog profile image17
    pedrogposted 4 years ago

    There you go, this should help:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

    And also check:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

    Yet again Evolution gives the answers.

    1. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      At this point, I'd rather converse with the atheists. The believers are a little too zealous for my taste, not overall, but a good majority.

      1. Diane Inside profile image87
        Diane Insideposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lukewarm

        1. mischeviousme profile image60
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I was for a long time, a hardcore christian. Then for a time, a closet christian. One day I found a series of truths that I could not refute and they were all mine to find. I created my truths through experience, it could not be handed to me. There is no salvation in a can, if you don't have to work for it, then it isn't worth while. Like a cheap pair of shoes, sooner or later, I'll have to buy some new shoes.

    2. deblevey profile image61
      debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution might give an answer if it wasn't shot full of holes, but you people cant even find the 10,000,000 missing links.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image88
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this
        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          File:Archaeopteryx lithographica
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          No file by this name exists.

          1. deblevey profile image61
            debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Just like your missing links HA!

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Funny smile

          2. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah bit crap isn't it tht the link doesn't work. That'll teach me for trying to use an iPad to post a photo. It'll just take far to long to boot up my netbook as it runs Windows bloat-ware. Ho hum. Maybe another time.

            1. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

              1 Peter 2:1-3 NASB

          3. pedrog profile image17
            pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There you go:

            https://www.google.com/search?q=Archaeo … hographica(Berlin_specimen).jpg&hl=pt-PT&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=DJVGT8XpGsry8QPdmsSpDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CA0Q_AUoAQ&biw=1156&bih=601

            If it still doesn't work just type Archaeopteryx_lithographica(Berlin_specimen).jpg on Google Images and you will find it, nothing like a little of rational and intelligent thinking to unveil mysteries...

            1. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              1.  This site does not address my statement regarding the (lack of) proof regarding the so called missing link that would irrefutably prove the evolution THEORY!  In-betweenie species existed simultaneously with the species they purportedly evolved from and to. All it proves is a larger variety among co-existing species. I believe in intelligent design. I believe rationale has its place in all serious discussion, but it falls short of any definitive proof.  I am quite sure that my opinion about the origin of species eminates from a (my) mind far more open than yours, because I am willing to consider the possibility of an uncreated creator, and you are not.

              1. pedrog profile image17
                pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, you claim you need proof in order to believe (for your information, the fossil record is just a portion of evidence for evolution), and yet you prefer to BELIEVE (i highlighted believe because i don't want to believe, i want to know, to learn, to understand, no faith required, just rational thinking) in something that has 0 proof, that contradicts what we know about the universe, about the laws of nature, and requires you to BELIEVE without any proof or evidence, can there be bigger hypocrisy then this?

                1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                  Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Deblevey, I am a Christ believing man. I just try to look at both sides of the coin. Usually people are confused with my forums because they never know where I actually stand on the issue exept my buddy A Troubled Man lol

                  Anyway, I have a quesiton for you. The bible says that when God created the animals of the earth that he created them male and female so they could populate the earth right? So what defines a male and female? There is such diversity in nature that it is hard to pin point exactly what is male and what is female. Besides that it there are A sexual creatures out there and are neither male or female or male and female depending on how you want to word it. Sea Slugs for instance both have penis's and actually stab at eachother in an almost sword fight like display when mating. Who ever makes the "kill shot" impregnants the other. I point this out because not everything is spelled out in the bible as you and I would like to believe. I think it is important to remember that the bible is not a book of science but a book of culture and history.

                  Ya know the first half of the bible is the Jewish scripture and they don't believe that Genesis is literal so why should the Christians?

                  1. pedrog profile image17
                    pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And why does a man have nipples? LOL

                2. deblevey profile image61
                  debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have not ever claimed to need proof in order to believe something, i rather am under the impression that you darwinists claim to have proof.   I am simply stateing that you do not...have proof.  Neither have I claimed to be a 'literalist' as you call me. While I do believe the Bible, all 66 books of it to be the Word of God, I further state that His Scriptures are not either literal or subjusctive, they are both literal AND subjective. Which is to say things happened the way God said they did, however our limited human understanding may have confused the narrative somewhat. Therefore it is not fully understood by us. Belief in a 6 day creation and belief in the the big bang are not excluseive of each other.  IT IS possible to believe both.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Good reply smile

                  2. pedrog profile image17
                    pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, that is the big difference between you and me, i need proof in order to believe, and as someone wise once said, extraordinaire claims demand extraordinaire evidence.

                    I don't understand why you keep saying there is no proof for Evolution, it is really tiring keep saying the same thing, it is not the first or second or 30th time that i have this kind of discussion, do you know what a theory in science is? Do you understand the consensus that the Theory of Evolution generates in the scientific community? Did you ever look at the proof? Do you even understand Natural Selection?

                    Well, if you do and you prefer to ignore it, and cherry pick what science as demonstrate only when it is useful for backing your "personal theories" i have no will to argue with you, if you are going to deny science at least be consistent, never touch a computer again, don't use the Internet, don't use a cell phone, a microwave oven, a car, medicine, don't watch TV or listen to the radio, you get the point, well, go live with the Amish or with some lost tribe in Africa or in the Amazon forest. You cannot do with science, specially with peer reviewed works and proven theories what you do with the bible, you cannot cherry pick what you personally like and discard the rest.

                    And sure you can believe in Big Bang and the 6 day creation, here's how i do it:

                    I believe the Big Bang Theory is currently the best theory to explain the formation of the Universe.

                    I believe the 6 day creation story to be the result of the imagination of some guy a few millenia ago in an attempt to explain the origin of the Universe.

                    See, i believe in both stories too.

                  3. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Belief in a giant lizard that sneezed the universe into existence is also possible to believe. Understanding the Big Bang and other theories is quite another story altogether.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A stunning assessment of evolution that is far removed from an understanding of evolution. lol

  4. mischeviousme profile image60
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago
    1. deblevey profile image61
      debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So @pedrog i have it on good authority that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Then Joshua wrote Joshua,  Samuel wrote Judges, Ruth, and so on...Nathan wrote portions, Solomon wrote portions, David wrote portions...but this really isn't the place for a post-secondary class on the authorship of the Bible, is it?????   Biblical scholars have good historical evidence for every claim they make regarding every author of every book of the bible. Just because the secular community says we don't, don't make it so...

      1. deblevey profile image61
        debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @pedrog, the text I provided does not argue that anyone but moses wrote the pentateuch, it merely states there are others who claim that he did not, and further lists those claims made. The article further states with authority that Moses is the most likely author of the pentateuch, and why. There are historical documents from that era...written by the Jews. most of them happen to be part of holy writ. That doesn't make them untrue.

        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Quit trying to muddy the water in my glass just because your water came from the sewer.,

          1. pedrog profile image17
            pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is this for me?

            If it is i can take this as personal attack, that is not proper etiquette on the forums...

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Get a life, it's what's called an analogy, not a personal attack, unless you do have sewer water that is?

        2. pedrog profile image17
          pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Christian tradition has tended to assume an earlier date.[7]"

          "Today, the majority of scholars agree that the Torah does not have a single author, and that its composition took place over centuries.[12]
          From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BCE)."

          As you can see, even if Moses really has existed he lived many years before any recorded stories.

          References:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah

          If this information is false, be free to correct it, it's Wikipedia.

          Now can you point me to some source where i can read about the documents cited here: "There are historical documents from that era...written by the Jews. most of them happen to be part of holy writ"

          Or do i have to take your word, i'm not a man of faith, i need proof remember?

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Holy Crap people. It's like a big circle, who cares who wrote it and when. It's written, just look at what it says and come to terms with whether or not you agree with it.

            1. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Amen, especially as in reality, God dictated it, so who cares who the scribes were! smile

            2. pedrog profile image17
              pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, this kind of details are important to me, and people should give more importance to them too.

              Getting back to the topic, the bible and specially those 5 books supposedly attributed to Moses are the worst moral code ever in history, just something from Numbers:

              Numbers 31:13-18
              Contemporary English Version (CEV)
              12-13Then they returned to their own camp in the hills of Moab across the Jordan River from Jericho, where Moses, Eleazar, and the other Israelite leaders met the troops outside camp.
                  14Moses became angry with the army commanders 15and said, " I can't believe you let the women live! 16They are the ones who followed Balaam's advice and invited our people to worship the god Baal Peor. That's why the LORD punished us by killing so many of our people. 17You must put to death every boy and all the women who have ever had sex. 18But do not kill the young women who have never had sex. You may keep them for yourselves."

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                smile see, now we know alittle more about what is said in the text! *inhales* I feel better, what about you? lol

                1. aguasilver profile image88
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Walking taller just knowing that pedrog is watching our back and chasing down those pesky OT verses that concern him so much, and just sooooo very glad that we live in the words of Christ, not Moses, or whoever it was that actually wrote down Gods words. smile

                  Still Gods words for that time.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Deb said something that I came to terms with years ago that, "Scriptures are not either literal or subjective, they are both literal AND subjective." Not everything is literal, some things are a just a picture and others are meant to be taken word for word. I do my best not to get into these types of conversations because mostly they go nowhere.

                    I believe in Christ first and foremost. Anyone who reads my hubs and is with me in my life could tell you that. I also believe that there is nothing that science could ever prove that could dismiss God and in fact see God ever more clearly with everything that is discovered.

                    Who'd a thunk it, a post about evolution would end up in a battle of "is the bible legit" lol shows my optimism I guess.

  5. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    I quit this web site due to its discrimination against anyone who believes in God. I have deleted every hub I ever wrote and my profile. To anyone who believes in God you should leave this site before they discriminate against you as well. Let the Godless own this place and watch them fall as cursed people.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
      Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, because that was Jesus' message. That's why he kept to the churched people of his time and stayed away from people that doubted him.

    2. pedrog profile image17
      pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      WOW, your hubs are being taken down because you talk about religion, that is a serious accusation, Hubpages is a USA company you should take them to court, i think it's illegal to discriminate based on religious beliefs in the USA...

      On the other hand if you are talking about other users on this website that don't buy your religious crap and challenge your beliefs, that is called a debate not discrimination...

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

  6. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    He told the truth and they hated him for it.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
      Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you turn tail and run? I don't want to make you feel bad or belittle you or anything but look. IF you are going to leave hubpages just do it but don't say, "They hurt my feelings and don't charish my words so I'm leaving" OF course people are going to be rude to you. Everyone is, just get over it. But don't act like Christ needs your or my protection. I hope you don't leave though. I have never read your stuff and never seen you before on here but Hubpages is a great public forum in which you can learn and can inpart wisdom. There are some great people here. Besides even if you're not posting about Christ, it's a good place to look up movie reviews smile

  7. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    This is not running this is defiance. There is no profit to be made on here and my greatest argument is one of free will and respecting the sanctuary of others. The first thing I learned as a child is that common sense does not exist. You can not solve a problem that avoids the problem in the first place. Its not only those who believe in God that die in apathy but every American that allows the criminals who rule our lives to exist. If every level of life is robbed, eventually you have no where left to live. A person of no belief has no principals in which to give their lives to something greater. Is it low pay to a master you never see and unrewarded as if your life does not demand both success and failure in order to learn that we are only human with out others. We die alone not because we choose to, but because no one takes notice of a truth that we are more powerful when we stand together in defiance.

  8. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    "no one takes notice of a truth that we are more powerful when we stand together in defiance." Actually it is more like the 'powers that be' don't allow it.

  9. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    My point exactly, powers that do not allow what? Argument, based on truth, not on personal reasons. I do not argue scripture based on the perceptions of others but question the word and why it is written. I believe that their is a reason not based on anyone's perception, but why it is written beyond my intelligence. This does not mean that their are not exceptions or other reasons why but it means that their is a goal for all to follow. How could I be a member of all religions false or true and not be a believer in Gods plan to learn?

  10. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    I believe in neither.

  11. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    And you should belief in nothing for an Earthly existence of rotting flesh when you die should bring satisfaction in a world consumed of Earthly purpose in which most of us have been excluded from.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
      Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      neutral wow dude. Bitter much? You say that, "my greatest argument is one of free will and respecting the sanctuary of others." But look at what you just wrote! I hope you find that peace you're trying to spread one day friend.

  12. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    And your point proves what? nothing but a continued bias towards your own damnation, enjoy. What am I suppose to be, some happy God believing person kissing your butt, hoping you might believe. Here is my cheek hit it! Prove any point but you have no point at all. Damn how I wish I had anyone of any intelligence to speak to. I love to be wrong but I have nothing at this point but worthless conversation. Did you offer anything in your hate for God and his believers? WE know you hate us let it all come out, we and God want to hear what you have to say.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
      Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://s3.hubimg.com/u/6223086_f248.jpg

      smile

  13. satyaswarup profile image60
    satyaswarupposted 4 years ago

    We should not bring God into the debate on what constitutes moral or immoral. We are human beings and not animals, we have distinct personalities and we are aware of it. We have our own definitions of goodness and evil and we have created values to regulate ourselves. This is all for maintaining discipline and order in the society. We cant allow friction and dissonance in the society arising out of mindless self promotion. Morality is a good contraption to take the human race haead in terms of intellectual and civilizational growth.

    1. deblevey profile image61
      debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Here's a thought...we cannot have a discussion about morality without bringing up God, because in truth, that is where true morality ultimately comes from. (OMG she's going back to the Bible again...) What may have once been moral for Jews became immoral because God said so...incest, for example. We have no word on this until the laws given to Moses. Many have speculated that Cain and Seth married blood relatives.  there may be some truth in this, I don't know.  We do know close cousins were marrying each other , uncles once removed were marrying nieces, and so on...as late as Abraham's day. It didn't become a big deal until God said it was a big deal...this is probably because genetically it wasn't a problem until time and original sin had its way with the gene pool, and mating with close relatives became a biological game of russian roulette. (sic?) satyaswarup, you are correct in some of your assertions about morality, but you're still missing the point.  We are human, ultimately because God made us so, after His own image. This is why we strive to be moral.  because God is  moral. (I know I'm gonna hear some neg. feedback from this one, but it is true.) We are merciful because God is merciful. We are not nearly as good at practicing these characteristics as we should be, but hopefully as individuals and as a species, we keep trying.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The old ostrich!

      2. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Even when people had morals long before the Bible or God came along.



        Yes, making up nonsense in the name of god is quite popular amongst believers.



        You mean spiteful, jealous, petty and vengeful?



        Believers practice it all the time and they are very good at it. Please stop trying.

        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          speak English much?

          My experience has demonstrated otherwise.

          On all counts.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, sure. lol

        2. aguasilver profile image88
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/xlarge_6bf0c4bd9ae7cd0d14e8d55652d10712.jpg

          1. Disappearinghead profile image88
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My goodness, the intelligence of believers is actually increasing to the point of being childish.

            I'm aghast at how clever you are, aquasilver. Could you possibly focus on me personally more? Does that make you feel superior somehow? Is it the best you can muster on a public forum?

            Well done, sir. From a kindergarten playground perspective, of course.

            1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
              Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is he calling you John Conner? This lego scene reminds me of T2 where he and his buddy rip off the ATM lol

              John Conner was the leader of the human race in that story BTW.......I wouldn't take it as an offense!

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The point is that he is focusing on me personally rather than the subject matter, which apparently is frowned upon according to the TOS. And, the fact that he is focusing on me rather than the subject matter shows more about him and his level of intelligence than anything else.

                Are you defending folks who make jokes about userids? Is that why you're here?

                Think about it.

                1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                  Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think for a man who irrefutably the antagonist of Hubpages it's a little amusing to see you being the one getting bent out of shape. Look I don't support him offending you and I'm sorry that I made it seem that way. I was trying to keep it light. But how can you be surprised at his reaction. You belittle peoples beliefs constantly. Like on every post practically.

                  People identify more with their beliefs than they do their own families. You can't post whatever you want under the guise of, "I'm not commenting on you, just your beliefs, intelligence and understanding on the matter" and expect no one to say anything back at you.

                  Nothing personal, just an observation.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's funny, the only antagonists here are the ones who tell you to believe in Jesus/Allah, or else.



                    Once again, I'm not offended. That post was laughable in the sense of laughing at someone acting childishly.



                    So what? 



                    And, that is precisely what is wrong with religious beliefs and precisely the reason nonbelievers comment on them. That is utterly ridiculous and irrational to identify with medieval beliefs than your own family. It is very much what is wrong with the world we reside.



                    They are free to respond to my posts and criticize my reasoning all they want, but they need to stick to the subject matter and not focus on me personally. Do you understand?

            2. aguasilver profile image88
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "You mean spiteful, jealous, petty and vengeful?"

              "Yeah, sure. lol"

              " lol That's not easy to do with selfish, disrespectful, dishonest and ignorant Christians."

              "How can you trust those who are blatantly dishonest?"

              "No, it proves your dishonesty."

              "More gobbledegook you have just made up. More dishonesty."

              "If you don't care about being smart, at the very least, try to be honest."

              "That is a lie and you know it."

              "What about childish myths? Why do you still cling to them?"

              "Remove the surgically implanted Bible from your eyes, first."

              "Keep making false statements. "

              None of these quotes are personal of course?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, they aren't, but I understand how you would believe they were as I explained above.

            3. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              y is it you think everything is about you? Somewhat self-centered, don't you think?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol YOU are the one focusing on me. I am requesting that focus stop and I've requested it many times, but you believers simply won't let it go, and now you have the nerve to say its all about me. Hilarious.

  14. Captain Redbeard profile image59
    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago

    Here's what I love about Deb, she doesn't back down. I would have to argue her point as well. I belive that the moral base comes from God. Not nessacerily the bible since morals were set befor the first page of the book was written.

    http://youtu.be/Rmg720wO6tY

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It would seem that you are claiming that cultures and peoples that don't subscribe to a belief in your God have either no morals or at best morals that are deficient. 

      The average Chinese or Indian, for example.  Or African or South American tribes that have never been exposed to Christianity.  Even the majority of Europe - Christianity seems to be fading fast there.

      There are enormous numbers of people in this world that have never heard of your God, yet I could not make the claim they have no morals.

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
        Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all. That's not the claim.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And yet if a culture's morals come from God (and presumably only your God) and they don't know God then they cannot, by definition, have an acceptable moral structure.

          In addition, any culture that does not conform to your concept of morals, based on your getting them from God, has no morals.  Even if they are superior to yours and come from their God.

          This would seem to be a contradictory claim; that morals come only from God, but that peoples that have no knowledge of God can also have good morals.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
            Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Morality is something that is in every person. I didn't say you had to know God, my God, to have morals, I simply stated that morality comes from God.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But, it doesn't, quite the contrary, in fact.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              From which I deduce that you believe your god (for all others are false, or just imagination) instills the "proper" morality in everyone, whether they acknowledge Him as God or not.

              Or, in other words, correct morality is something that all people are born with.  This, of course, is completely false - small children have almost no morals at all.  They will lie and steal at the drop of a hat (they don't even understand ownership for goodness sake) and they will hit other children every time they turn around.  It is only through parental controls and teaching that they learn better.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So who taught their parents how to behave?

                1. deblevey profile image61
                  debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Heck, I'll say it...God gives you stuff whether you believe in Him or not.

                  1. deblevey profile image61
                    debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    we all have some sense of morality not quite innate, but not all learned behavior either.  teaching reinforces it.  but some of it is there in the first place.  catch a kid taking a toy from another kid.  ask what he's doing...he'll probably lie...cus he knows it's wrong to steal, n wants to avoid punishment.  that happens without teaching.  how did the kid know it was wrong...human instinct which aids in development of morals.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Their parents, of course.  In addition, society will also give lessons, often the hard way.  In neither case is it some kind of built in instinct from God.

                  You might also look around at different cultures - they very often have nearly opposite views on some morality issues.  If God instilled them, you would think that everyone would have the same concept of moral behavior.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image59
                    Captain Redbeardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wouldn't expect to see it everywhere. Look at Cain and Able, perfect example of how Man's morals are vs. God's.

  15. deblevey profile image61
    debleveyposted 4 years ago

    and, well, she ain't human either!

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you trying to reply to me?  Check out the chronological view and then "reply" if you are...

      No, she wasn't.  Lucy was a hominid, just as all the great apes (including humans) are.

      1. deblevey profile image61
        debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        i was in error...it happens like, at least twice a year.

        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ;big_smile

      2. mischeviousme profile image60
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Lucy was Australopithicus Aferensis; AL-288 -1

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is correct.  A precursor to homo sapiens and some think possibly other of the great apes, notably the gorilla.

          Whether or not she gave rise to any of the apes besides humanity, she most definitely is not a stage between any other ape and humanity.  Between our common ancestor and humanity, yes, but nothing more.

          1. deblevey profile image61
            debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            AGAIN I SAY homo sapiens sapiens has more in common with a chimpanzee  (, which is another species from which homo sapiens sapiens does not ascend ) than in common with Australopithicus Aferensis. We are not related to that branch of homonids, or any other.

            1. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Even the anthropologists agree on this point

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We are a hominid, not just related to them.  We belong to the family hominidae (hominid) which all the great apes do.  Just as we are also all primates and all mammals.

              You're missing the point here - we have more in common with a chimp because we are closer to them.  Somewhere between us and Lucy we and chimps took different roads.  The tree split after Lucy died, making us closer to chimps.

              And no, most anthropologists agree that Lucy was our ancestor.  Without absolute, positive proof (not possible at this distance in time) you will always find disagreement, but the large majority find Australopithicus to be our ancestor.

          2. mischeviousme profile image60
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Our oldest ancestor to date is ardipithecus ramidus or ground ape... Many fossils of this species were discovered in Ethiopia in 1994, carbon dated to circa 7,000,000 years ago.

            1. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              there is no definitive proof that we descended from any other species. The dna argument is weak at best. We share 80% genetic information with all mammals. All that suggests is is that we were created out of the same basic material. We share more characteristics with dolphins than with any ardipithecus species

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol Contradict much?

                Didn't God create us all out of the same material? How does the Bible explain genetics?

              2. mischeviousme profile image60
                mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                We also have junk DNA, of which we share a large percentage with everything else, even the "lowest" organisms. We have the Dna marker to grow wings like that of a fly, to grow back limbs, to grow fur and so on. Their inactive DNA molecules. So then, why are they there?

                The question of morality realy has nothing to do with any of it, on that side of the issue.

                The question is not about the issue of atheism or religion, creationism or evolution, the question is:

                "Do you have a moral standard and how do you apply it to yourself"?

  16. LeanMan profile image80
    LeanManposted 4 years ago

    What we call morals are just simple rules for ensuring the growth of a society through ensuring that we don't cause conflict between ourselves or interbreed to cause recessive genes and other problems to surface.. If everyone stayed faithful and looked after their families, respected their elders, never stole etc then many of the crimes and problems that plague our society would vanish and people would actually get along better!

    The use of "because god says so and you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules" was a good way to enforce those rules and the rules become more than just common sense ways to prevent conflict but become rules from on high! A great way to get people to follow them without questioning the leaders!

    1. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are telling the truth, but who wants to hear?

    2. deblevey profile image61
      debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't use or follow the '"because god says so and you will burn in hell if you don't follow the rules" line of reasoning and haven't since grammar school. I do adhere to the idea that we were designed to follow a set pattern of behavior which, when followed, permits the greatest amount of fulfillment and self actualization, and when not followed creates any number of problems within our society, our self image and our personal relationships.  I am a happier person when I live as I was designed to live, with thought towards the needs and wants of others, etc... or in other words when I strive to 'love God with my heart, mind soul and strength' & 'love (my) neighbor as (my) self.'  I believe that to be true for every human being that ever has, does or will exist(ed.)

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol Then, I can only conclude that you're still in grammar school.

        1. deblevey profile image61
          debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And I can only conclude that you are delusional.  As I said, I do not conform to a 'crime and punishment' scenerio; rather to a 'cause and effect' reality. If you put your hand into an open flame, you will get burned, even if you don't believe in the flame. If you live life in a way that is contrary to your purpose and design, you will experience consequences you might not find as pleasant as those you'd experience if you'd live according to the 'rules' of human behavior.

          1. deblevey profile image61
            debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            God doesn't say 'do it this way because i said so,' rather 'do it this way if you want the best outcome.'

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That would be another contradiction.



            Flames can actually be seen, unlike your God.



            lol *queue eternal damnation threat*

            1. deblevey profile image61
              debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Here's one of those 'contrary' actions you might want to try since you don't believe in xconsequences...go smoke some meth in front of a police officer and see what happens.

              1. deblevey profile image61
                debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Now that would indeed make me laugh...but only it it was you...anyone else I'd urge to seek treatment.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Will I find your God then? Seems one of the ways to "see" what isn't there is to get really stoned.

                And, didn't you just say you don't conform to the "crime and punishment scenarios" and I said that would be a contradiction. lol

                1. deblevey profile image61
                  debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I was merely responding to your feeble attempts to find humor...

                  1. deblevey profile image61
                    debleveyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    My guess is you wouldn't be punished right away, merely arrested and charged, which would be a consequence. Another consequence would be punishment. Thats a consequence I don't have to worry about because I've already figured out life is much more pleasant when I adhere to the 'rules.'

 
working