# What do those of you who are Atheist or Agnostic believe about Sin?



## jmharris23 (Oct 24, 2012)

Hit me with it! 

What are your ideas about sin? 

Do you just see it as an idea created by the religious establishment? 

How do those who don't believe in sin explain the depravity of man that we see on the news every night?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 24, 2012)

It's a construct like 'right' and 'wrong'.


----------



## hummdaddy (Oct 24, 2012)

right and wrong 
ya'll call thing's sin by a book you follow....

i go by my heart and thought out process of what i think is right or wrong...


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2012)

Sin is religions version of wrong. Another name for the same word.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 24, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It's a construct like 'right' and 'wrong'.





hummdaddy said:


> right and wrong
> ya'll call thing's sin by a book you follow....
> 
> i go by my heart and thought out process of what i think is right or wrong...





bullethead said:


> Sin is religions version of wrong. Another name for the same word.



All this..^^^


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2012)




----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 25, 2012)

Ok.....so do you have any regrets when you do wrong? 

Or is it just the physiological nature of man to do wrong and so you don't sweat it?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Ok.....so do you have any regrets when you do wrong?
> 
> Or is it just the physiological nature of man to do wrong and so you don't sweat it?



I feel the same as you do. We are people and that is what people do. Some more or less than others.
Then again when you come home and the dog sheepishly walks up to you with its ears back and tail between the legs and can't look at you... might even lay on it's side ....it is his/her way of feeling bad for tearing apart your sneaker which is now strewn from the bedroom to the living room. He knows that he did wrong, just no one told him wandering across the road and coveting thy neighbors poodle was wrong and a sin.


----------



## bigreddwon (Oct 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Ok.....so do you have any regrets when you do wrong?
> 
> Or is it just the physiological nature of man to do wrong and so you don't sweat  it?



If you meant 'sweat it', as in worried about going to hades.. No. Thats silly IMO. I put myself thru much worse than an imaginary punishment fantasy. I feel bad when I do wrong and I feel good when I do good things, its no more complicated than that. I don't do good things, or IMO the 'right' things for some eternal reward either, equally as silly as the hades premise.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 25, 2012)

The depravity of man that we see on the TV every night is a self fullfilling prophecy. As a society  we"get" the news we deserve.

The whole idea  and  the persuit of "getting ahead" and of happiness, will make things wrong or right and gray to various degrees... 

For example a political poll taken here seems to indicate that A&A&As hold to the same political views as their christian neighbours.

I sometimes wonder that despite the God the AAA have issue with, the one proffered by some in christianity which the AAA see as false, they nevertheless do not have significant issues with the Gospel.


----------



## Four (Oct 25, 2012)

Hmm you might have to be more specific. Others have answered the question well, sin is just a word that some religions use for "wrong" or "evil"

Are you asking what we think about sin as it relates to a specific set of myths?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2012)

Christians have a reason to be good. Atheist are good for nothing.(joke)

Children are taught right from wrong before they learn the concept of God, sin, & He11.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Hmm you might have to be more specific. Others have answered the question well, sin is just a word that some religions use for "wrong" or "evil"
> 
> Are you asking what we think about sin as it relates to a specific set of myths?



I think it was answered well. I was just curious if people without religious affiliation or affinity ever thought that maybe what we do "wrong" was deeper than just being wrong. 

I wondered if they ever thought that maybe something inside them was "broken." 

Just curious.


----------



## Four (Oct 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I think it was answered well. I was just curious if people without religious affiliation or affinity ever thought that maybe what we do "wrong" was deeper than just being wrong.
> 
> I wondered if they ever thought that maybe something inside them was "broken."
> 
> Just curious.



Ahh, i generally use immoral vs. wrong...

Like, it's wrong to be late to appointments, but it's immoral to rape somebody.

As far as broken, i've only ever felt something like that during a traumatic event while depressed or some such. Even then it was mostly due to self pity. But now that you mention being broken, i freaking hate the idea of original / inherited sin, it's one of the things that makes me super upset when taught to young people.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 25, 2012)

Four said:


> Ahh, i generally use immoral vs. wrong...
> 
> Like, it's wrong to be late to appointments, but it's immoral to rape somebody.
> 
> As far as broken, i've only ever felt something like that during a traumatic event while depressed or some such. Even then it was mostly due to self pity. But now that you mention being broken, i freaking hate the idea of original / inherited sin, it's one of the things that makes me super upset when taught to young people.



Well regardless of whether you call it sin or attribute immorality to some type of physiological cause, I believe it's still inherent. We know how to do wrong/be immoral at a very early age.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 25, 2012)

I cleaned up a spill on aisle 4. I do not intend for this to turn into a peeing match between believers and unbelievers. 

I also don't intend it to be a thread that those who are believers use as a means to evangelize. 

I asked a question and I am looking for answers if there are any more. Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## Four (Oct 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I cleaned up a spill on aisle 4. I do not intend for this to turn into a peeing match between believers and unbelievers.
> 
> I also don't intend it to be a thread that those who are believers use as a means to evangelize.
> 
> I asked a question and I am looking for answers if there are any more. Nothing more. Nothing less.



You're quick! sorry if I was inflaming the situation more.. The only response my sophomoric mind could come up with was to say something equally silly.



jmharris23 said:


> Well regardless of whether you call it sin or attribute immorality to some type of physiological cause, I believe it's still inherent. We know how to do wrong/be immoral at a very early age.



Hmm maybe there are two things we're talking about.. Sin is also used as almost a unit of measurement, something you can own. like "You're covered in sin" "your sins are compounding" 

I don't really acknowledge the validity of this... its just not really how i see things. 

For instance i don't really thing that people at a very early age can be immoral, as they don't understand yet. Much like i don't think a tiger / shark can be immoral, they don't have the capacity to understand..  Same with the mentally ill.

So i don't  think that we're born evil / immoral. We can be taught it though.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 25, 2012)

Four said:


> So i don't  think that we're born evil / immoral. We can be taught it though.



I came across a scientific study recently on the root causes of evil. They determined it to be a combination of both genes and environment. I will try to find it and post it if you think it would contribute to discussion.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't really acknowledge the validity of this... its just not really how i see things.
> 
> For instance i don't really thing that people at a very early age can be immoral, as they don't understand yet. Much like i don't think a tiger / shark can be immoral, they don't have the capacity to understand..  Same with the mentally ill.
> 
> So i don't  think that we're born evil / immoral. We can be taught it though.



You don't have to teach a 2 year old to lie. You ask them if they broke something they weren't suppose to touch and they lie about it so they won't get punished. They don't 'understand' the concept of lying, they most likely weren't taught to 'lie', it's in their nature to cover their wrongdoing or hiding from the truth. You DO have to teach them not to lie....well in my opinion anyway.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> How do those who don't believe in sin explain the depravity of man that we see on the news every night?



I'd, also, be interested in seeing some answers on this question.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 25, 2012)

I think I just sinned a little bit lookin' at the t-shirt ad over there to the right......


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2012)

In regards to the depravity of men, I think we are born uncivilized and have to be taught to be civilized. Humans are animals by the way who must be domesticated. I would say part of the process is rewards and punishment. I think we like to distance ourselves from animals more that we should. I realized we have souls and animals don't. This does bring me back to what I said earlier as a joke. Christians are good (try not to sin) for the promise of a reward or punishment. Atheist are good for nothing or some are good and some are bad. Same as Christians some are good and some are bad. With Christians that have "Blessed Assurance" it doesn't matter if they are bad.
Christians can blame the Devil or Pre-destination(God made them bad for his purpose) for being bad, Atheist have no one to blame but themselves.
I don't know who Pagans blame.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I think I just sinned a little bit lookin' at the t-shirt ad over there to the right......



Those are some nice ads. I've noticed if I look for turkey fryers on google, amazon, etc. then there are turkey fryer adds over there. Uh oh I just told on myself.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 25, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> In regards to the depravity of men, I think we are born uncivilized and have to be taught to be civilized. Humans are animals by the way who must be domesticated. I would say part of the process is rewards and punishment. I think we like to distance ourselves from animals more that we should. I realized we have souls and animals don't. This does bring me back to what I said earlier as a joke. Christians are good (try not to sin) for the promise of a reward or punishment. Atheist are good for nothing or some are good and some are bad. Same as Christians some are good and some are bad. With Christians that have "Blessed Assurance" it doesn't matter if they are bad.
> Christians can blame the Devil or Pre-destination(God made them bad for his purpose) for being bad, Atheist have no one to blame but themselves.
> I don't know who Pagans blame.



This is an interesting discussion. I hope I can contribute.

From my perspective, and according to my beliefs, I try not to sin, but to do good, not because of some eternal reward or punishment. Salvation is not dependant on how good you are.

Sin seperates us from God. Doing good is the opposite of sinning. Salvation is not dependant on works.

If I am saved, then God lives within me. He cannot live within me when there is sin in my life. He offers the free gift of forgiveness to remove the sin, so that He can live within us. Sometimes we make mistakes, and God offers redemption for those mistakes, however, if I am FULL of sin, then I am probably kidding myself about being a Christian.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 25, 2012)

Part of my thoughts on sin..........

We are animals.  As such our primary goal is to survive and further the species.  Many of the rules we have in place guide us to live peacefully to allow the community to thrive and grow.  Murder goes against that effort, as does theft and coveting brother's wives.(unless they are in t-shirt ads)  Laws are in place and enforced to keep society from devolving into madness and anarchy.

I haven't been able to buy into the devil and hades myth yet.  I mostly think that level of consequence is fiction.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2012)

Four said:


> But now that you mention being broken, i freaking hate the idea of original / inherited sin, it's one of the things that makes me super upset when taught to young people.


 
As a Christian I don't like the idea that I was born a sinner, but that isn't something I had any control over. I don't think that it would have mattered much if I had been born a non sinner. By the time I was grown i'd already done my fair share of sinning/bad deeds. I would have needed saving from my own sins not Adams. 
This whole post is on what is good or bad and Christianity isn't even based on being good or bad. There will be lots of good people in He11. They inherited sin from Adam. God made the rules not me. It's his world. I hate the rule as much as you do.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 25, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> In regards to the depravity of men, I think we are born uncivilized and have to be taught to be civilized. Humans are animals by the way who must be domesticated. I would say part of the process is rewards and punishment. I think we like to distance ourselves from animals more that we should. I realized we have souls and animals don't. This does bring me back to what I said earlier as a joke. Christians are good (try not to sin) for the promise of a reward or punishment. Atheist are good for nothing or some are good and some are bad. Same as Christians some are good and some are bad. With Christians that have "Blessed Assurance" it doesn't matter if they are bad.
> Christians can blame the Devil or Pre-destination(God made them bad for his purpose) for being bad, Atheist have no one to blame but themselves.
> I don't know who Pagans blame.



Nice post!


----------



## Four (Oct 26, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I came across a scientific study recently on the root causes of evil. They determined it to be a combination of both genes and environment. I will try to find it and post it if you think it would contribute to discussion.



Sure, Evil isn't a very scientific word so it would be interesting how they define it.


----------



## Four (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You don't have to teach a 2 year old to lie. You ask them if they broke something they weren't suppose to touch and they lie about it so they won't get punished. They don't 'understand' the concept of lying, they most likely weren't taught to 'lie', it's in their nature to cover their wrongdoing or hiding from the truth. You DO have to teach them not to lie....well in my opinion anyway.



First off, i dont think lieing in itself is immoral. That being said...

They were taught to lie. It's carrot and stick. If you tell them "touch this and ill spank you" and they touch it, of COURSE they're going to say that they didn't touch it, they're trying to avoid an event they don't want to happen. Until the parent introduced the punishment, they've given the child a reason to lie.

Not to mention you'd be suprised (or not maybe) how much actions children pick up from there parents. They see a parent using physical force to get what they want? what do you think they'll try to do next time they want something?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> You don't have to teach a 2 year old to lie. You ask them if they broke something they weren't suppose to touch and they lie about it so they won't get punished. They don't 'understand' the concept of lying, they most likely weren't taught to 'lie', it's in their nature to cover their wrongdoing or hiding from the truth. You DO have to teach them not to lie....well in my opinion anyway.



I agree. I don't think four has any kids.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 26, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> I think I just sinned a little bit lookin' at the t-shirt ad over there to the right......



The one that said, "I pooped today" ?? Me too!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 26, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> This is an interesting discussion. I hope I can contribute.
> 
> From my perspective, and according to my beliefs, I try not to sin, but to do good, not because of some eternal reward or punishment. Salvation is not dependant on how good you are.
> 
> ...



Sin is sin though. We are all sinners.. So as long as you're not too much of a sinner then god can actually live within you and you're not kidding yourself about being a christian? Yet if you are a little overboard, it doesn't work? That seems to go against salvation not being dependent.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Oct 26, 2012)

Four said:


> First off, i dont think lieing in itself is immoral. That being said...
> 
> They were taught to lie. It's carrot and stick. If you tell them "touch this and ill spank you" and they touch it, of COURSE they're going to say that they didn't touch it, they're trying to avoid an event they don't want to happen. Until the parent introduced the punishment, they've given the child a reason to lie.
> 
> Not to mention you'd be suprised (or not maybe) how much actions children pick up from there parents. They see a parent using physical force to get what they want? what do you think they'll try to do next time they want something?




Maybe you're partially right, at least.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 26, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> Maybe you're partially right, at least.



Respectfully, I don't think he is. 

I'll go back to your original statement that Four doesn't have any kids. 

From a viewpoint that doesn't look through the lens of Christianity or the Bible, I am still interested in hearing what one would make of "sin" or immorality / evil. 

But to explain it away by saying we are taught it is a ridiculous proposition. 

If you parents taught it you, who taught it to them and so on and so forth. 

Whether you believe in a divine creator or some type of evolutionary process we must all agree that at some point in history man originated from somewhere. 

Was that man never immoral? Did he never lie? Did he never do wrong? Did he never do evil? 

If he did, who taught it to him? The monkeys or another lesser intelligent lifeform we evolved from? 

I think we must deal with the fact that on whatever side of the coin you find yourself spiritually, man is inherently evil or at least has the capability to be, and he is that way without being taught.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2012)

I agree man is inherently evil. But some of the things we consider evil animals do to. Kill, adultry, steal, & fight. It is motivated by survival, greed, & procreation. In humans it is also motivated by money, lust, & pride. People commit crimes to get money. Anger causes people to kill each other.
Now there are some mean evil people who do terrible crime just for the heck of it. Arson, rape, mass murder, etc.
So some of it we are born with and some of it we learn. Young people left alone like on an island would have a tendancy to become more evil than good. And some of it would be for survival. That is human nature to get your needs taken care of first. Living in peace and harmony would come later, hopefully.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree man is inherently evil. But some of the things we consider evil animals do to. Kill, adultry, steal, & fight. It is motivated by survival, greed, & procreation. In humans it is also motivated by money, lust, & pride. People commit crimes to get money. Anger causes people to kill each other.
> Now there are some mean evil people who do terrible crime just for the heck of it. Arson, rape, mass murder, etc.
> So some of it we are born with and some of it we learn. Young people left alone like on an island would have a tendancy to become more evil than good. And some of it would be for survival. That is human nature to get your needs taken care of first. Living in peace and harmony would come later, hopefully.



Good post.

Are we overlooking that possibly out of survival, necessity and evolution we almost had to  be more bad "evil" than good and as we continued to evolve into our more modern selves the "good" came later??? Our instincts might tell us us that if we want something to take it and if you can't take it steal it while no one is looking and if someone is looking bash them on the head and take it.  The animal kingdom is full of that. We just try to harness those thoughts and actions to the best of our ability. Good may have come long after bad.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Good post.
> 
> Are we overlooking that possibly out of survival, necessity and evolution we almost had to  be more bad "evil" than good and as we continued to evolve into our more modern selves the "good" came later??? Our instincts might tell us us that if we want something to take it and if you can't take it steal it while no one is looking and if someone is looking bash them on the head and take it.  The animal kingdom is full of that. We just try to harness those thoughts and actions to the best of our ability. Good may have come long after bad.


There can be no bad, if there is no good.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There can be no bad, if there is no good.


Please explain...

What was it called before humans gave it a name? Think outside the box every now and then. I am talking about animal traits that existed LONG before one of us grunted out a name for it.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

Seems as though these dualities like "love/hate, good/evil" popped up about the same time as modern humans.


----------



## Cutbait Robin (Oct 26, 2012)

There is 'Right', and there is 'Wrong'. I'm agnostic. BUT... I KNOW the difference between right and wrong, and I strive to be a rightous man.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 26, 2012)

Cutbait Robin said:


> There is 'Right', and there is 'Wrong'. I'm agnostic. BUT... I KNOW the difference between right and wrong, and I strive to be a rightous man.


'Right' and 'Wrong' would have to be universally established or it could vary by location.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please explain...


If you say something is bad, you have to know what good is in order for something to be bad.

Here is a good explanation...




> What was it called before humans gave it a name? Think outside the box every now and then. I am talking about animal traits that existed LONG before one of us grunted out a name for it.



We are starting with different premises, so my answers to these particular questions will not suffice for you.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If you say something is bad, you have to know what good is in order for something to be bad.
> 
> 
> 
> We are starting with different premises, so my answers to these particular questions will not suffice for you.



Yet you continue to quote me and reply directly to me.
With humans and only with humans do we have these dualities. Having God is not good enough to explain everything because that includes the bad so then we have to include the Devil. The explanations for each are ridiculous. God/Devil, good/bad, right wrong are all evaluations that HUMANS give to events. A pack of wolves eating an elk from one end when it is still alive at the other is "bad"....except if your the wolf. Dinosaurs probably thought asteroids were "evil" only those evaluations didn't exist until humans thought them up. You interject God into every scenario but it seems more likely to me that a God didn't exist until we made one up and then to explain all of his goodness we had to invent a devil to explain why our good God is not responsible for all the bad. We teach our young the never ending battle between the two all the while telling them how the God is soooo powerful he could eliminate the bad....just that he somehow, for some reason doesn't want to. When you question it while using reason....it makes less and less sense.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

Four said:


> First off, i dont think lieing in itself is immoral. That being said...
> 
> They were taught to lie. It's carrot and stick. If you tell them "touch this and ill spank you" and they touch it, of COURSE they're going to say that they didn't touch it, they're trying to avoid an event they don't want to happen. Until the parent introduced the punishment, they've given the child a reason to lie.
> 
> Not to mention you'd be suprised (or not maybe) how much actions children pick up from there parents. They see a parent using physical force to get what they want? what do you think they'll try to do next time they want something?



Well if you don't consider lying a wrongdoing by the child...how about breaking the rule of touching something they weren't suppose to touch. Is that wrong?

I hope you aren't saying lying is ok as long as it is to cover up something that you consider wrong?!?
Two wrongs don't make a right, in my opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

I just don't fall for the Ravi's deductive reasoning. What does he say to someone who doesn't fall into his hand picked scenario?


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

How did animals come into this anyway?

Some animals do know right from wrong as long as they've been taught that. They know you will get mad if they chew up your shoes, because you've punished them before for doing it. You punished them after they did it, not before they did it the first time, that's how they learn, that's how children learn, too. Except children probably have a little bit more understanding when we talk to them about what not to do or do, whereas I'm not sure doggies know englay or hebrew...


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> 'Right' and 'Wrong' would have to be universally established or it could vary by location.



I agree.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I just don't fall for the Ravi's deductive reasoning. What does he say to someone who doesn't fall into his hand picked scenario?



He would probably ask them where he went wrong in his logic.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> How did animals come into this anyway?
> 
> Some animals do know right from wrong as long as they've been taught that. They know you will get mad if they chew up your shoes, because you've punished them before for doing it. You punished them after they did it, not before they did it the first time, that's how they learn, that's how children learn, too. Except children probably have a little bit more understanding when we talk to them about what not to do or do, whereas I'm not sure doggies know englay or hebrew...



Animals came into this because they know right and wrong before humans ever got involved. They didn't need Humans to teach them anything. The Lioness's go out and kill the prey and the dominant Lion eats first. If a cub or inferior adult tries to eat before the Lion they get whooped. A bold juvenile might try to swoop in and "steal" a piece (whether it be of food or lady) and he either gets away with it or gets punished. Is that not the same as stealing in the human world? Adultery? Each considered "good" or "bad"...sin or no sin when the humans get a hold of it. The animals have their own pecking order and justice. They have their own right and wrong. We take it further and add good and bad...sinful or not.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> He would probably ask them where he went wrong in his logic.



All the other person has to say is no to one of his loaded questions. Then there is no path to lead down.
Even going his way the end does not point to any single specific creator. Evolution is just as good an answer.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> All the other person has to say is no to one of his loaded questions. Then there is no path to lead down.


And the other person would be commiting a fallacy, you can't just say "no" to logic, it is absolute.



> Even going his way the end does not point to any single specific creator.


He never said it did.



> Evolution is just as good an answer.


So you're asserting intelligence to evolution?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> And the other person would be commiting a fallacy, you can't just say "no" to logic, it is absolute.


HIS logic is absolute?
He is talking about assumptions!



stringmusic said:


> He never said it did.


Then do tell tell me what his logic/scenario means.




stringmusic said:


> So you're asserting intelligence to evolution?



Absolutely. And for no other reason than it fits just as well as any other excuse.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> HIS logic is absolute?


I never said *his* logic is absolute, I said logic in itself is absolute. To answer your question specifically, yes his logic is sound in his argument, if you disagree, please point out the fallacy.



> He is talking about assumptions!


He asked the question "aren't you assuming", he's asking that to the questioner. His premise is not based on an assumption. If you say it is, please point it out.




> Then do tell tell me what his logic/scenario means.


The logic he is using is very elementary in that video, I'm sure you can follow it just fine. 

Here is the conclusion, you cannot have evil without good, the original point I made in this thread.




> Absolutely. And for no other reason than it fits just as well as any other excuse.



Really? I have never heard anyone assert intelligence to evolution. How do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Animals came into this because they know right and wrong before humans ever got involved. They didn't need Humans to teach them anything. The Lioness's go out and kill the prey and the dominant Lion eats first. If a cub or inferior adult tries to eat before the Lion they get whooped.*Exactly, that's my point, they were taught what to do and what not to do by their elders...wonder if the cub was born with the knowledge not to eat the Lion's food or was he taught that?* A bold juvenile might try to swoop in and "steal" a piece (whether it be of food or lady) and he either gets away with it or gets punished. Is that not the same as stealing in the human world? Adultery? Each considered "good" or "bad"...sin or no sin when the humans get a hold of it. The animals have their own pecking order and justice. They have their own right and wrong. We take it further and add good and bad...sinful or not.



Ramp this up y'all, I couldn't afford my meds or doctor's appt this past week.....
I'm just kiddin'...it's going well in here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

If you wanna include animals that's cool, but I believe we all are born evil/wrong/sinful/whatever and we have to be taught 'right'.

We know a lot about that from dealing with things like...
sexual abuse creates more sexual abuse...
child abuse begets child abuse on down the line and so on. Whatever we are taught as children is usually what we become whether it is from our parents, or peers, or what other parents teach their children and our kids pick up on it, be it right or wrong.

How do we decide what is right? What do we base it on? And how do we learn to abide by that morally?

I don't consider a cub's natural desire to feast upon popster's food a sin, but it is right or wrong according to his 'peers' and that is what the cub is taught. The natural instinct of the cub is wrong, obviously. So can we go by instinct only when deciding what is right or wrong? I just don't think so.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I never said *his* logic is absolute, I said logic in itself is absolute. To answer your question specifically, yes his logic is sound in his argument, if you disagree, please point out the fallacy.


That there has to be a moral law giver and that moral law giver is God.





stringmusic said:


> stringmusic said:
> 
> 
> > He asked the question "aren't you assuming", he's asking that to the questioner. His premise is not based on an assumption. If you say it is, please point it out.
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Really? I have never heard anyone assert intelligence to evolution. How do you come to that conclusion?



I have no problem with evolution, I just believe that it was included in all of creation by a more intelligent being.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> If you wanna include animals that's cool, but I believe we all are born evil/wrong/sinful/whatever and we have to be taught 'right'.
> 
> We know a lot about that from dealing with things like...
> sexual abuse creates more sexual abuse...
> ...



Well where do the animals get their rules and morals? Who taught them right and wrong?

"OUR" morals now are not what they were 50 years ago,100years ago, 1000years ago, One Million years ago.
If right and wrong was absolute and understood...programmed into us by a creator from the beginning....our morals would be the same from day one.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Well where do the animals get their rules and morals? Who taught them right and wrong? *You just said their daddy taught them, I agree with that. Otherwise the cub would've known not to try to eat the daddy's food the first time. *
> 
> "OUR" morals now are not what they were 50 years ago,100years ago, 1000years ago, One Million years ago.
> If right and wrong was absolute and understood...programmed into us by a creator from the beginning....our morals would be the same from day one.


\

You're right, they are not.  Since you brought up the creator.. When adam did wrong his instinct was to hide from the creator for lying or deceiving or disobeying. The creator didn't teach him that, that was adams own instinct to do that.  Just as the cubs instinct to do 'wrong'....he didn't know, I just don't believe our instincts are always spot on either. Most of us do 'right' because we were taught to do right, same as the cub. It just doesn't come natural. Therefore we are all born into the world including animals to sin, or miss the mark, or do the wrong thing. We have to be taught right.

I think the op was also asking how do men become serial killers, child molesters, wife beaters?  Were they born that way? Perhaps. Or did they learn by example? probably. Were they taught general 'good' morals? Perhaps? But where does that 'evil' come from? Generally you sure couldn't say their 'natural' born instinct on these things can be based on what they personally believe to be right or wrong.  If everyone just pondered it over and did what they thought was ok in "THEIR" own heart or mind, we'd be more in a world of horror.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 26, 2012)

So are we animals? 

As an example bullet used above, is adultery not wrong, but inherent nature? 

As a deer hunter, I know that bucks chase,catch, and breed many does. 

Am I like that buck, it's certainly in my nature to do such a thing. Is it ok to do that? Can I go and catch all the women that I can and breed with them? Would my wife be ok with it....or yours. 

If we're just animals and such, why not just do what we want to since that's what the animals do?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> So are we animals?
> 
> As an example bullet used above, is adultery not wrong, but inherent nature?
> 
> ...



Jim, 10,000 years ago that is EXACTLY what humans did. 1,000 years ago that is exactly what humans did.
Now, we do not(at least in this part of the world).
IF our morals are given to us all by a creator please explain the differences between civilized cultures and non.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

Off to friday night football....see all of you later!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Off to friday night football....see all of you later!!



Enjoy


----------



## hummdaddy (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> jim, 10,000 years ago that is exactly what humans did. 1,000 years ago that is exactly what humans did.
> Now, we do not(at least in this part of the world).
> If our morals are given to us all by a creator please explain the differences between civilized cultures and non.



polygamist still do it today


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Respectfully, I don't think he is.
> 
> I'll go back to your original statement that Four doesn't have any kids.
> 
> ...



Respectully, evil or innocent? Human male brains regards the capacity to make very wise decisions concerning behaviours, or not to be reckless and irrisponsible is only fully developed at apox. 24 yrs of age. In other words the decision making part of the brain is only developed then.

So from the terrible twos to adulthood, 24 or so, children and youth are not inherently evil and sinful. Their brains are developing like the rest of their anatomy. They can do what seems sinful behaviours and are capable of what we would term evil, but they are developing physically and cognitively and not fully responsible... That is why parents keep a keen and interested eye on them and their behaviours for about a quarter or more of their lives.

But to my mind adults are evil by choice...when they vote for God with their lips and yet live by and accept adult behaviors of the devil's  spawn. Evil is a choice and not inherent, in my view... Otherwise we would not need repentance and to change our ways...when presented the alternative.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jim, 10,000 years ago that is EXACTLY what humans did. 1,000 years ago that is exactly what humans did.
> Now, we do not(at least in this part of the world).
> IF our morals are given to us all by a creator please explain the differences between civilized cultures and non.



If we could explain the difference, we'd have the key to evolution and creation. 

The question to me, then, is why do we still  have these 'evil'/wrongdoing people amongst us in this day and age? If we started out being uncivilized and some of us are still uncivilized, did these 'evil' people just stop evolving into what some of us are saying we are able to do today, discipher wrong from right on our own merit? or did we learn right or wrong from someone else depending on what was in their heart and mind? or were we born with it? I just don't see how that can be, that we were born with that discernment.


----------



## jmharris23 (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jim, 10,000 years ago that is EXACTLY what humans did. 1,000 years ago that is exactly what humans did.
> Now, we do not(at least in this part of the world).
> IF our morals are given to us all by a creator please explain the differences between civilized cultures and non.



Well I would submit that difference between the civilized world and the non is the introduction of Christian principles in the civilized world?


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> If we could explain the difference, we'd have the key to evolution and creation.
> 
> The question to me, then, is why do we still  have these 'evil'/wrongdoing people amongst us in this day and age? If we started out being uncivilized and some of us are still uncivilized, did these 'evil' people just stop evolving into what some of us are saying we are able to do today, discipher wrong from right on our own merit? or did we learn right or wrong from someone else depending on what was in their heart and mind? or were we born with it? I just don't see how that can be, that we were born with that discernment.



My dear,

Human beings are predators. Might is right.  Patriotisms and nationalisms are pacts. Civilisation and civilized are relative terms. Think about this:  Name one "civilisation" and so it's civilized people that have not tortured human beings?

Also, a little study about crime...will reveal that infact people do evil things because their parents did evil things and some people are " warriors"  or quick tempered because of their genetic make up and others are sociopaths and psycopaths....because of their brains! And some people get sucked in...imperial "pax romanus", Nazi etc.. politics.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Respectully, evil or innocent? Human male brains regards the capacity to make very wise decisions concerning behaviours, or not to be reckless and irrisponsible is only fully developed at apox. 24 yrs of age. In other words the decision making part of the brain is only developed then.
> 
> So from the terrible twos to adulthood, 24 or so, children and youth are not inherently evil and sinful. Their brains are developing like the rest of their anatomy. They can do what seems sinful behaviours and are capable of what we would term evil, but they are developing physically and cognitively. That is why parents keep a keen and interested eye on them and their behaviours for about a quarter or more of their lives.
> 
> But to my mind adults are evil by choice...when they vote for God with their lips and yet live by and accept adult behaviors of the devil's  spawn. Evil is a choice and not inherent, in my view... Otherwise we would not need repentance and to change our ways...when presented the alternative.



So could we wait until the males are 24 to teach them how they should be? Can we excuse them from any wrongdoing before the age of 24? and then when they become 'adults' it's their choice to be evil? I personally believe they can learn to do right from birth, depending on what they have been taught is right.

When I had my fleamarket store and sold MaryKay and Avon, young children would steal lipstick for their mama. Not many but a few were told to come back in and lift it, usually in a designated place the mama had laid it. Wonder if that child will always steal? will he/she wisen up to stealing at a later date? who knows. The child is still being taught to do wrong by another person who never got to the 'age' of  24...or the age to do right whatever that is projected to be.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I think we must deal with the fact that on whatever side of the coin you find yourself spiritually, man is inherently evil or at least has the capability to be, and he is that way without being taught.



I agree, totally.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 26, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> So could we wait until the males are 24 to teach them how they should be? Can we excuse them from any wrongdoing before the age of 24? and then when they become 'adults' it's their choice to be evil? I personally believe they can learn to do right from birth, depending on what they have been taught is right.
> 
> When I had my fleamarket store and sold MaryKay and Avon, young children would steal lipstick for their mama. Not many but a few were told to come back in and lift it, usually in a designated place the mama had laid it. Wonder if that child will always steal? will he/she wisen up to stealing at a later date? who knows. The child is still being taught to do wrong by another person who never got to the 'age' of  24...or the age to do right whatever that is projected to be.



Male and female behaviour is thought gradually...according to capacity. Children cannot be adults...etc...

Your questions are about criminology (spelling). But this is my experience in some cases and specifically one case....of criminal(sinful-evil) behavior.  Exibit A. :The father was a bootlagger. The son was raised in his household. Bootlagging was extra income for his family. When the son became and adult he became a dope dealer selling drugs for extra income. ( Reasoning: Dad did it and he was a good man, so I'm still a good man as long as I don't get caught.)

Ok here is where it gets more interesting than a TV crime show. The son , like the father has a shallow conscious and a vendictive nature. One night he accepts sex for drug money, only the deal goes wrong. He severely beats up a couple, (male and female).

He gets four yrs in the slammer for his behaviour. After serving his sentence...he tell's me: " I won't be going there again....the people there are really crazy." He meant crazier then himself...

As far as I know his children are model citizens. Mama left dad...when they were yet small, and got custody.  So this is an example of learned sinful or evil behavior.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Your questions are about criminology



Yeah I was just into that part of the OP question.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 26, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Male and female behaviour is thought gradually...according to capacity. Children cannot be adults...etc...
> 
> Your questions are about criminology (spelling). But this is my experience in some cases and specifically one case....of criminal(sinful-evil) behavior.  Exibit A. :The father was a bootlagger. The son was raised in his household. Bootlagging was extra income for his family. When the son became and adult he became a dope dealer selling drugs for extra income. ( Reasoning: Dad did it and he was a good man, so I'm still a good man as long as I don't get caught.)
> 
> ...



Kinda like when I asked my ex if he was saved....he used that same line. I'm a pretty good guy so I'm ok, even though he thinks there is nothing wrong with cheating on your wife/wives (we drove him to it) doing and dealing drugs, lying, deceiving and manipulating and using the crapola outta people....he's a nice guy according to everyone who hasn't been burned by him or used....appears to everyone else as a nice guy, too. He gets away with it so I guess it's all good?....I guess he don't believe in karma either....


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2012)

some observations:
1)What is the OP seeking with this post? (good discussion, i like it)
2)The back and forth logic discussion reminded me of the "Princess Bride" poison scene. 
3) Animals came into the discussion because we are animals with souls. We still have animal instincts, basic needs, wants, etc. and left unchecked will turn evil to get them. A good example of good men turning bad is War. Men doing things that they wouldn't do back home. Think Japanese in China in WWII. What about people on vacation doing bad stuff? Power corrupts people, think politicians.
4) Why hasn't anyone brought up God created evil? (it was vaguely touched on). I don't believe that one.
5)I think the op was also asking how do men become serial killers, child molesters, wife beaters? Were they born that way? Don't some of those criminals come from balanced Christian homes?
6)If we're just animals and such, why not just do what we want to since that's what the animals do? A lot of people would if there were no rules. Most people don't do it out of love of their spouse.
6)Well I would submit that difference between the civilized world and the non is the introduction of Christian principles in the civilized world?  Would you also submit principles introduced by the civilized people of the Hindu, Native American, Muslim, and Jewish faiths?
7) Isn't this just another discussion on Christians having a monopoly on morals? I'm a Christian and I know better.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> some observations:
> 1)What is the OP seeking with this post? (good discussion, i like it)
> 2)The back and forth logic discussion reminded me of the "Princess Bride" poison scene.
> 3) Animals came into the discussion because we are animals with souls. We still have animal instincts, basic needs, wants, etc. and left unchecked will turn evil to get them. A good example of good men turning bad is War. Men doing things that they wouldn't do back home. Think Japanese in China in WWII. What about people on vacation doing bad stuff? Power corrupts people, think politicians.
> ...



I really like this post!
Re:#4 Speaking for myself I think mankind created God(s) in their image and likeness. I think the dualities like good/bad, sin/sinless, God/Satan are all the work of man. We need definitions,explanations and ways to interpret our feeling about events. No morals are absolute gifts from a creator because they have constantly changed and vary as much as the people and cultures of the planet differ.

To use Ravi's method...
If we believe that there is a God we must also assume God is Good. If we believe God is Good then we must assume God is against evil. If God is against evil we must assume God(all powerful) would eliminate evil. If God doesn't eliminate evil we must assume he either can't or won't......

We need to stop assuming and realize the reality of this "elementary logic". I stopped assuming something that wants to rid the universe of all evil exists. I think "good and evil" exist(by human definition) but no force that defines either beyond mankind exists.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I really like this post!
> Re:#4 Speaking for myself I think mankind created God(s) in their image and likeness. I think the dualities like good/bad, sin/sinless, God/Satan are all the work of man. We need definitions,explanations and ways to interpret our feeling about events. No morals are absolute gifts from a creator because they have constantly changed and vary as much as the people and cultures of the planet differ.
> 
> To use Ravi's method...
> ...



I'm not too impressed by this Ravi character. I believe in God. God is Good. Man is born as a sinner/evil. Man screwed up on his own/sin. Man is an animal. Man has characteristics of animals. I can't help it if people don't think we're animals. Look at pictures of each of us. Man doesn't need the Devil to sin or act evil. Man doesn't need God to act nice and good. Man needs God and his son Jesus for Salvation. God/Holy Spirit can help man be good. Devil/Satan can hinder man from being good. Good/Bad not important for Salvation. Christians don't have monopoly on  morals. Hindus and Atheist moral too. Hindus and Atheist not go to Heaven.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not too impressed by this Ravi character. I believe in God. God is Good. Man is born as a sinner/evil. Man screwed up on his own/sin. Man is an animal. Man has characteristics of animals. I can't help it if people don't think we're animals. Look at pictures of each of us. Man doesn't need the Devil to sin or act evil. Man doesn't need God to act nice and good. Man needs God and his son Jesus for Salvation. God/Holy Spirit can help man be good. Devil/Satan can hinder man from being good. Good/Bad not important for Salvation. Christians don't have monopoly on  morals. Hindus and Atheist moral too. Hindus and Atheist not go to Heaven.



While some things I just can't agree with, I think you bring a more level-headed and realistic line of thought into many of these conversations.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> 4) 5)I think the op was also asking how do men become serial killers, child molesters, wife beaters? Were they born that way? Don't some of those criminals come from balanced Christian homes? *Perhaps they were born that way...inherently evil.*
> 6)If we're just animals and such, why not just do what we want to since that's what the animals do? A lot of people would if there were no rules. Most people don't do it out of love of their spouse. *That's why I don't like the animal/human comparison. *
> 6)Well I would submit that difference between the civilized world and the non is the introduction of Christian principles in the civilized world?  Would you also submit principles introduced by the civilized people of the Hindu, Native American, Muslim, and Jewish faiths?*I would. I think that's why Jim didn't want a Christian v. AAA peeing contest.*
> 7) Isn't this just another discussion on Christians having a monopoly on morals?


*No*


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 27, 2012)

I think it's gone pretty good without turning into an us vs them thing.

From what I gather from the responses, evil or the depravity of men is caused by : inherited sin, animal instincts, criminology views such as brain malfunctions, God making evil for his purpose, and environment/learning.  Did I miss any?


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well if you don't consider lying a wrongdoing by the child...how about breaking the rule of touching something they weren't suppose to touch. Is that wrong?
> 
> I hope you aren't saying lying is ok as long as it is to cover up something that you consider wrong?!?
> Two wrongs don't make a right, in my opinion.



Things are getting a bit confused... I'm saying that lying in and of itself isn't immoral.  Wrong isn't the same as immoral. to me, wrong is subjective, immoral is more objective.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> That there has to be a moral law giver and that moral law giver is God.


How do you have a moral law without a moral law giver? Where did the moral law come from? And just so you know, a moral law cannot come from humans. Humans can only come up with a set of rules to live by, but they cannot make "laws" on morality.



> He is assuming it is the God he believes in....."look to the Cross"


Theoretically yes, but you can only say that because you know that he is a Christian. As far as his argument goes, no, he is not assuming the God of the Bible. He says "look to the cross" for the solution to evil.




> Elementary logic works for elementary minds(Not saying you or anyone specific). All those clapping in that video assume his final assumption based on his deduction is God.


Would you have been happier if he would have said "intelligent eternal being"?




> I can absolutely conclude, because I do not factor a God and or Adam/Eve as being the first humans


Logically, you cannot conclude that there is evil, without good, you don't have to factor God or Adam and Eve. It's simple logic, is there is no opposite of evil, then things just are. 




> It IS evolution! The Process Of Change Over Time.



I know what evolution is. Can you explain to me how evolution is intelligent?

in·tel·li·gence [ in téllijÉ™nss ]   1.ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed
2.secret information: information about secret plans or activities, especially those of foreign governments, the armed forces, business competitors, or criminals
3.gathering of secret information: the collection of secret military or political information

To be more specific, how exactly does evolution have the ability to think and learn?


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Humans can only come up with a set of rules to live by, but they cannot make "laws" on morality.



By doing this you're enforcing a definition of morality that others might not have, and framing the conversation to where if we're using your definition, we don't really have much to say. 

You're unlikely to get a real conversation when doing this.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> By doing this you're enforcing a definition of morality that others might not have, and framing the conversation to where if we're using your definition, we don't really have much to say.
> 
> You're unlikely to get a real conversation when doing this.



PRE-zactly!!!!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

In not one instance can I find where morality comes from a God or is a law given to humans by a God.

Morality: (Merriam-webster)
1
a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson
b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct
b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4
: moral conduct :

(wordIQ)Morality is a complex of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as an informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation. 

(wiki)Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4] An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."[5]


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How do you have a moral law without a moral law giver? Where did the moral law come from? And just so you know, a moral law cannot come from humans. Humans can only come up with a set of rules to live by, but they cannot make "laws" on morality.



Please show me WHO this moral law giver is and we can continue.




stringmusic said:


> Theoretically yes, but you can only say that because you know that he is a Christian. As far as his argument goes, no, he is not assuming the God of the Bible. He says "look to the cross" for the solution to evil.



Then WHO is the moral law giver he is talking about? And what proof does he offer to back up his claim?





stringmusic said:


> Would you have been happier if he would have said "intelligent eternal being"?


No. 





stringmusic said:


> Logically, you cannot conclude that there is evil, without good, you don't have to factor God or Adam and Eve. It's simple logic, is there is no opposite of evil, then things just are.


Right! Things just are and WE, as humans, interject our feelings about these events and define them according to the effect they have on us. 






stringmusic said:


> I know what evolution is. Can you explain to me how evolution is intelligent?
> 
> in·tel·li·gence [ in téllijÉ™nss ]   1.ability to think and learn: the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them, especially when this ability is highly developed
> 2.secret information: information about secret plans or activities, especially those of foreign governments, the armed forces, business competitors, or criminals
> ...



Evolution does not. Intelligence is a result of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Things are getting a bit confused... I'm saying that lying in and of itself isn't immoral.  Wrong isn't the same as immoral. to me, wrong is subjective, immoral is more objective.



That's not what I ask you though.
I ask you if the parent had told the child not to touch something, and they did anyway and they broke it and then lied about it, because of a natural instinct of self preservation is the child doing right or wrong by lying? If it were me, the child deserves punishment for the touching and the lying. I said nothing about being immoral, I ask you if it was wrong for the child to lie. Lying comes as a natural instinct to protect oneself.  Thus, just don't do anything that you have to lie about. If you have to lie then you know you're doing something to cover a wrong. Shouldn't you teach the child that? or let it (the child) continue going by it's (the child) own instinct? We are civilized by resisting things that come natural to us, things we were born with.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

Makes me wonder where or WHO is responsible for giving a child the natural instinct to lie? Evolution or an "intelligent supreme being"?


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> That's not what I ask you though.
> I ask you if the parent had told the child not to touch something, and they did anyway and they broke it and then lied about it, because of a natural instinct of self preservation is the child doing right or wrong by lying? If it were me, the child deserves punishment for the touching and the lying. I said nothing about being immoral, I ask you if it was wrong for the child to lie. Lying comes as a natural instinct to protect oneself.  Thus, just don't do anything that you have to lie about. If you have to lie then you know you're doing something to cover a wrong. Shouldn't you teach the child that? or let it (the child) continue going by it's (the child) own instinct? We are civilized by resisting things that come natural to us, things we were born with.



In the situation you described, it would be wrong to lie. Although i might argue that the child should be taught to understand why they shouldn't have touched something,  instead of punishment.. but now we're just discussing parenting strategies, not morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> In not one instance can I find where morality comes from a God or is a law given to humans by a God.
> 
> Morality: (Merriam-webster)
> 1
> ...



Those are definitions of morality, definitions do not necessarily contain origin.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Those are definitions of morality, definitions do not necessarily contain origin.



Soooooooo show me the origin.


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Those are definitions of morality, definitions do not necessarily contain origin.



Why would we be looking at the etymologies instead of the definitions?

but if that's what you care about, here

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=morality&searchmode=none


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please show me WHO this moral law giver is and we can continue.
> Then WHO is the moral law giver he is talking about? And what proof does he offer to back up his claim?


Are you saying that you now accept his argument and you now just want to know who? The who, by the way, is a whole different argument.




> Right! Things just are and WE, as humans, interject our feelings about these events and define them according to the effect they have on us.


So there is no moral law? 

In the above, it seems as though you are accepting Ravi's argument, at least to the point of who, which like I said is a whole different argument, and now your saying there is no moral law. You're going to have to pick one.  




> Evolution does not.


Your answer to my question of whether or not evolution was intelligent was....


bullethead said:


> Absolutely. And for no other reason than it fits just as well as any other excuse.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> By doing this you're enforcing a definition of morality that others might not have, and framing the conversation to where if we're using your definition, we don't really have much to say.
> 
> You're unlikely to get a real conversation when doing this.



So basically what your saying is there is no moral law other than what humans come up with, to which I would say that means there is no moral law.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are you saying that you now accept his argument and you now just want to know who? The who, by the way, is a whole different argument.


No I do not accept his argument. YOU do, and apparently  the only way that we can have a conversation is if I play along. So..





stringmusic said:


> So there is no moral law?
> 
> In the above, it seems as though you are accepting Ravi's argument, at least to the point of who, which like I said is a whole different argument, and now your saying there is no moral law. You're going to have to pick one.


I side with : There is no Ultimate Moral Law given by an Ultimate Supreme Being.
I believe the moral law we have is and has been decided by mankind and is and has ever been changing as mankind changes. Notice that it is not universal worldwide. 





stringmusic said:


> Your answer to my question of whether or not evolution was intelligent was....


YOUR quote was...


> So you're asserting intelligence to evolution?


I assert that intelligence came from evolution.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No I do not accept his argument. YOU do, and apparently  the only way that we can have a conversation is if I play along. So..


Ok then, before we talk about the who, you still haven't given me an answer as to where his logic fails. Asking who is an "after the fact" question.




> I side with : There is no Ultimate Moral Law given by an Ultimate Supreme Being.
> I believe the moral law we have is and has been decided my mankind and is and has ever been changing as mankind changes. Notice that it is not universal worldwide.


In the first sentence you use the word "we" and then use the word "mankind" and in the second sentence you say it the law is not universal. So who is the "we" and what are you talking about when you say "mankind"? 






> YOUR quote was...
> 
> I assert that intelligence came from evolution.



Yes, but that was not my question, I used the word "to" meaning that evolution somehow had intelligence.

On a side not, how does something create intelligence in humans without first being intelligent itself?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Soooooooo show me the origin.



I can't "show" you the origin. I think it is inherent in all humans.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Ok then, before we talk about the who, you still haven't given me an answer as to where his logic fails. Asking who is an "after the fact" question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"WE", you and I, are done here. It just is not worth my time trying to explain and re-explain and re-re-explain over and over. I enjoyed it for a while but I am done.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Why would we be looking at the etymologies instead of the definitions?
> 
> but if that's what you care about, here
> 
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=morality&searchmode=none



Because Bullet said.... 



bullethead said:


> In not one instance can I find where morality comes from a God or is a law given to humans by a God.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I can't "show" you the origin. I think it is inherent in all humans.



Ok, thanks.


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> In the situation you described, it would be wrong to lie. Although i might argue that the child should be taught to understand why they shouldn't have touched something,  instead of punishment.. but now we're just discussing parenting strategies, not morality.





The post that I orginally posted about the child was just an example of what comes 'natural' for us to do. You're right the parents have to teach the child right from wrong instead of what comes naturally to us, that's my point. We are born into wrongness or sin, we have to be taught the right way to do anything, that usually doesn't come naturally.


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So basically what your saying is there is no moral law other than what humans come up with,



I would posture that if a non-human species developed similar intelligence they would develop the same morality eventually... but for this situation what you said is accurate enough.



stringmusic said:


> to which I would say that means there is no moral law.



Right, just like if I defined moral law as a real number being divided by zero, i would also say that there is no moral law.

That's the reason why i said we cant really discuss this more how you've framed the discussion... If you ask an atheist about moral law, but then define moral law as rules given by a deity, it's an absurd question to ask someone that doesn't believe in a deity in the first place.


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> The post that I orginally posted about the child was just an example of what comes 'natural' for us to do. You're right the parents have to teach the child right from wrong instead of what comes naturally to us, that's my point. We are born into wrongness or sin, we have to be taught the right way to do anything, that usually doesn't come naturally.



Ahh, we'll i'm talking about morality 

Things like lying, or listening to teachers etc is more about preference and less about sin in my opinion.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> That's the reason why i said we cant really discuss this more how you've framed the discussion... If you ask an atheist about moral law, but then define moral law as rules given by a deity, it's an absurd question to ask someone that doesn't believe in a deity in the first place.


I agree, but we also can't discuss this without the possibility of God either.


----------



## Four (Oct 29, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I agree, but we also can't discuss this without the possibility of God either.



Ok, if you want me to assume that a deity existed, or multiple deities existed, i would still not say that morality is derived from any of the potential dieties.

Socrates spoke about this before.. you can check it out Here

for instance, if there was a god, and the god tells you to rape someone... does that become moral simply because a god commands it?


----------



## JFS (Oct 29, 2012)

I see sin and moral law as being two different concepts.  Sin fundametally is what separates you from truth and causes suffering, morality is a set of rules for social cohesion, but I'll concede that religious authorities have blurred the two in the name of crowd control.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Oct 29, 2012)

Your interogatory bought to mind one of my favorite verses from the Word of God, "The way of the sinner is hard."


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Ahh, we'll i'm talking about morality
> 
> Things like lying, or listening to teachers etc is more about preference and less about sin in my opinion.



Ok, since you can seperate the two, as the OP ask, what do you consider sin?

So if a child molester's preference is children, is that a sin wrong/doing or just a preference? If you prefer to lie than tell the truth, that isn't a sin/wrongdoing? It's just what you prefer to do? and that's ok? Not sure what you're getting at, I suppose. 

I guess my point is, anything anyone prefers is not necessarily ok to do.


----------



## Four (Oct 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok, since you can separate the two, as the OP ask, what do you consider sin?
> 
> So if a child molester's preference is children, is that a sin wrong/doing or just a preference? If you prefer to lie than tell the truth, that isn't a sin/wrongdoing? It's just what you prefer to do? and that's ok? Not sure what you're getting at, I suppose.
> 
> I guess my point is, anything anyone prefers is not necessarily ok to do.



Well like i mentioned before, Sin, in a generic sense is just a religious word for wrong, it's generally tied to morality. But I've personally seen many things called sin that don't tie to morality to me.

Any issue that involves force/violence is a potential moral issue. e.g. rape, murder, theft, arson, battery, etc

any issue that doesn't, isn't. e.g. lying (unless to cause violence) marriage, cursing, being late, not bathing, smoking pot, etc.

I hope that clears my position up a little better.


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 30, 2012)

Four said:


> Any issue that involves force/violence is a potential moral issue. e.g. rape, murder, theft, arson, battery, etc
> 
> any issue that doesn't, isn't. e.g. lying (unless to cause violence) marriage, cursing, being late, not bathing, smoking pot, etc.



Could you clarify the difference?

For instance, let's consider adultery.  It is kind-of a breach of contract between two people.  There is no violence, but there is a harm done.

......and that is one of the "rules" which makes a lot of sense with or without religion.


----------



## Four (Oct 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Could you clarify the difference?
> 
> For instance, let's consider adultery.  It is kind-of a breach of contract between two people.  There is no violence, but there is a harm done.
> 
> ......and that is one of the "rules" which makes a lot of sense with or without religion.



If you break the contract, than it's void (assuming that adultery is considered a breach of contract) The contract will generally have provisions for things like that.

So the person in breach of contract will generally be entitled to compensation i would think.

This might help a bit too, my moral stance is derived from the non-aggression principle


----------



## JB0704 (Oct 30, 2012)

Four said:


> If you break the contract, than it's void (assuming that adultery is considered a breach of contract) The contract will generally have provisions for things like that.
> 
> So the person in breach of contract will generally be entitled to compensation i would think.
> 
> This might help a bit too, my moral stance is derived from the non-aggression principle



Thanks for the link, I will do some reading.

As far as the breach of contract, in the case of marriage, it is often verbal, with no compensation specified.  Think of traditional wedding vows, and what is promised compared to what is given when adultery is committed.  There is clearly a harm, and a victim.  I'll read the wiki link and see how that is addressed......


----------



## mtnwoman (Oct 30, 2012)

Four said:


> Well like i mentioned before, Sin, in a generic sense is just a religious word for wrong, it's generally tied to morality. But I've personally seen many things called sin that don't tie to morality to me.
> 
> Any issue that involves force/violence is a potential moral issue. e.g. rape, murder, theft, arson, battery, etc
> 
> ...



Yep that about clears it up.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 19, 2012)

I think the general idea here is that morality is independent of a diety. I believe this is true. Morality is usually defined as "what is acceptable by society". It varies from society to society. What Muslims believe is moral, Christians may not, and the general population of Topeka Kansas may disagree further.

Abortion for instance may be construed to be moral according to the law.

What God brings to the equation is "The Truth". Morality may or noy not jive with "The Truth".


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 20, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I think the general idea here is that morality is independent of a diety. I believe this is true. Morality is usually defined as "what is acceptable by society". It varies from society to society. What Muslims believe is moral, Christians may not, and the general population of Topeka Kansas may disagree further.
> 
> Abortion for instance may be construed to be moral according to the law.
> 
> What God brings to the equation is "The Truth". Morality may or noy not jive with "The Truth".



What does that mean? That what God says is moral truly is by virtue of his having said so?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 20, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I think the general idea here is that morality is independent of a diety. I believe this is true. Morality is usually defined as "what is acceptable by society". It varies from society to society. What Muslims believe is moral, Christians may not, and the general population of Topeka Kansas may disagree further.
> 
> Abortion for instance may be construed to be moral according to the law.
> 
> What God brings to the equation is "The Truth". Morality may or noy not jive with "The Truth".



 Well finally another Christian besides me that doesn't think morals are dependent of a deity.


----------



## Oak-flat Hunter (Nov 21, 2012)

All things contributed too man can be summed up in one word.....Your ready..Are You ready....It' Chemical Imbalances because Scientist has Yet too figure out The brain..lol


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 21, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> What does that mean? That what God says is moral truly is by virtue of his having said so?



No, morality doesn't have anything to do with the truth. Morality is a human construct. The truth is divine.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 22, 2012)

Taking things down to the basic level, "good" is seeing another sunrise and "bad" is dying during the night.  It is really that simple.

Everything else (evil/righteousness/sin/good) is static.  The filters to that static are created by leadership and human powers that be and are based on one's current place and time of existance.


----------



## ted_BSR (Nov 25, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Taking things down to the basic level, "good" is seeing another sunrise and "bad" is dying during the night.  It is really that simple.
> 
> Everything else (evil/righteousness/sin/good) is static.  The filters to that static are created by leadership and human powers that be and are based on one's current place and time of existance.



I don;t see all death as bad. My 100 year old Grandfather passed peacefully in his sleep and went to Glory. He was ready.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 25, 2012)

And living another day in pain with terminal pancreatic cancer might be "not so good."  There are extremes, but the basic survival instinct is to survive until one's time is up.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 25, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Taking things down to the basic level, "good" is seeing another sunrise and "bad" is dying during the night.  It is really that simple.
> 
> Everything else (evil/righteousness/sin/good) is static.  The filters to that static are created by leadership and human powers that be and are based on one's current place and time of existance.



Even if you don't believe in God, is that all that you can see as good? What in the world does living a long life have to do with good? (even if you don't believe in an afterlife.)
Wouldn't you agree 40 years of a good life is better than 80 years of a bad life? You don't agree that helping others is good? If you live your whole life(Christian or not) that the only good is a long life, then you can't see the forest for the trees. Don't overlook the forest for the trees.
Evil/righteousness/sin/good or however you want to look at it is from man. You need to figure that out before you even consider religion.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even if you don't believe in God, is that all that you can see as good? What in the world does living a long life have to do with good? (even if you don't believe in an afterlife.)
> Wouldn't you agree 40 years of a good life is better than 80 years of a bad life? You don't agree that helping others is good? If you live your whole life(Christian or not) that the only good is a long life, then you can't see the forest for the trees. Don't overlook the forest for the trees.
> Evil/righteousness/sin/good or however you want to look at it is from man. You need to figure that out before you even consider religion.



You have completely missed it, the point of my post.
Since the beginning of man, humans have one most basic concern.  That is survival.  Life.
Simple.  Basic.  Think bottom line.
Life is the most valuable thing a creature owns.  Keeping it is the priority over everything else.
Things do contribute to that survival, both to the individual and the family/clan.  That is where interpretations of "good" start.  And it is fluid, changing with times and needs.  That is proven.

Please don't concern yourself over my "consideration of religion" or my knowledge of belief systems.  I assure you it is extensive and ongoing.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 26, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> You have completely missed it, the point of my post.
> Since the beginning of man, humans have one most basic concern.  That is survival.  Life.
> Simple.  Basic.  Think bottom line.
> Life is the most valuable thing a creature owns.  Keeping it is the priority over everything else.
> ...



My apologies, my words didn't come out just right. You are right about survival mode. When one's in it he is mostly thinking of himself and family. I don't doubt your quest for the truth.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2012)

Artfuldodger, I think as mankind has developed stronger abilities of mental analysis and thought we have ourselves created the ideals of right/wrong/good/bad and even "sin."  As history has proven, those ideals have changed greatly over the many years.  Can some of those changes/interpretations be considered positive progress?  I think so. 
I feel religious belief systems are a product of that advance in mental thought.  No doubt they stand as a historical record of civilization's rules or accepted practices.


Thankfully, human sacrifice and torture is not openly acceptable today.

No offense taken.  I am perpetually "in search of" all I can find.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> You have completely missed it, the point of my post.
> Since the beginning of man, humans have one most basic concern.  That is survival.  Life.
> Simple.  Basic.  Think bottom line.
> Life is the most valuable thing a creature owns.  Keeping it is the priority over everything else.
> ...



Except when they want to die.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Except when they want to die.



Would there not have to be an influence of some sort for that basic desire to live to be broken?  Mental illness?  Severe physical pain or illness?  Depression?  Brainwashing?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 26, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Would there not have to be an influence of some sort for that basic desire to live to be broken?  Mental illness?  Severe physical pain or illness?  Depression?  Brainwashing?



Probably. But I suppose some people, (no idea about a number), just feel like not living anymore.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 26, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Probably. But I suppose some people, (no idea about a number), just feel like not living anymore.



That's something i've often thought about. Why couldn't someone just lose the will to live? We think we would like to live a long life on earth but what if we lived for 800 years? I'm looking foward to retirement but after a few decades of the highlight of the day is checking the mail, I might be ready to check out. If not 800 years then what about 8,000 years?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's something i've often thought about. Why couldn't someone just lose the will to live? We think we would like to live a long life on earth but what if we lived for 800 years? I'm looking foward to retirement but after a few decades of the highlight of the day is checking the mail, I might be ready to check out. If not 800 years then what about 8,000 years?



..or maybe move on to the "next thing".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 27, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> ..or maybe move on to the "next thing".



Endless feast, fellowship, music, fountains, rivers, & gardens.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, to bring it full circle back to the OP's intended discussion, those humans who do not feel like living anymore and wish for the ride to stop face the stigma of suicide as being considered "bad" or "sin" by most religious belief systems.

Suicide has not been viewed as "good" by very many cultures, unless it was as sacrifice for the greater good in some way.


----------



## WTM45 (Nov 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Endless feast, fellowship, music, fountains, rivers, & gardens.



Or, the exact same thing one remembers about the time before they were born...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Endless feast, fellowship, music, fountains, rivers, & gardens.



Got any pics? Maybe a post card from someone already there? Heaven seems to have a version for each believer.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 27, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Got any pics? Maybe a post card from someone already there? Heaven seems to have a version for each believer.



And maybe a different He!! for each believer. For people in cold climates their He!! might be really really cold.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> And maybe a different He!! for each believer. For people in cold climates their He!! might be really really cold.



Made to suit the individual. Probably among the reasons why even within Christianity there are 10,000+ denominations. Add in the other religions and their off-shoots and it is really hard to figure out which one is true. One, All, or most likely None.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 27, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's something i've often thought about. Why couldn't someone just lose the will to live? We think we would like to live a long life on earth but what if we lived for 800 years? I'm looking foward to retirement but after a few decades of the highlight of the day is checking the mail, I might be ready to check out. If not 800 years then what about 8,000 years?



Assuming perpetual good health would come with centuries of life, I could find something to occupy my time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 27, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Assuming perpetual good health would come with centuries of life, I could find something to occupy my time.



The first thing on my list would be to get caught up on my sleep!


----------

