Where does evil come from?

[Slimebeast]

highwaystar101 said:

Slimebeast said:

highwaystar101 said:

Slimebeast said:

Green: your dodging a little. I asked you for an argument. How would you argue that it's wrong. You only say "it's instinctively wrong". Okay...

And you wouldn't even try to argue with the aliens. Despite them being highly intelligent and compassionate beings? 

Blue:

I told u, u make it complicated by bringing the Bible into this. You cited texts from the Old Testament. They're rules that applies to Jews at that time in that context, not Christians. You ever wondered why you never hear a Christian argue that we should stone blasphemers or take slaves?
And the verses from Timothy, they're not pro slavery. Read the context and you'll understand that they're decrees for the believers to remain humble and peaceful even when they're supressed by evil-doers. Christianity is not an ideology of rebellion.

Orange:

In that scenario (if God removed morals) yes I would be left with "atheist morals". But where did I say that atheist morals are bad? Actually a big part of my whole argument is that most human beings, including atheists, have an intrinsic "divine spark" or "instinct" if you will, that is so strong about what is right and wrong, what is evil and good, a strong feeling or knowledge that goes beyond our biological programming.

You see, in many hypothetical discussions humans have the ability to step out from the ego, to distance themselves from their instincts and look upon matters from a more objective stance, but this is seldom the case for morals. Nearly every atheist will in fact, just like you,argue that it's wrong to torment the baby no matter if it was in pre-historic times, today or by an alien on an alien planet and yet in these discussions he will drop comments like we already seen in this thread "it's all relative" - that is, the atheist will attribute himself to absolute morals (damn, I dont think attribute is the proper word) and contradicts himself without knowing it.

So about the question whether your atheist morals are lesser than mine. Perhaps no since I believe they have the same source, which is some kind of universal and divine knowledge and conviction about what is right and wrong. But your arguments and basis for your morals are definately weaker.

Note: the following post is not written in a state of sobriety whatsoever. Do not hold this against atheism.

Green:

Instinctively wrong is a good argument. Feeling instinctively wrong is good, it's our base instinct.

As for aliens: I never said they would try to be compassionate, I said if they were. Perhaps through some evolutionary miracle they were completely peaceful. But the likelihood that if we ever came into contact, yeah they would see us as an ants nest in the way of their supernatural highway (to quote Michio Kaku), we would be flattened in seconds. To be honest, I'm not going to argue it because alien ethics is something we can only speculate on, and what I reckon is that they would be hostile and we wouldn't stand a chance.

To be honest, I know your alien argument is just a poorly disguised strawman because you want me to say that they would have a unified moral that would stop them destroying us. Well, I don't think that, and I'm not going to give you the pleasure.

Also, you have left out whether a Christian with a unified set of morals would go out and kill people like in the hermit example you gave. Surely you must recognise that amoral murderers exist, regardless of the moral base.

 

Blue:

So the plot thickens, ey? Now the old testament is defunct (no need to believe in Adam and Eve and Noah's ark anymore guys) once poor morals are used because it's pro-slavery and pro-murder, despite both new and old testaments being the word of the same God. Why is that? Has God's will of morals he has decreed onto humanity suddenly changed? Why? I mean he's the same Abrahamic God, so why has the morals of God changed from one book to the next? From the old testament to the new he represents a completely different set of morals. Why did he decide to change morals? Why are the morals he gave in the old testament better than the morals in the new testament? If God is all knowing, then why can his morals change? The questions are endless.

And I'm not making it complicated by using the bible, your unified morals come from the Bible and I'm questioning you on the morals that are kept in the bible.

People from Abrahamic religions have socially evolved past their unified morals without God, and this pretty much proves my point alone.

 

Orange: 

I certainly have no divine spark which keeps me moral. What proof have you got for this "divine spark"? How are my arguments weaker? I have plenty of scientific proof for the evolution of morals ([source 1] [source 2] [source 3] [source 4]... [source n]) and to be quite honest I can bring up quote after quote in the bible of examples of morals that would not fly today at all. 

And yes, our basis for our morals are the same. But trust me your morals are atheist morals, not the other way around, it's just that you have masked yours with a religion.

 

And another question, how are your set of unified divine morals are the sole set of unified morals over other sets of "infallible" divine unified sets of morals from religions such as Sikhism, Hinduism or Buddhism? Are these all wrong too?

I wish you had been sober when you wrote your reply.

These kinds of debates are exhausting for me cos I'm not very good with words, especially as there's a language barrier. So I'll give you a chance to edit before I reply.

Oh, ok. Usually when I'm drunk I suffer from 'perfectionism', where I will try very hard to try and be coherent. It annoys a lot of people lol. But I can see that I did ramble on a bit. Perhaps I can list my arguments and you can draw from the other post...

Green:

1. Instinctive morals work. We have evolved to feel repulsed by committing certain acts, but it unfortunately has a certain degree of error where people will commit hideous acts. I challenge you to prove that this degree of error doesn't also exist within unified sets of morals.

2. Yes, I don't think aliens have a unified set of morals. If aliens came, unless they felt compassionate due to some social or biological evolution, I think we would be wiped out.

 

Blue:

1. If God is all knowing and omnipotent, then why did he feel the need to change his morals from the old testament to the new testament? Shouldn't God be able to determine everlasting Universal rules in the first instance.

2. Why are his old morals now defunct? What was the catalyst causing God to condone murdering blasphemers but then change his stance?

3. Christians, Jews and Muslims have all adapted/evolved their morals past Gods decree. I see this as reason to believe there is no divine backing to morals.

 

Orange:

1. There is no evidence for a divine origin of morals, however there is a lot of evidence for the evolution of morals.

2. There are plenty of morals in the bible that have no bearing on the modern world.

3. All people have instinctive morals, it's just that some mask their instinctive morals with religion.

 

Extra question:

Why is one unified set of morals the one true representation? There are many unified sets of morals that claim to be divine and infallible. Many of these conflict, why are the unified set of morals of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, etc... incorrect, when many of them claim to have a divine and infallible backing the same as Christianity's?

 

You know what. You are arguing that morals are completely subjective. I want you to be aware of that.

So I want to ask you, why do you even start to argue with me if I say "Go BNP!" or whatever?

1. So instinct is good. I can partly agree with that. But what if somebody doesnt have that same insticnt? There are a lot of people who instinctively get pleasure from torturing animals. You wouldnt even try to argue with them. It's like you deny the whole world or moral argument that is out there in 1000's of philosofy books??

I'd say instinctive morals work only to a degree.

2. Of course you can assume the aliens would be compassionate. They could be or they could not. Morals still play a part in their decision. The question is, would they kill us or spare us and on what grounds? Morals arent the same as feelings of sympathy. They're tied to feelings, but not the same. You are dodging the question by avoiding the aliens part. By calling it a strawman or whatever. You wouldnt even argue with the aliens. But I know our leaders would.

Blue

Im skipping this part, for many reasons.

Orange.

1. Your replies are all over the place, you're changing the topic. So I repeat:

But the three guys with a hammer, their genes maybe don't produce such a feeling. So how could I (or you) then condemn them?

Nearly every atheist will in fact, just like you, argue that it's wrong to torment the baby no matter if it was in pre-historic times, today or by an alien on an alien planet and yet in these discussions he will drop comments like we already seen in this thread "it's all relative" - that is, the atheist will attribute himself to absolute morals (damn, I dont think attribute is the proper word) and contradicts himself without knowing it.

Extra question:
Of course everyone claims to have the truth. What is your point?