Is morality proof of god.

[12 Monkeys]

GIA in my above post I was saying good men...like your cosmic entity could care less about the 5000 children who die every hour of every day 365 days a year.....unlike your "cosmic God" men are all about self preservation....mainly because they don't buy the concept of a heaven or a God.

 Now,what is this cosmic God doing to prevent these deaths?.......SWEET FUCK ALL. Yet the believers who praise him,don't obey him or uphold his instructions to care for the meek,why? Why do these same believer's who won't sacrifice anything to help the meek give God a pass? The believer always has an excuse for why his/her god under performs,no matter what god or belief system.

[12 Monkeys]

there is also a way to feed the hungry all over the world. Logistics don't get in the way. Greed and desire for my survival over your's or theirs(generally) is what stops the food to getting to source.

 And who is this "we" you are talking about....you may not see it but kids here are malnourished. In some areas of the states people are working more than 3 part time jobs a week to keep from starving.

BTW why are the children being born into a time and place where they starve? The religious dogmas in the countries where they are born don't allow women the use of birth control.

[Anfauglir]

I do not like to call the cosmic consciousness God but yes, it just exists just as you and I do.

It is the next evolutionary step for all of us.

You've said this twice - I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Greatest I am]

GIA in my above post I was saying good men...like your cosmic entity could care less about the 5000 children who die every hour of every day 365 days a year.....unlike your "cosmic God" men are all about self preservation....mainly because they don't buy the concept of a heaven or a God.

 Now,what is this cosmic God doing to prevent these deaths?.......SWEET FUCK ALL. Yet the believers who praise him,don't obey him or uphold his instructions to care for the meek,why? Why do these same believer's who won't sacrifice anything to help the meek give God a pass? The believer always has an excuse for why his/her god under performs,no matter what god or belief system.

The only force that can do anything about conditions here is mankind. We are supreme.

And yes, many who profess to believe do not. They are in their religions to follow tradition and culture and that is it.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

there is also a way to feed the hungry all over the world. Logistics don't get in the way. Greed and desire for my survival over your's or theirs(generally) is what stops the food to getting to source.

 And who is this "we" you are talking about....you may not see it but kids here are malnourished. In some areas of the states people are working more than 3 part time jobs a week to keep from starving.

BTW why are the children being born into a time and place where they starve? The religious dogmas in the countries where they are born don't allow women the use of birth control.

Poor people reproduce more than the rich and I guess insecurity makes them think that there is wealth in children. In some places it is true. They get sold.

I agree that there is corruption in the charitable food delivery system.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I do not like to call the cosmic consciousness God but yes, it just exists just as you and I do.

It is the next evolutionary step for all of us.

You've said this twice - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Our consciousness will evolve to join it. Call that process whatever you like if you do not like my use of language.

As a Frenchman I am always eager to improve my English mon ami. Offer an alternative.

Regards
DL

[epidemic]

I do not like to call the cosmic consciousness God but yes, it just exists just as you and I do.

It is the next evolutionary step for all of us.

You've said this twice - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Our consciousness will evolve to join it. Call that process whatever you like if you do not like my use of language.

As a Frenchman I am always eager to improve my English mon ami. Offer an alternative.

Regards
DL

well the use of evolutionary implies the species is heading that way and someday effectively our progeny will all be born part of the collective consciousness.

I think you're implying that when we die our soul continues on as part of the borg collective:)  that it is more of a stage of our existence rather than an evolutionary step?

[12 Monkeys]

there is also a way to feed the hungry all over the world. Logistics don't get in the way. Greed and desire for my survival over your's or theirs(generally) is what stops the food to getting to source.

 And who is this "we" you are talking about....you may not see it but kids here are malnourished. In some areas of the states people are working more than 3 part time jobs a week to keep from starving.

BTW why are the children being born into a time and place where they starve? The religious dogmas in the countries where they are born don't allow women the use of birth control.

Poor people reproduce more than the rich and I guess insecurity makes them think that there is wealth in children. In some places it is true. They get sold.

I agree that there is corruption in the charitable food delivery system.

Regards
DL

I see you skipped right over the part where I said religious dogma prevents them from using ANY form of birth control

[Greatest I am]

I do not like to call the cosmic consciousness God but yes, it just exists just as you and I do.

It is the next evolutionary step for all of us.

You've said this twice - I do not think it means what you think it means.

Our consciousness will evolve to join it. Call that process whatever you like if you do not like my use of language.

As a Frenchman I am always eager to improve my English mon ami. Offer an alternative.

Regards
DL

well the use of evolutionary implies the species is heading that way and someday effectively our progeny will all be born part of the collective consciousness.

I think you're implying that when we die our soul continues on as part of the borg collective:)  that it is more of a stage of our existence rather than an evolutionary step?

I see what you are saying and your view is sound.
You are the first to set me straight.
I love to learn but hate to be corrected.

I will have to watch my wording.

Merci man ami.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

there is also a way to feed the hungry all over the world. Logistics don't get in the way. Greed and desire for my survival over your's or theirs(generally) is what stops the food to getting to source.

 And who is this "we" you are talking about....you may not see it but kids here are malnourished. In some areas of the states people are working more than 3 part time jobs a week to keep from starving.

BTW why are the children being born into a time and place where they starve? The religious dogmas in the countries where they are born don't allow women the use of birth control.

Poor people reproduce more than the rich and I guess insecurity makes them think that there is wealth in children. In some places it is true. They get sold.

I agree that there is corruption in the charitable food delivery system.

Regards
DL

I see you skipped right over the part where I said religious dogma prevents them from using ANY form of birth control

I could not judge the veracity of the comment since in much of the developing world where the poverty is creating this problem Christianity is not the main religion. Think India and I don't know if it is still the case but some of the poorest African countries instability and war chases out contraceptive delivery.

Regards
DL

[bertatberts]

Merci man ami.

Etes-vous sûr que vous êtes français. Je pourrais comprendre l'erreur si le "A" était à côté du "O" sur le clavier. Mais!  Are you sure you're French. I could understand the mistake if the "A" was next to the "O" on the keyboard.  But!

[12 Monkeys]

I did not say Christianity.....I said religious dogma

[Ron Jeremy]

On morals, I take moral to mean 'inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature'. There are times when inflicting harm or suffering may be warranted for the greater good. Perhaps an example would be travelling back in time to the bedroom of the infant Hitler. If one had a pistol and limited time, it may be argued that it is moral to shoot the infant to prevent the huge loss of life in the second world war. But if one first tortured the infant before shooting, that would be immoral, judged I think by the majority of humanity.

So if we accept that to be moral is to inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature, then this standard does not come from any god. Believers of gods, whether they know it or not, judge their god. If, say, a god were to appear and say "From this day forth I will prevent unnecessary harm and suffering to children', the believer would judge their god to be moral. If the god appeared and said "From this day forth I will inflict harm and suffering on all infants because I delight in their pain", the god would be judged immoral.

Believers of Biblegod also judge their god. They attempt to justify his genocide and rape of the Midanites along with many other biblical atrocities because they hope Biblegod is doing it for the greater good. But they are judging him, none the less, by a moral yardstick that is separate from the god.

[Anfauglir]

On morals, I take moral to mean 'inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature'. There are times when inflicting harm or suffering may be warranted for the greater good. Perhaps an example would be travelling back in time to the bedroom of the infant Hitler. If one had a pistol and limited time, it may be argued that it is moral to shoot the infant to prevent the huge loss of life in the second world war.

Big aside here.....

I'm not sure it would be moral.  The baby has done nothing.  The justification would be "it is inevitable it will grow up to commit atrocities" - yet the very scenario makes clear that its upbringing is NOT inevitable. 

My head spins.  I now return you to the thread already in progress.

[epidemic]

I take moral to mean 'inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature'.




But if one first tortured the infant before shooting, that would be immoral, judged I think by the majority of humanity.

I think the key would be to add one word to this "I take moral to mean 'inflict no unnecessary harm or suffering on another living creature'."

[Mrjason]

^^^ yeah I was thinking that too. Wouldn't it be better to use your time machine to go back to 1930 and rig the votes so that he didn't get elected. Or any permutaion of events to stop him that doesn't involve a murder. The fact the you have other options available would make the murder immoral. IMO.

[epidemic]

On morals, I take moral to mean 'inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature'. There are times when inflicting harm or suffering may be warranted for the greater good. Perhaps an example would be travelling back in time to the bedroom of the infant Hitler. If one had a pistol and limited time, it may be argued that it is moral to shoot the infant to prevent the huge loss of life in the second world war.

Big aside here.....

I'm not sure it would be moral.  The baby has done nothing.  The justification would be "it is inevitable it will grow up to commit atrocities" - yet the very scenario makes clear that its upbringing is NOT inevitable. 

My head spins.  I now return you to the thread already in progress.

although there may be an alternative, you have to work from the perspective of "to the best of my knowledge Hitler will grow up and cause tremendous suffering" 

Of course there is the alternative.  Perhaps if Hitler did not grow up and comitt his attrocities perhaps Russia would have had someone else in power and he decided that they could achieve a nuclear first strike during the cuban missile crisis and instead of a cold war we had a third world war wiping out 90% of life on planet earth.

[ParkingPlaces]

The truly moral thing to do would be to go back in time and become a significant and positive influence in baby Hitler's life, being with him as he grew and making sure that he became well grounded and compassionate and other things. And still being prepared to kill him if he turned into an asshole.

And epidemic has a good point. There is no guarantee that history would take a turn for the better just because one bad influence was removed. Had Hitler never been born, we might be having this same discussion about some different foreigner, named Chuck, who caused 6 million deaths because he hated seafood and attacked Maine. And eliminating Hitler from the equation would still leave his junior assistant assholes alive and with power. Goebbels, etc. were certainly his icky equals.

[Mrjason]

ParkingPlaces, I agree. Where would it stop, being a time traveller would be a full time business a la quantum leap.
if you had the chance though would you go back to C. 30CE and give paul a slap and tell him to stop being so silly?

[ParkingPlaces]

ParkingPlaces, I agree. Where would it stop, being a time traveller would be a full time business a la quantum leap.
if you had the chance though would you go back to C. 30CE and give paul a slap and tell him to stop being so silly?

Hey, if it were possible, I'd go back in time and do most anything but kiss Mother Theresa. History always suffers from being wrong, no matter how accurate it is. Because it can't be completely right about anything. I, for one, would love to know more about what things were really like hundreds and thousands of years ago, and if I got to bitch-slap Paul in the process, all the better.

Actual travel back in time would be fraught with problems. Health issues, for instance. If old European cultures were as dirty as history says, it would be harder than hell to avoid infections and the common diseases of the time. Especially if the time traveler lacked native resistance to the diseases. I assume smallpox vaccinations would help, but I'm guessing there were a lot of problems that we, as relatively clean members of society, couldn't imagine.

I'd still go, but I might take some soap with me.

[Ron Jeremy]

By limited time I meant a couple of seconds; no chance to take him away and have him adopted by a Jewish couple. The choice, for this scenario, is to pull the trigger or not.

[Hatter23]

Actual travel back in time would be fraught with problems. Health issues, for instance. If old European cultures were as dirty as history says, it would be harder than hell to avoid infections and the common diseases of the time. Especially if the time traveler lacked native resistance to the diseases. I assume smallpox vaccinations would help, but I'm guessing there were a lot of problems that we, as relatively clean members of society, couldn't imagine.

I'd still go, but I might take some soap with me.

It is a mixed bag, you would likely be a worse risk for them than them for you. You are from a cosmopolitan heavily traveled and densely populated people. They are not.

[neopagan]

Actual travel back in time would be fraught with problems. Health issues, for instance. If old European cultures were as dirty as history says, it would be harder than hell to avoid infections and the common diseases of the time. Especially if the time traveler lacked native resistance to the diseases. I assume smallpox vaccinations would help, but I'm guessing there were a lot of problems that we, as relatively clean members of society, couldn't imagine.

Too bad your smallpox vaccination scar would be seen as the mark of the devil and you'd be burned at the stake.

[Ron Jeremy]

Besides, the intention wasn't to start a debate on time travel! I was trying to point out that morals do not come from a god because we use our morals to judge whether a god is acting morally or not. I agree with the addition 'unnecessary suffering'. It seems to me that Christians have to assume that all the suffering in the bible was necessary for the greater good. If it wasn't, if god was just being a dick with an uncontrollable temper, then he was acting immorally. The yardstick we use to judge whether an action is 'good' or 'bad' comes from within every one of us, with varying degrees depending on our own moral compass. The fact that we judge Biblegod tells me that he isn't the one that has dispensed the morals.

[Mrjason]

By limited time I meant a couple of seconds; no chance to take him away and have him adopted by a Jewish couple. The choice, for this scenario, is to pull the trigger or not.

there's still alternatives to killing a baby in that scenario. How about you shoot yourself so Mr & Mrs Hitler take better care of their boy after finding a shot body in his room.

[Ron Jeremy]

Did I mention the gun was welded to a vice bolted to a 5 ton bench in the time machine, when you appear in little Hitler's room it's pointed at his head and you only have 2 seconds in there? And the time machine has locked controls; it does one trip to that time only then self destructs? Wasn't sure if I mentioned that part...

[Hatter23]

Actual travel back in time would be fraught with problems. Health issues, for instance. If old European cultures were as dirty as history says, it would be harder than hell to avoid infections and the common diseases of the time. Especially if the time traveler lacked native resistance to the diseases. I assume smallpox vaccinations would help, but I'm guessing there were a lot of problems that we, as relatively clean members of society, couldn't imagine.

Too bad your smallpox vaccination scar would be seen as the mark of the devil and you'd be burned at the stake.

Eh it was not quite that bad. People at the time were riddled with marks and scars and the bad witchfinder could always find something to call a witches mark, and if you had none...that would be unnatural...and evidence of witchery.

That's unless he actually paid attention to the Malleus Malificorium rather than reading a few passages and waving it around yelling scary things.(Sound familiar?)

[Greatest I am]

Merci man ami.

Etes-vous sûr que vous êtes français. Je pourrais comprendre l'erreur si le "A" était à côté du "O" sur le clavier. Mais!  Are you sure you're French. I could understand the mistake if the "A" was next to the "O" on the keyboard.  But!

Je peux fair plusieur erreur avec trois langage. Francais, Englais et Franglais.

A prochaine chicane.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

On morals, I take moral to mean 'inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature'. There are times when inflicting harm or suffering may be warranted for the greater good. Perhaps an example would be travelling back in time to the bedroom of the infant Hitler. If one had a pistol and limited time, it may be argued that it is moral to shoot the infant to prevent the huge loss of life in the second world war. But if one first tortured the infant before shooting, that would be immoral, judged I think by the majority of humanity.

So if we accept that to be moral is to inflict no harm or suffering on another living creature, then this standard does not come from any god. Believers of gods, whether they know it or not, judge their god. If, say, a god were to appear and say "From this day forth I will prevent unnecessary harm and suffering to children', the believer would judge their god to be moral. If the god appeared and said "From this day forth I will inflict harm and suffering on all infants because I delight in their pain", the god would be judged immoral.

Believers of Biblegod also judge their god. They attempt to justify his genocide and rape of the Midanites along with many other biblical atrocities because they hope Biblegod is doing it for the greater good. But they are judging him, none the less, by a moral yardstick that is separate from the god.

Yes and thus showing their immoral double standards.

Here is a prime example of that and I have yet to get even one immoral Christian to agree that God sinned when, as he says, Satan moved him to do harm without just cause.

I always get the usual, God does not have to follow his own laws because he owns us.

Christians have no problem with owning humans/'slavery it seems.

Until you ask them and then their double standards come out again.

Regards
DL