Simple question for Christians.

[robvalue]

Are you saying we should let people starve, then? What is your position?

I'd try and save everyone as far as was possible, and work on reducing overpopulation.

[Catholic_Lady]

Are you saying we should let people starve, then? What is your position?

I'd try and save everyone as far as was possible, and work on reducing overpopulation. Sorry to have to step on your toes, but contraception is a must for this.

None of this is my position, because I think morality comes from God, not from what is best for me personally.

I'm not talking about contraception.

Let's start form the beginning because I see we are not on the same page. You think the corner stone of morality is to treat others the way you want to be treated. Right?

[robvalue]

Yes. That is the simplest way to describe it.

OK, what is god's position? Surely he could just fix this problem for us. Does he want us to let people starve?

[Kingpin]

Thank you

Well yes, the golden rule. That's it. Morality can be refined down to that. You can say God tells you to use the golden rule, I can say it's obvious to me. You don't need much more than the golden rule.

I appreciate your replies, I rarely get a debate on here (with theists) that doesn't nosedive into nonsense very quickly.

As for the big questions, I am comfortable to say I don't know. I don't know where the universe came from. I don't know if there is any purpose to anything. I don't claim that there is any objective morality, and if there is, it's still subjective to God and I don't care about his opinion. If it amounts to the golden rule, then you're using the same standard as me but just making the extra assumption that God is somehow involved. Other Christians may also use the golden rule but interpret it differently.

I'm comfortable saying I don't know. And I would assume that you don't know either, but you've adopted a belief system which attempts to answer these questions. I don't find those answers compelling or necessary. I'd rather have no answer and keep looking, than settle for a made-up one.

I do understand a lot of people are uncomfortable saying "I don't know". It's one of the big pulls of religion.

Morality is man made and subjective, yes. No one has the final say. We decide together as a society. I understand you may not find it acceptable, but that is how it is. There is no alternative! What other alternative could there be, since theists can't agree either? God doesn't have the final say, because he doesn't do anything. A book from 2000 years ago only has so much worth in a discussion, even if he did write it.

If he wanted us all to have the same morality, then presumably we would. So either he has failed, or this is a faulty assumption.

I suppose you would say I get my golden rule from God too. In that case, it amounts to an unnecessary extra assumption, when the golden rule can easily be explained by evolution in a scientific way.

I don't know if we're going to make any more progress, but I enjoyed the debate, thank you! I appreciate being taken seriously

If you want to test your beliefs, the question remains: if God ordered you to kill your family, would you do it? Only one religious theist ever in my experience has answered this question without a dodge. For me it's easy, no. Get bent, God.

Rob, I truly appreciate that tasteful and honest discourse.  I can also say that I have rarely had debates with theists that don't nosedive in to nonsense

Saying I don't know is an acceptable answer.  I too do not know many things.  I believe certain things to be true based on the evidence presented to me, but if something(s) concrete to go against that evidence were to surface, I could of course believe something else and I hope you can honestly say the same.  

I believe there to be a God, you do not.  I respect your belief and can only hope you respect mine as well, neither makes us a bad person (at least by our definition of bad  ).

I will answer your question.  My answer would be no.  Because this request would go against the character of God.  I'm sure this response will bring up further debate and getting in to the OT God and telling Abraham to sacrifice his son, etc.  But it's pointless to get in to a theological debate if one party rejects the existence of the subject of the discussion.  

With that said, I appreciate the discussion and look forward to more.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes. That is the simplest way to describe it.

OK, what is god's position? Surely he could just fix this problem for us. Does he want us to let people starve?

(If it's ok, and so we can move through one subject at a time, is it ok if I just try to understand what your position is exactly before delving into the God aspect?)

Ok. You answered yes. Now my question is why? Why is it moral to treat others the way they want to be treated? Why can't it be moral for me to treat them however I want, if it makes me feel good?

[robvalue]

King: Thanks very much

Of course I respect your belief in God, I'm only here to encourage discussion and free thinking. I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong, but to present my arguments. I'm sure you are indeed a good guy. I'd say that is nothing to do with God, and to give yourself credit. But I appreciate you feel it is to do with God.

So... Well, I'm very happy to hear you'd say no. But if he just told you to do it, how can it not be in his character?

You have the honour of being theist number 2 to have the balls to answer.

CL: Sure, I'll calm down then

Why should I treat others as I want to be treated (or as they want to be)? Because I care about them. We only have one life that we're sure of, and I want us all to have the best life we can have. Scientifically, this is a product of evolution. Personally, I care. People matter to me. Animals matter to me.

Again, we need to be clear about morality actually means.

[Catholic_Lady]

Rob, I truly appreciate that tasteful and honest discourse.  I can also say that I have rarely had debates with theists that don't nosedive in to nonsense

Yes, Rob is great!

[robvalue]

Thank you! You're great too CL

[Catholic_Lady]

You have the honour of being theist number 2 to have the balls to answer.

I don't think you ever asked me (or if you did I missed it), but just for the record, my answer would be no as well. For the same reasons. If God asked me to kill my family, He would not be the God I thought I was worshiping.

Why should I treat others as I want to be treated (or as they want to be)? Because I care about them. We only have one life that we're sure of, and I want us all to have the best life we can have. Scientifically, this is a product of evolution. Personally, I care. People matter to me. Animals matter to me.

Again, we need to be clear about morality actually means.

Thanks, Rob!

Two questions:

So what of the people who don't care about every person they encounter? Why should they treat those people as they would want to be treated?

Also, what do you mean by "scientifically this is the process of evolution?"

[robvalue]

Nice, two in one day! I'm glad to say you would say no too CL Brilliant answer. I've asked it before many times, before you were a member. Our regulars won't answer, bar one (Huggy). The rest just make excuses as to why they don't have to answer.

People who don't care? Well, it can still be pragmatic. If you keep screwing people over you'll be short on allies, and also we have the law so we can lock those people up. Such people are fairly rare, who have no sense of morality (sociopaths). As for "should", well there's not much we can do. We'd like them to care about people, but if they don't, we can only give them reasons to care or deterrents not to hurt people.

We evolved as a cooperative species. We work well in groups, better than individuals. So natural selection has made us tend more and more towards people who care about society and not just themselves. It's not uniform, but it's a big trend. Society just wouldn't work otherwise! That is essentially where morality comes from. (Morality as in valueing wellbeing of others).