Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

My reply from last time overlapped into OT miracles combined with God's strict judgements. I was referring to miracles in that quote.
We don't kill the children for the crimes of their parents (an ancient world practice) because:
Jesus taught against revenge it in fulfillment of the OT law.
The OT law that says people should be killed for certain offenses has been fulfilled in Christ.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

ok. i don't agree, but i'm not going to derail this.

so you asked why is it wrong to kill innocent people:
1. because we live in a society, killing innocent people MUST be greatly discouraged, or our own survival will be in great danger.
2. because killing innocent people will reduce the productivity of the entire unit as a whole.
3. killing innocent people will also make their loved ones very unhappy and likely to retaliate, threatening the entire group's fitness (i use this as an evolutionary term).

Therefore, we biologically develop a sense that killing innocent people is wrong. This sense is what a lot of people refer to as conscience, morals, what have you. And furthermore, our societies drive this point home by instilling laws against killing innocent people.

Things are not intrinsically wrong or intrinsically right. We believe they are, because this belief helped us survive, so this belief is passed down. So even though i explain killing in this rational and calculative manner, in truth, i behave as it it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong. It's just an explanation of why we will feel this way, not saying i calculate like this and if it becomes beneficial i think killing is ok.

[Consilius]

You might want to make your point clearer. You are presenting the human person as an asset that needs to be preserved for productivity and defense. And do we really respect life so other people don't get mad? Does that make killing senile homeless men OK?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

You might want to make your point clearer. You are presenting the human person as an asset that needs to be preserved for productivity and defense. And do we really respect life so other people don't get mad? Does that make killing senile homeless men OK?

I don't deny that i think killing innocent people is wrong, if not more than you do. You may want to read that last part and try to understand what i meant. I mean to say that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, the idea of right and wrong is a human one. I, being human, subscribe to these values, but these values were established by human civilizations, because those who choose to have these values prospered over those who did not. But i'll try again.

I explained why humans who think that way would prosper in my previous post. Generations of humans who believed that killing innocent people is wrong gets to live longer and have children who share their belief. And those that thought it was ok and no big deal died off because their group is unproductive. So we are the descendent of the group that believes that killing innocent people is wrong. If you think all through human history we've always thought this way, you'd be incorrect because in china there used to be a capital punishment thing that kills all the relatives of the offender. Even children.

So i believe that killing innocent people is wrong. I've been thinking this since I was a child and before I could rationalize it, because this value is reinforced so strongly in our society. So most of us think killing innocent people is wrong.

I also think it's wrong because it's wrong to take away someone's life, but that's just our society's idea. This idea of human rights. We made it up to reinforce useful values, like not killing people.

Is this clearer?

[Consilius]

So you ascribe our morality to a prehistoric group of people?

[Foxaèr]

So you ascribe our morality to a prehistoric group of people?

Anthropology shows that morality arose in primitive man, at first as a means of clan survival. Morality, as does life, evolved. Without an evolution in morality, we would still be ascribing to dark age biblical nonsense. Even with an evolution of morality, ethics applying to the progression of society, there still remain constants that will never change. For instance, to murder someone is morally wrong, and that is not going to change.

[ronedee]

I don't make the rules here, what gave you the impression that I did? In fact, me and the guy (and folks) who make the rules here are very often at odds (for much more solid reasons and disagreements I might add - than anything I get into with your ilk). I'm sure you're right though, I make the rules, and I use those rules to suppress, harass, and belittle your oh-so-valid- observations. If I could throw you to the lions I would, honestly. Unfortunately I can't, mostly because I don't make the rules.

You and your "ilk" say we religious types talk in circular logic....when in fact you just talk in circles.

And when the heat goes up you get personal.

The burden of proof is still on the atheist that there is no God. Because, whether you like it or not... everything exists! And you and your ilk have no explanation for that.

[Foxaèr]

The burden of proof is still on the atheist that there is no God.

I tire of how many times I must explain the burden of proof to dimwits.

The burden of proof is upon the one making the extraordinary claim. Claiming there is no god is not an extraordinary claim due to the very fact that there is absolutely no proof of his existence. The extraordinary claim is made by the theist who states that a god exists when there is zero evidence to support his existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the theist since it is always the theist making the extraordinary claim.

[Consilius]

You are saying that the Bible advocates for the horrors of the Dark Age. Did it do so before? Does it do so now? Is it more likely that the Bible changed or the people did?
The murder of another human being is always wrong and will forever be. It doesn't matter if it will help us in a million years. We don't need it to be written down. Everyone around the world knows this. It appears this particular ethic is not only eternal, but invisible and universal.
Is it more likely that we invented a world where homicide isn't a good thing, or that we discovered that living in peace was the best way to live?

[Foxaèr]

You are saying that the Bible advocates for the horrors of the Dark Age.

No worse accumulation of horrors have befallen men than those supported by religion.