What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

This is kind of a spinoff of the WHY BE GOOD thread.

The question I have for atheists, isn't "why by good." I think it's simplistic and deeply flawed to think that the only reason to "be good" is to avoid Hell. And of course, I believe that anyone can be a good person regardless of beliefs.

The question I have for atheists is how do we know what IS good?

Religious or not, we all somehow know that certain things are intrinsically, universally immoral. Let's use murder as an obvious example. So if murder is wrong, where did this law come from? If this is a universal truth, where did this truth come from and who/what determined it to be what it is?

CL-

Now that your thread has been completely de-railed by the Catholic bashers, perhaps we could move back in the general direction of your OP and consider another related question: WHERE does objective moral truth come from? What is its source?

It seems to me there are a number of possibilities including:

1. Evolution
2. Oneself
3. Our society or culture
4. Reason
5. God

Evolution is often suggested as the source for our morality, but I don't think this really works. The evolutionary explanation claims that as our species evolved, human beings who acted in moral ways (such as those who cooperated and did not kill or steal) lived longer than those who didn't. As a result, we now have the instinct to be moral that has developed over millions of years.

While evolution may explain why we act in a certain way, it doesn't explain why we should or shouldn't act in those ways. At best, moral truths which are products of evolution are not commandments which we are bound to obey but suggestions that assist our "herd" in it survival. But if our community decided to kill handicapped children after birth, if would be moral, since weeding out genetically inferior or defective individuals would improve the overall health of the herd.

This is precisely what was behind the thinking of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who sought to eliminate those members of society whom she deemed to be "defective". And who can forget that Hitler sought a final solution for the "Jewish problem" in the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Birkenau?

And if rape were indeed an effective way to reproduce with a human community, and morality came from evolution, the rape would not be immoral, would it?

So, these are a few objections to the idea that evolution is the source of our moral behavior.

Thoughts on this before I move to the next source, the self?

This is very interesting and well thought out! Definitely brings to the table things I hadn't thought of before. Something else to add - if morality comes from trying to do what is best for society so that our species survives, what will it mean when/if overpopulation of humans becomes a major problem?

I would definitely like to discuss this with/hear the thoughts of the folks here!

[Randy Carson]

Catholic_Lady, I have really enjoyed the discussion with you. Hopefully  this thread isn't about to become less pleasant.

Apparently, if I had a really hot photo for my avatar, everyone would be nicer to me.

Randy, I found those cases very quickly so there are probably many more girls that were molested.

Have there been more girls or women than boys? Then why haven't we heard this in the press?

Until recently, only boys could become altar servers and so the priest would have easier access to them; however, the fact that girls are also victims destroys your claim that gays in the Catholic Church are responsible.

You have to listen carefully to what I'm saying.

MORE boys than women or girls have been abused. The "pedophile priest" problem is primarily a homosexual problem.

So, your god will judge our country because two men fall in love and marry?

Two? No. Probably not for two.

How about the 40+million babies murdered in abortion clinics since 1973?

The sins, regardless of type, for which God will eventually act, are cumulative.

[Catholic_Lady]

Probably not, so to answer you, right.

I wouldn't have the same understanding of sexuality if I did not have any sort of belief in God or a higher being of any sort.

-and yet, you don't think that Adam and Steve should be married.  I'm not interested in arguing that with you, people are free to have opinions, I don't have to agree with your opinion to enjoy your conversation or your company.  The thing that interests me, is that we can follow (just in our conversation, but certainly in other aspects of life) your gut and my gut consider the same thing, coming to the same conclusions over the same reasons....and both of us agree that everything going into that was good....

...and then this "god" business interrupts.

I just don't see why the author of righteousness would be such a disruption, such a departure...particularly if he wrote this morality into our hearts, as the saying goes and as you believe.  When you do a 180 from your gut and everything that came before.....and then say "because god"......well, I'm sorry if I can't help but mention that you seem like a much nicer, much more thoughtful (and well justified) person than that guy (yes, even nicer than jesus).   I don't know how this god stuff could help you to understand -why- something is good or bad...if his understanding is a 180 from your own before the conversation can even begin?

It's like saying that someone helped you to understood -why- blue was...except that everytime you called something blue they told you that it was orange.  How is that even -supposed- to work>?

(jesus christ,.....your thread got shittified hard since I was last on, that residual hostility business I mentioned at the beginning...there you go, now you know why)

Well, to clarify, while I don't know that I would find any reason to think monogamous homosexual activity is immoral, my "gut" would probably tell me that there's something a little "off" about it (at least initially, until I got used to the idea). It could be because it's just different from me, or it could be because of something deeper. I wouldn't know so I'd probably just ignore it.

[The Grand Nudger]

You like dick, Steve likes dick.  That's homosexuality demystified (you're welcome   ).  Again, neither you nor I can see why monogamous homosexual relationships would be immoral.  But is that the position of your faith?  Is that the position of your god? If god helps you to understand the -why-...what's the why on this one, why are you and I wrong? -Why- is it it "bad"?

[Whateverist]

This is kind of a spinoff of the WHY BE GOOD thread.

The question I have for atheists, isn't "why by good." I think it's simplistic and deeply flawed to think that the only reason to "be good" is to avoid Hell. And of course, I believe that anyone can be a good person regardless of beliefs.

The question I have for atheists is how do we know what IS good?

Religious or not, we all somehow know that certain things are intrinsically, universally immoral. Let's use murder as an obvious example. So if murder is wrong, where did this law come from? If this is a universal truth, where did this truth come from and who/what determined it to be what it is?

Evolution is often suggested as the source for our morality, but I don't think this really works. The evolutionary explanation claims that as our species evolved, human beings who acted in moral ways (such as those who cooperated and did not kill or steal) lived longer than those who didn't. As a result, we now have the instinct to be moral that has developed over millions of years.

While evolution may explain why we act in a certain way, it doesn't explain why we should or shouldn't act in those ways. At best, moral truths which are products of evolution are not commandments which we are bound to obey but suggestions that assist our "herd" in it survival. But if our community decided to kill handicapped children after birth, if would be moral, since weeding out genetically inferior or defective individuals would improve the overall health of the herd.

For someone who accepts evolution and God, I don't see the problem. If all of 'creation' is holy, then the workings of evolution could be seen as a dynamic path to the 'good'. That there is the wide spread agreement that there is regarding what is and isn't good across cultures, would seem to support that position.

What you seem to object to is an inability to condemn a certain action by anyone ever as bad without the presupposition of a holy list of do's and don'ts. But I suspect you are far more concerned with condemnation than the god of the NT would be. Sure, you can no doubt cite scriptures to indicate the opposite. But the truth is, no one knows the mind of God. Those who want to give the impression that they do are like a gaggle of sycophants eager to curry favor.

[pocaracas]

Effort?
Planning by the rulers, Id say.
The romans then took care to build roads and unwittingly disseminate that single-god concept. It is a simplistic concept and much better suited bring a whole people together, than the divisive polytheist one... Just look at Egypt and how many times they turned over from worshiping Amun to worshiping Ra and vice-versa! Eventually, they came up with Amun-Ra and had peace for a while!

Of course. The Jews and the Romans colluded to pull all this off.

I don't think I said that... but good effort.

Also, a "one true god" making a covenant with a specific people? A very localized group of people? If you can't see how limited and ungodly such behaviour is, I'm afraid you are hopeless.

How is that ungodly? How does the fact that I know what God did in the history of Israel make me hopeless?

Or is it YOUR assumption, dust of the earth, that God would have to work equally with all people everywhere simultaneously just to satisfy your personal sense of fair play?

It is ungodly because it is very limited in scope... almost like the god was the product of the people in that particular region... a too human-like god.

You are hopeless, because you have blinded yourself to the truth! (this sentence is a complete parody of religious people who claim to own "the truth"... remember me schooling you on that term?)
Actually, you're hopeless because you have wrapped yourself in your belief and cannot grasp the possibility that it may very well be false.
And any religion's very limited geographical origin is a damn big hint to its very human conception.

That and it's my observation that god's chosen people is whoever wields the greatest force in any particular region... whichever god those people happen to believe in.Curious how that works out, huh?

And all that just to bring forth a very human-looking "son of the one true god" who would pass on his message to a few uneducated townsfolk, who would pass on his message in such a flawed manner that, 2000 years later, Israel isn't really following those teachings, most of the humanity doesn't follow them...
I wouldn't stand behind such a flawed god.

Let's see...that very human son of God began with a handful of followers who converted the greatest empire on earth within three centuries without firing a single shot in anger and survived all manner of persecutions for 2,000 years while growing into the largest religious body on earth.

You're right. Bad plan. Ignore such a flawed god.

What can I say... most likely, the message of peace appealed to the people who were tired of constant warring. And it spread like wildfire among the common people. Within 300 years (or more), the message made it to the ruling party... well the rulers need the support of the common people, sooner or later, so they must have thought "might as well give them what they want"... not necessarily the peace... but the religion.

And yes, it is a bad plan, given the nigh-infinite capabilities that believers claim such a god possesses. That god could make belief obsolete and yet doesn't.... and yet relies on oral tradition and books to pass along the message which sometimes gets trampled in translation... and people are left with simple belief in this message.

Why do I have to believe in whatever my peers, my caregivers, my parents, my friends also believe and retell to me?
Why must I believe in their story? A story which has been told to them by people who had received the story from other people... and people and people... and it's people all the way down... to the people who wrote the gospels, to the people who believed in Yahweh, to the people who believed in El...to some other people who believed in some other gods... people. Believers.
Every once in a while there's one believer who claims to be a knower. The other believers call him a prophet... and he gives the believers all the knowledge he has been "given" by the god... Some then follow this new message, some find the new message at odds with their understanding of the god... thus a rift in religion is born... It's still people who are responsible for it.

God is not required for religious beliefs to exist in the minds of people.

[pocaracas]

I understand that may be what you guys believe in.... but it doesn't necessarily make it so.

I told Randy this before. What you believe in *may* not be in tune with reality.
People from way back then believed in something different. People in the future will believe in something yet more different (this sentence sounds weird...). Beliefs have evolved and are still evolving.

I understand and respect that these are your views.

However, I obviously do not think that Christianity will ever go extinct. Perhaps (and hopefully) we will gain a better understanding of it as time goes on, but I do not think the Earth will ever be around long enough that Christianity will be a thing of the past.

That would be an evolution. If it's still classified as christian, then it will remain. If some other name takes over, like "evangelical", or "trinitarian"... it will have evolved into a new beast.

[Randy Carson]

Randy Carson, I had never heard of that before. I do think that homosexuality is just as different from pedophilia of little boys as heterosexuality is different from pedophilia of little girls.

I think an attraction towards a child has little to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. I don't see the connection here. Can you further explain how you came to this conclusion so that we can see where you are coming from?

CL-

The distinction is a technical one and has to do with the age of the boys who were molested.

While it is true (everyone listening?) that young, pre-pubescent boys AND girls were molested by priests, it appears that a majority of the victims were actually young teens (post-puberty). What this means is that the priests were not necessarily pedophiles but aggressive homosexuals preying on other males (who were much younger) than the priests.

According to one website:

• The vast majority of abuse by priests who victimize persons under the age of 18 has taken the form of ephebophilia -- involving post-pubertal youths who are often 16 or 17 years of age.
  
• Yet most of the public has the impression that most of the abuse is pedophilia-- involving young, pre-pubertal children.
  

[Catholic_Lady]

You like dick, Steve likes dick.  That's homosexuality demystified (you're welcome   ).  Again, neither you nor I can see why monogamous homosexual relationships would be immoral.  But is that the position of your faith?  Is that the position of your god?  If god helps you to understand the -why-...what's the why on this one, why are you and I wrong?  -Why- is it it "bad"?

I did address this in a post several pages back. I'll see if I can find it for you.

---

Randy Carson, I had never heard of that before. I do think that homosexuality is just as different from pedophilia of little boys as heterosexuality is different from pedophilia of little girls.

I think an attraction towards a child has little to do with heterosexuality or homosexuality. I don't see the connection here. Can you further explain how you came to this conclusion so that we can see where you are coming from?

CL-

The distinction is a technical one and has to do with the age of the boys who were molested.

While it is true (everyone listening?) that young, pre-pubescent boys AND girls were molested by priests, it appears that a majority of the victims were actually young teens (post-puberty). What this means is that the priests were not necessarily pedophiles but aggressive homosexuals preying on other males (who were much younger) than the priests.

According to one website:

• The vast majority of abuse by priests who victimize persons under the age of 18 has taken the form of ephebophilia -- involving post-pubertal youths who are often 16 or 17 years of age.
  
• Yet most of the public has the impression that most of the abuse is pedophilia-- involving young, pre-pubertal children.
  

Thanks for clarifying. I see what you're saying about the age. I don't think though, homosexuality in and of itself was the cause of abuse. I think people can be abusive regardless of their orientation. Are you saying gay men are generally more likely to abuse than straight men?

[Jenny A]

I'll be a lot more blunt than CL: the Catholic Church's mistake was in believing that gays could be accepted into the priesthood in the first place without the problems that are being discussed surfacing eventually.

There is no "heterosexual priest" problem in the Catholic Church.  There is a "homosexual priest" problem that is being mis-identified by the media as a "pedophile priest" problem. But these aren't straight, horny priests molesting girls. These are predatory homosexuals preying on boys. (And the affairs with parishioners you speak of are nothing in comparison to the problems experienced in Protestant churches.)

So, the irony here is that the Church was TRYING to practice what it preaches by treating these homosexuals as if they were just as qualified for the priesthood as the straight seminarians were. They weren't. But does the Catholic Church get any kudos for that? Hell. No.

And let's lay one other card on the table: homosexuals flocked into the Church in droves during the 50's and 60's because society wasn't ready for them to live as gays openly. What was a gay man to do if he didn't want to explain why he wasn't dating? He considered the priesthood. Final point (and this will drive some of you nuts): Satan, yes, that ancient serpent who is opposed to all of God's plans, has, IMHO, had a hand in all of this. I have no doubts that he has been targeting the Catholic clergy by infiltrating its ranks with men with whom he has an inordinate amount of influence and sway. It is an unseen spiritual battle, and their are plenty of casualties.

In the U.S. about one in five victims of sexual abuse by a priest is female.

Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data analyzed by John Jay researchers, shows that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that experienced by boys the same age

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C...buse_cases

Thousands of Dutch girls have suffered sexual and physical abuse by Roman Catholic Church officials since 1945, a report says. An independent investigative commission, funded by the Dutch Bishop's Conference and mandated by the government, reported on Monday that the girls were molested by members of the clergy in their homes or in churches.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/11...tch-girls/

One of the most stunning allegations concerned a nun impregnated by a priest who forced her to have an abortion; she died from complications, and he officiated at her funeral. Priests were also alleged to have raped young nuns who approached them for the required certificates to enter religious orders; to have told nuns that oral contraceptives would protect them from AIDS; and to have used nuns as “safe” alternatives to prostitutes in countries plagued by AIDS—with some priests going so far as to demand that heads of convents make the nuns sexually available to them.

And it is not just nuns, of course. As in the recently reported case of a priest who allegedly molested a 14-year-old Minnesota girl and was not de-frocked but simply transferred to a parish in India (after the Vatican supposedly toughened up its policies), thousands of girls, from infants to adolescents, have been molested by priests. Adult Catholic women have been subject to clerical transgressions that range from sexual exploitation to harassment to rape to beatings to potentially negligent homicide. Many sexually active priests have left a trail of wounded women and fatherless progeny in their wake—testament to the hypocrisy of a “celibate” priesthood.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/04/14/no...men-girls/

If you want to know the young victims are mostly boys, I have one word for you: access.