Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Immoral because the negative effects of greed in a population generally outweigh that some people might profit from it.
The groups chances of survival also depends on how it "exploits" the resources of other groups, whether by force or by mutual agreement.
I think this is nonsense. Any person who has ever been attracted to any other person knows that sexual orientation is not a choice.
As you well know, these statistics you keep citing only apply within the US and are therefore incomplete and not anywhere close to telling the whole story.
Let's just assume that your god does exist, and that Hitler won the war. How are we in a different boat than if there were no god?
More terrible than ever? We now have rules about how to treat prisoners of war or civilians, rules against using poisonous gases during war, rules concerning torture, etc. Seems to me like we're going in the opposite direction from the one you describe.
Name any society where if you look up the historical basis or legal theory upon which they created their legal codes, where evolution is cited as the foundation. As I said: none have, the closest was Hitler, and none probably ever will because it is a horrible idea.
I Know that is why I said objective morality can be compatible with an atheist but it can't be found within atheism.
Yes it does, God's eternal nature determines what is right or wrong, what has value or none, what rights are, if any actual equality exists. It is not a mater of opinion, not even God's and is there for objective. There cannot be a more objective source possible than God. If you have concocted a semantic technicality to claim he is not objective then the word no longer has any meaning.
Survival of one species (namely us) at the expense of all other life forms on the planet is not moral, it is selfish speciesm. However whatever it is, it is impossible that it is an objective moral. Nature does not contain one atom with a moral property, it is 100% amoral, and it can never tell a single being what it 'should do". That does not mean humans cannot invent subjective ethics and call that morality, but it isn't morally objectively true. We ruin out of the way of a car because we not want to be hit, but what we want cannot produce a single objective moral fact.
Evolution and natural selection produced our survival instinct. We have legal codes because they increase the survival chances of our society and us. We have traffic laws because they decrease the risk of people getting injured or dying in traffic. We have a judicial system and laws to deal with and prevent immoral people from injuring or killing us. Legal codes all based on our survival instinct that came from evolution.
Leave it.
These are of course hypotheticals. I am using one where Hitler won the war and killed off anyone who disagreed with him. His morality would be universal and completely wrong. IOW universality has nothing to do with being right. This is less so for experiential claims. If a thousand people go to the North Pole and 980 of them say it is cold then it is pretty certain, but for moral theory popularity does not matter at all.
I don't know if it is causal but higher promiscuity rates and sexual violence rates are higher for homosexuality. It may be as simple as the "gate way" theory. If you try dope your likely to try other drugs. Or the theological theory that and single immorality breeds bad moral judgments in other areas.
You're talking about an idea that originated in the first decade of the 20th century and has since been eradicated. The concept of radical Social Darwinism, while not necessarily evil in it's premise, has not taken root anywhere - and that's not because the holy and righteous religious populations have rooted them but because even us heathen moral-less atheists realize that the human experience is more than the sum of it's parts.
Theism has nothing to do with moral codes. A person can believe in any god(s) he like and they don't need to supply him with any "moral codes" for him to be a theist. All that is required by a theist is that he believes in the existence of one or more gods. That's it. Theism has nothing to do with morals. A theist may believe in a religion with a god that supplies him with moral codes, but that is not a requirement for a theist.
True because we can't survive without a healthy stable ecosystem.
So if your survival instinct makes you jump out of the way of an oncoming car to avoid injury or death that is not something you "should do"? Should you have let him run over you instead?
The fact so many switch sides over the course of their life and so many overcome being homosexual begs to differ. This is not going to be settled by a popularity poll anyway and I am not going to re-open this call.
I agree and have specified than many times. I however have no think this problem reverses it's self by geography and I am not going to have this same debate again. It's like tunnel out of one prison to find you tunneled into another.
I believe my God stopped Hitler so I can't consider illogical hypotheticals. It's like a round square or a rock so heavy he can't lift. I am not going to force an explanation for how God did an logical impossibility. It could be than as in the days of Noah God destroyed the evil once it permeated all level of every society but I have no idea what would happen.
Yes we have rules, but if necessary we will break them all. In fact they are broken every single day. I will tell you how good these rules are. In the 80's most people do not know we came as close to full nuclear war than ever. No one cared about rules, no one cared about even survival, it came down to one technician in one USSR launch detection facility. He was asked if his gut feeling was that the signals showed a launch or a malfunction. I don't think he knew either way but guessed malfunction and so we were all not incinerated. We have not fought a world war since WW2 but if the way minor engagements are carried out indicates how WW3 will be prosecuted then it will truly be even worse. There is an old saying that we don't know exactly what WW3 will be fought with (we have many thing the German's only dreamed of) but WW4 will be fought with clubs. I was not aware of half of what we actually have even as a soldier but some of them are so bad we cannot even discuss them. Things that make gas ovens look like a vacation.