How do theists actually understand what it means to be human?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I have just had something of a revelation!

I was listening to (yet another) debate between a theist and atheist on whether God exists, when the theist finally got around to asking, "without God, how could you possibly know that it is wrong to kill your neighbour?" Of course, this comes up in every such debate, so I must have heard it many dozens of times by now, but until this moment, one thought never occurred to me:

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?" After all the writings by Hume, Wilson, Needleman (not to mention Lucretius and others from long ago), do theists actually suppose that there is absolutely nothing that (to paraphrase Thomas Nagel ) "it is like to be a human?"

For most non-theists, and for every Humanist I've ever met, we understand that morality is not something that is given from elsewhere, or printed on golden plates or God's fingernail in stone tablets or dragged by low-flying airplanes around town so we always know what to do and what not to do. We know what morality is BECAUSE of our human nature -- that PART of our human nature is a sense of what is required to live a human life.

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside. Then they conclude that this is dictated by "God," while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans.

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

 

[VoidCat]

Some theists say they God gave them a sense of morality when He made humans in His own image

 

[Bear Wild]

Some theists say they God gave them a sense of morality when He made humans in His own image

The problem is that man made god and gave god his sense of morality to satisfy man. That is why god is so inconsistent just like humans.

 

[VoidCat]

The problem is that man made god and gave god his sense of morality to satisfy man. That is why god is so inconsistent just like humans.

That is what I believe as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?"

I guess that would depend upon what kind of theist you are talking to. Baha'is believe that all humans have two natures, a lower material nature and a higher spiritual nature. Humans don't have to be religious or believe in God to have a higher spiritual nature. We all have it.

“In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. Every good habit, every noble quality belongs to man’s spiritual nature, whereas all his imperfections and sinful actions are born of his material nature. If a man’s Divine nature dominates his human nature, we have a saint.” Paris Talks, p. 60

THE TWO NATURES IN MAN

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some theists say they God gave them a sense of morality when He made humans in His own image

Okay, but then, if I read some Scriptures correctly, that "image" from which we get our morality includes being allowed to kill and rape in order to get the property that somebody else already lives on. I'm not impressed.

 

[Isolde Schulz]

I think I have just had something of a revelation!

I was listening to (yet another) debate between a theist and atheist on whether God exists, when the theist finally got around to asking, "without God, how could you possibly know that it is wrong to kill your neighbour?" Of course, this comes up in every such debate, so I must have heard it many dozens of times by now, but until this moment, one thought never occurred to me:

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?" After all the writings by Hume, Wilson, Needleman (not to mention Lucretius and others from long ago), do theists actually suppose that there is absolutely nothing that (to paraphrase Thomas Nagel ) "it is like to be a human?"

For most non-theists, and for every Humanist I've ever met, we understand that morality is not something that is given from elsewhere, or printed on golden plates or God's fingernail in stone tablets or dragged by low-flying airplanes around town so we always know what to do and what not to do. We know what morality is BECAUSE of our human nature -- that PART of our human nature is a sense of what is required to live a human life.

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside. Then they conclude that this is dictated by "God," while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans.

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

I consider myself both theist and atheist, a paradox for anyone to fathom. I work in the environmental sciences, which commands a healthy respect for due procedures. Morality I'm keen on, but it can be opening Pandora's Box.

 

[Ishwara-Krishna]

I think I have just had something of a revelation!

I was listening to (yet another) debate between a theist and atheist on whether God exists, when the theist finally got around to asking, "without God, how could you possibly know that it is wrong to kill your neighbour?" Of course, this comes up in every such debate, so I must have heard it many dozens of times by now, but until this moment, one thought never occurred to me:

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?" After all the writings by Hume, Wilson, Needleman (not to mention Lucretius and others from long ago), do theists actually suppose that there is absolutely nothing that (to paraphrase Thomas Nagel ) "it is like to be a human?"

For most non-theists, and for every Humanist I've ever met, we understand that morality is not something that is given from elsewhere, or printed on golden plates or God's fingernail in stone tablets or dragged by low-flying airplanes around town so we always know what to do and what not to do. We know what morality is BECAUSE of our human nature -- that PART of our human nature is a sense of what is required to live a human life.

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside. Then they conclude that this is dictated by "God," while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans.

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

Atheists unknowingly believe in G.O.D. ENERGY = Trimurti, Trinity, ATOM = proton, neutron, electron = Generation, Operation, Destruction or G.O.D. is a tangible fact of reality. Less tangible is the source, which is so invasive it becomes invisible to the physical scientist.

Science and religion are the same thing, the What, and the How. They both arise from the same knowledge. Period.
Ethics was birthed from religion. Religion simply means to reunite, the preposition being that we, the ALL, are the ONE.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who does not express self superiority I reasoned how and who was involved in a non ethical human idealised reasoning.

Human in a natural environment, the same conditions to claim human equality as a human who reasons reasonably.

Science, human expressed the answer who claims the power of invention and the power of a resource energy is a God meaning, only supposed by their own human scientific reasoning.

So I pose a theory just like they can. To think.

Dinosaurs proven to be living on Earth as giant creatures before an Ice Age. Who died out.

Humans and new animal forms living. After the ice age.

Books written by humans discussing how humans searching for God powers in invention attacked life in our Nature.

Basic human thinking conditions.

Which gave a conclusive self human appraised history.

The first Father man adult self was not the scientist. Was living spiritually and naturally. The highest conscious aware human capability of a balanced life in Nature.

Then the baby to adult man life, a new Father self invented the sciences.

So he owned two basic human thought upon histories. To not be the scientist and was just a spiritual man Father life, and then became the self destructive theist scientist man adult Father life.

And today seems to be mind confused about what he personally consciously self expresses as human memory.

To conclude. Study of human baby to child to adult DNA life living again owns pre existing memories of having lived before as someone else.

To conclude. Hence that proof substantiates that a human mind today is expressing non actual human memories as a lived self experience that is not real or true to personal living human status today.

About a pre existing natural spiritual male man adult Father self human as compared to self destructive chosen reactive sciences.

To conclude. Mind conscious conditions. Reasons for thinking ability or disability is based on brain mind chemical functions.

To conclude. Hence radiation fall out a science machine caused condition from reactive sciences affected the human mind brain state, which was a medical genetic teaching.

As a human having a life experience science making a commentary as that same human via human thinking ability proved themselves wrong, as the theist.

 

[sun rise]

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside.

I'm a theist who does not assert that. My frame-of-reference is that we are all God as drops are part of the sea. So whether our intellect's thoughts are atheist or theist does not matter. And we know that what is considered right and wrong changes with culture and time (sacrificing people is important to satisfy the gods, for example).

From this muddle my only real conclusion is that to me an honorable atheist is much much better than a hypocritical "believer" when it comes to ethics and morality.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists unknowingly believe in G.O.D. ENERGY = Trimurti, Trinity, ATOM = proton, neutron, electron = Generation, Operation, Destruction or G.O.D. is a tangible fact of reality. Less tangible is the source, which is so invasive it becomes invisible to the physical scientist.

Science and religion are the same thing, the What, and the How. They both arise from the same knowledge. Period.
Ethics was birthed from religion. Religion simply means to reunite, the preposition being that we, the ALL, are the ONE.

Sorry, none of that makes sense to me. I'll wait until you write something a bit more coherent.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?"

I have not gone through the whole of your post or the discussion. I am answering just this observation. Humans have no inherent 'nature'. All human behavior is learnt.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

It can be a problem growing up in an isolated environment. Youth may have something to do with it or social inexperience.

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside.

Online debates attract certain people, so they aren't a random sample or accurate reflection of theists. Online debates could be self selecting for this what I'd consider to be a blind spot.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans own the argument.

Human versus human.

Science says a human lives in exactly the same equal natural states.

Not changing. Natural. Balanced supported.

Intelligent human thinking by natural ability.

Science then says why is a human living in a natural equal balanced life. Sacrificed. Mutated. Suffering.

Medical science not occult nuclear science gave the answer.

Reason human body genetic information was changed.

Extra conditions environmental the answer.

Meaning humans introduced conditions not natural. Not balanced. Not equal.

Basic advice.

Looking back being a theist a human warning.

Humans who inherited a life style not balanced. Elite. Delusional. Using that status first to quote a human opinion from a not equal thinking living condition.

The taught human warning. Living imbalanced causes incorrect thinking states.

If you bring another condition into the body you live balanced within heavens then you get sacrificed.

Human advice.

Balances natural light 24 hour constant.
Natural night 24 hour constant.

Two totally different heavenly states owning life's balances.

A human teaching. Taught consciously whilst living inside the heavens.

One condition not real. When the earth and it's heavens never existed.

They exist first for you to talk about them.

Claiming they don't exist means you want them gotten rid of.

Actual human balanced teaching.

Teaching. Humans as the speaker by thinking and speaking which theism ignored as self relevant. Thought and spoke at the same time for science.

Introduced a being cooling image inside of extra radiating radiation as a thesis designed by a human scientist.

As it did not own gas cooled changes until it entered out human living atmospheric ownership.

It cooled and gained an image within its cooled burning. The anti effect.

Humans living mainly as water oxygenated bio cell minerals said it abducted my spirit to manifest. Water oxygen.

The answer why a human life owning living at the ground state was irradiated hurt. Extra science conditions human introduced as science caused it.

The only not natural condition was science.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have not gone through the whole of your post or the discussion. I am answering just this observation. Humans have no inherent 'nature'. All human behavior is learnt.

I would have to add that humans have evolved patterns that are inherent selected for by the advantage of being a social animal including the ability to learn and develop from their with learned behaviors.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think I have just had something of a revelation!

I was listening to (yet another) debate between a theist and atheist on whether God exists, when the theist finally got around to asking, "without God, how could you possibly know that it is wrong to kill your neighbour?" Of course, this comes up in every such debate, so I must have heard it many dozens of times by now, but until this moment, one thought never occurred to me:

Does the theist not know that humans actually have "a nature?" After all the writings by Hume, Wilson, Needleman (not to mention Lucretius and others from long ago), do theists actually suppose that there is absolutely nothing that (to paraphrase Thomas Nagel ) "it is like to be a human?"

For most non-theists, and for every Humanist I've ever met, we understand that morality is not something that is given from elsewhere, or printed on golden plates or God's fingernail in stone tablets or dragged by low-flying airplanes around town so we always know what to do and what not to do. We know what morality is BECAUSE of our human nature -- that PART of our human nature is a sense of what is required to live a human life.

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside. Then they conclude that this is dictated by "God," while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans.

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

All people do have some form of morality, and being theist does not mean directly that one has a higher moral then an Atheist, actually i seen this in RF on more than one occation.
A theist often look beyond the human life toward something in the "afterlife" and their focus is all about how to be granted a life in heaven. But of course that means to live according to the teaching the theist follows. That does not mean the theist is doing it always very good.
Atheists live for the most part not after the religious way of morality, but they can have good morality in many aspects in life, they just dont credit it to a God or a Buddha for how they behave.

So both theists and atheists can be Good and Bad. it depend on the person it self, in my understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I would have to add that humans have evolved patterns that are inherent selected for by the advantage of being a social animal including the ability to learn and develop from their with learned behaviors.

Beg to differ. I do not think humans have evolved any patterns. A babies mind is a clean slate. It registers only pain and hunger. The rest all is totally learnt behavior. What are the evolved patters that you are talking about?

 

[Nimos]

But the theist insists -- and this seems to be almost always true in such debates -- that something they like to call "objective morality" can only be dictated from outside. Then they conclude that this is dictated by "God," while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans.

I don't have a specific question here -- these are just observations. Comment as you see fit.

I think it's because you have to make a distinction between the type of moralities they refer to. I don't think that theists have an issue with non theists being able to be moral.
But their argument is when you add ideas like objectively good and evil or objectively right and wrong, someone/something have to be the judge of it. Without a God or high being, where would these objective values come wrong? The theists will then argue that God offers the best explanation for this, as God according to (biblical) scriptures are good, pure, the creator and the most moral being ever or whatever you want to apply to God. Therefore without such being, the argument or question from the theists is, where such objectively moral standards would then come from?

The argument "...while failing to notice that it is always (and I do mean always) actually written down and/or promulgated by just another one of us humans." doesn't really work in this case, because it doesn't offer an alternative or better explanation than that of the theist, but rather try to falsify their position.

Much like someone trying to disprove that if A is not equal B then A must be C, which is also a false argument, as it still haven't been demonstrate that A is actually equal to C.

So if a non theists believe in objective morality, you don't really need theists to raise such question, I would do that as well, also being an atheist myself, but clearly not arguing that objective morality comes from a God, but rather that such thing doesn't exist in the first place.

The debate is purely between those that favors objective morality, despite their religious view.

 

[Nimos]

All people do have some form of morality, and being theist does not mean directly that one has a higher moral then an Atheist, actually i seen this in RF on more than one occation.
A theist often look beyond the human life toward something in the "afterlife" and their focus is all about how to be granted a life in heaven. But of course that means to live according to the teaching the theist follows. That does not mean the theist is doing it always very good.
Atheists live for the most part not after the religious way of morality, but they can have good morality in many aspects in life, they just dont credit it to a God or a Buddha for how they behave.

So both theists and atheists can be Good and Bad. it depend on the person it self, in my understanding.

The issue is that a lot of people, at least to me, seem to misunderstand the argument that these theists make, to believe that they think that atheists can't be moral, which is not the case.
If you read post #18. It is an argument for what offers the best explanation for there to be something that can be considered objectively good or bad in the first place.

 

[Glaurung]

The idea that human nature is mostly benevolent is a liberal and atheist fiction. The idea that if we just look inside of ourselves we'll all come to nice humanist conclusions about right and wrong is laughable if one simply looks at history. Or even the wider world today. Whether you wish to accept it or not, your humanist morals are a product of a historical Christian framework and not a product of a benevolent human nature. It really isn't self evident that killing people to collect their heads as trophies is wrong. If it were, headhunting would not have been so common a practice in so many primitive societies.

Human nature is often brutal and cruel. It has always relished violence. These days in 'civilized' society we relish the simulated violence of movies and video games, but in previous eras we had the Colosseum. Forcing slaves (remember those) to bludgeon each other to death was considered an exquisite entertainment for the masses. The genius of Christianity and other religious systems that emphasized morality was the realization that the perversities of human nature could be softened by the dictates of revelation. To expound on a truth so denied by 'enlightened' people today that there is a moral order beyond the human to which we must eventually answer. Whether you want to call it God or karma does not matter. In either case we brutal apes can never be the sole measure of moral truth.