There is No Morality Without God

by whereami 161 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bioflex

  ANY fool can see that the gods of China and India taught their followers good morals long before the jewish god.

  The jews were wandering about for years before YHWH took Moses up a mountain, and explained that lying stealing incest murder adultery and blasphemy (at least against HIM) were wrong.

  So there can certainly be morality without believing in the Johnny- come- lately god of the Bible.

  if the gods of these other peoples dont exist where did they get their morality from?

  HB

  Such ignorance is pretty much unacceptable. According to the bible you so criticise, morality led to adam and eve being sent out of the garden of eden, it led to the devil and his angels being sent out of heaven, it led to the ark of noah and the flood that covered the earth, it led to the destruction of sodom and gomorrah and all these were not jews so where from all that crap you are saying? Ignorance is bliss indeed.
• 

  JonathanH

  @bioflex

  Animals lack the cognitive ability to form culture and complex rules, they don't have a "consistent morality", they lack morality period. It's never going to change because they don't have history, culture, or philosophy. If you attribute a moral sense to animals, their morality is horrific. Nature is red in tooth and claw as the saying goes. If god gave animals morality, then god is a monster.
• 

  NewChapter

  Bioflex, our new preacher, ignorance is indeed bliss. You need to familiarize yourself with science before spouting about your mythical adam and eve in a garden. This has been thoroughly falsified. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Seriously---educate yourself.

  NC
• 

  bioflex

  @JonathanH: U seem to ignore the fact that i stated most people beleive humans evolved from animals and were not created as outstanding as we are. And talking about culture, do you still think things like that hold? well i guess all the things we are witnessing now have always been a part of our culture.
• 

  bohm

  psac -- ah, okay. I guess i need to know the canon better :-).
• 

  bioflex

  @Newchapter: well ignorance is indeed bliss, you do realise that science tends to condemn things it CANNOT comprehend right, i mean its pretty easy to explain gravity and how it works but it totally unacceptable to talk about God, get over it,
• 

  bohm

  bioflex: "you do realise that science tends to condemn things it CANNOT comprehend right,"

  just like you are condemning a thing you do not understand right now, science?
• 

  NewChapter

  Bioflex,

  I know a bit about science, and it doesn't "condemn" it falsifies. It has falsified the adam and eve myth, and I can tell you many of the reasons why. But first, you must have some understanding of what science has disproved before you can have that conversation. Your sweeping statement that science condemns what it cannot understand is proof of that ignorance. Science seeks to UNDERSTAND what it cannot comprehend---and sometimes individual scientists my not be comfortable with the answer, but that is the process. You seek to simply CONFIRM all you believe, where science works tirelessly to prove itself wrong--because then and only then can understanding grow. You are not open to that. Don't get into scientific discussions until you have a basic grasp on how it works.

  Life did not start in a garden, and humans did not spring from one couple. Science has disproven that.

  NC
• 

  JonathanH

  I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree, not that I will try to stop you. Bioflex doesn't seem worth argueing with. I don't agree with sacramento, but I at least know he is rational, and well spoken enough to discuss matters with. And while I may be at times vociferous in my writing style, I make sure to at least be respectful of the people I am discussing things with (though, never respectful of ideas, just the person espousing them.) Bioflex seems to be rude, poorly spoken, with questionable reading comprehension. If you guys want to argue with him or her, go for it, but we all know what path that's going to lead down. An inflammatory, unfocused, and barely comprehensible discussion.
• 

  PSacramento

  This is plainly obviously wrong on so many levels. If we all had an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, we wouldn't disagree on it so fundementally. The vikings didn't feel guilty about raping and pillaging, radical muslims throw acid in the faces of school girls without remorse, the crusaders tortured thousands in the name of god, and they all thought that their "inherant knowledge of right and wrong" was guiding them to do so. In the civil war era, the bible was used to both condemn and justify slavery depending on the side of the debate. Today, it's used to both condemn and justify intolerance of gays depending on which side of the fence you're on. Morality is defined by the culture it belongs to, there is no "inherent" sense of it. You can't even get people to agree on whether or not it's right to kill people. At best you can get the majority of people to agree that it shoudn't be done indescriminately. That's the inherent morality of god instilled? You probably shouldn't kill people indescriminately? Powerful stuff god, thanks for that one. We definately wouldn't have figured that one out.

  Show me any one of those groups that wuld be OK with what they did to others, being done to THEM.

  Show me one rapist that finds being HIMSELF raped to be right.

  Show me one muslim that finds having acid thrown on HIS face to be "right".

  Don't confuse our ability to ignore what we know to be right and wrong with NOT knowing what is right and wrong.