Cruel Logic

Cruel Logic is a 7 minutes movie which can change the way you think about Atheism.

What happen when Atheistic Evolutionism is practiced in real life? What will be the Logical out came?  Enjoy: Cruel Logic – short film from Brian Godawa

A university professor of sociobiology is captured by a killer who debates with him about the professor’s own theory. The topic: His moral right to kill the professor. The stakes are high. If the professor wins the debate, he will be let go. If he loses, he will forfeit his life. Ideas have consequences in this suspenseful story of good and evil, right and wrong, predator and prey. Written by Brian Godawa

“Ideas you see, have consequences” Serial Killer

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Cruel Logic

  1. Well I don’t typically comment on weblogs but I ran into yours while I was doing some job researching in Yahoo today therefore i figured I would drop a quick note. I have to admit that I have gotten a lttle bit sidetracked going through and looking at a number of your posts… I should probably be doing work. Carry on the excellent writing and i am already looking towards exploring future blog posts. Regards!

  2. “If what you say is true? Does it mean that Nazis murdering of the Jews was okay? It was permissible within the laws and regulations of Hitler’s Germany.”

    No, permissible does not mean okay, or good, or anything else other than permissible within the laws and regulations of that jurisdiction. (Same answer for all your other examples of acts that are no longer permissible.)

    “Do you mean if the laws of the state declare that we ought to start killing each other, then killing will be okay/good and Valuable?”

    No, the laws just determine what is or isn’t permissible. They are an indication of what the lawmakers consider okay, good, valuable, etc. They are also an indication, in the US at least, of what the lawmakers think will get them re-elected.

    “Whether the state agree or disagree, some things remain Objectively Moral evil, or good, right or wrong.”

    Here is a key question that will help me understand your position: Do we learn this objective morality from the Bible, from our experiences, or from some other source? Is this intuitive knowledge we are born with?

    “Slavery was wrong then (when practiced), now and in the future, no matter what state opinion is on it.”

    Some people are under the impression that God condoned some forms of slavery in the Bible. If he did, was that slavery wrong? If it wasn’t wrong, how do we know which forms of slavery are wrong and which forms are okay?

    “Murdering innocent people is wrong then, now, and in the future no matter what new-Hitler or Stalin or Mao opinions are?”

    I’ve heard people say one of the ten commandments is against unjustified killing. How does one objectively determine when killing a person is justified? It’s not hard to think of a scenario where different people will have different opinions on when killing is justified.

    “If I am of no value, no good,no evil, I simply need no Golden Rule opinion of any one.”

    Not a problem. You get to experience the consequences of your actions, regardless of your opinion of the Golden Rule. Fortunately you have the ability to learn, so your opinion may change over time.

    Brap: “Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion”
    Prayson: “Question, is your comment also a matter of your opinion?” Possibly.

    “Are you saying there’s no truth, only opinion?”

    No, I think there is truth. The philosophical arguments that try to prove there is no truth and we can’t know anything are too deep for me. I think they are self-contradictory, too.

    “Are you interested in truth if it exists?” Yes

    “Isn’t it possible some opinions are true and others false?”

    When people have opinions about things that can be proven true or false, yes.

    “Why do you take this position? Why even differentiate between your opinion and mine?”

    People have different opinions about many different things, plain and simple.
    – In some people’s opinion, almost all classical music is good and pleasing to the ear. Other people dislike most classical music. The same thing can be said for art or fashion.
    – I really like the shirt I’m wearing right now and I think it’s hilarious. People who have not seen the Saturday Night Live skit my shirt is based on will have a different opinion. Some people who saw the skit and didn’t think it was funny will probably not think my shirt is funny. I’m ok with that, even though they have a different opinion.
    – Some people think severe punishment for some crimes is good because it means fewer people commit those crimes. For example: Cutting off a hand for stealing, or a death sentence for adultery. Both of those crimes are violations of one of the Ten Commandments. Some people think such severe punishment is bad. Those are opinions.

    If you can prove any of these types of opinions are true or false, I would like to know how.

    The goodness or value of something is different than physical qualities that can be objectively measured or detected, such as how much something weighs, or its size, or its molecular structure. Goodness and value are opinions each person places on an object or an action. It cannot be measured, and it exists only in the mind of the individual. If my opinion of classical music has changed over the years, does that mean at one time my opinion was false and at another time it was true?

    “Their view that there is no truth, only opinion- is this true, or just an opinion?”

    As I stated above, I never said there is no truth.

    Brap: “Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion”
    Prayson: “Is it true or just another opinion?”

    I think it’s true, and I think most people will either consider it true or false, and not a matter of opinion. Some may consider it an opinion they disagree with.

    “So you actually believe that if people’s opinion about torturing babes is good, it is an okay opinion because it exist in their minds? If not, why is your opinion better than theirs?”

    It’s an opinion that is hopefully in the minority, but being in the minority does not make something wrong. Many of the opinions of the western world regarding women’s rights are in the minority in Islamic countries, but being in the minority does not make those opinions wrong, either. My opinion is not better than theirs, it is just different. If someone tortures babies because they think it’s okay, I hope they suffer some adverse consequences. Since their opinion is in the minority in our society, there are legal ramifications (consequences) for such actions.

    Brap: “But if these objective morals are intrinsic to our species, or hard-wired, we shouldn’t need to be taught how to act, should we?”
    Prayson: “Brap, just because 2*2=4, does it mean we should not be taught so? Do you mean we should just know this, poof out of no where? Just because you learned that 2*2=4 did it change that 2*2 could be 5? How we get to learn something does not affect the truth.”

    I agree that the truth is the truth regardless of how, when, or if we learn it. I am attempting to disprove the statement made by an early commenter to this thread: “There are Objective moral values and duties. We indeed are wired with these values and duties to which does not depend on Belief in God but Existence of God.”

    I am saying the following:
    IF we are wired for certain objective morals and duties,
    THEN My hypothetical example of an isolated group of newborn humans, with no exposure to language, should have these objective morals and duties.
    ELSE This community of isolated humans will be indistinguishable from chimpanzees before the second generation reaches adulthood (other than physical traits).

    I will repeat my question from earlier in this comment: Do we learn this objective morality from the Bible, from our experiences, or from some other source? Or is this intuitive knowledge we are born with?

    I agree that even if it is intuitive it can still be taught. But my position is that if it is not taught, it should still be evident.

    (This discussion is really fun, and it’s stretching my brain. Thanks.)

    • Dear Brap,

      I am happy to know that our brain are stretching, for this is great.

      Thank you for your comment and I will say this time, I hard to read it over and over 🙂 I enjoy this discussion too.

      To our comment:

      “No, permissible does not mean okay, or good, or anything else other than permissible within the laws and regulations of that jurisdiction. (Same answer for all your other examples of acts that are no longer permissible.)”

      Still this does not help, so if within the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction declare that innocent civilians(Jews or Huntus in Rwanda) show be should be killed on sight, will that permissible act be Morally duty right? If it permit people to value Jews and Huntus are nothing but rats, is that Morally value good?

      “Here is a key question that will help me understand your position: Do we learn this objective morality from the Bible, from our experiences, or from some other source? Is this intuitive knowledge we are born with?”

      Dear Brap, where we get to learn this Objective moral has nothing to do with the that Existence of Objective moral values, and duties exist.(If we reason this way we are in danger of committing genetic fallacy here)

      If you ask me If Objective moral are learn from the Bible, I will say No!
      Why because even those without the Bible or access to the Bible ought to behave Objectively moral valuable.

      If you are a Bible guy, then this is for you:
      Bible:
      “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them (Romans 2:14-15 ESV)”

      “the Law” here meant the Torah.

      Reason:
      Mind, ability to reason, reflect and act. If the wind blows on the tree with mangoes and mangoes fell. Without a repeated event, I can reason that the shacking of the tree causes the mangoes to fell.(Reason is not always right) but that is not my point here. My point here is that our ability to reason, reflect and act enable as to know/discover Objective Moral values and duties.(I may be wrong 🙂 )

      “People have different opinions about many different things, plain and simple.
      – In some people’s opinion, almost all classical music is good and pleasing to the ear. Other people dislike most classical music. The same thing can be said for art or fashion.”

      Here we have not understand what it means by Objective All the list you gave me is Subjective, art,taste of food e.t.c

      It is best if we make this clear, for those who are not familiar the Moral Argument for the Existence of God(Please read it, it will help clear things even further) I will paste there clarification here:

      First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong.

      Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it.

      For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all.

      So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

      Second, there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it.

      Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it.

      So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

      I hope now we know the difference between Subjective and Objective 🙂 thanks to Craig.

      “I am saying the following:
      IF we are wired for certain objective morals and duties,
      THEN My hypothetical example of an isolated group of newborn humans, with no exposure to language, should have these objective morals and duties.
      ELSE This community of isolated humans will be indistinguishable from chimpanzees before the second generation reaches adulthood (other than physical traits).”

      It is not a matter of Epistemological but ontological Brap.

      Yours
      Prayson

      • Prayson: Now I have read your post on Craig’s Explanation of Moral Argument from May 31, 2010, and all the comments. There are some statements in the post and in the comments that I am not sure if you are saying these are true statements, or if you are saying this is what some other people believe. I don’t want to put words in your mouth or take things out of context, so for each of these statements can you tell me if you agree?

        “Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.”

        “. . . certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding.”

        “. . . it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else!”

        The part I have in brackets: “Just because [[Objective Moral Value and Duties are the product of Evolution]], does not change or undermine that Objective Moral Values and Duties exist.”

        Thanks.

      • Hello Brap 🙂

        Thank you for reading Craig’s Explanation of Moral Argument. You are a great pal for not putting words in my mouth or taking things out of context 🙂

        I will go through the first statements and comment on it 🙂 sad I could not find the other last two, are they in the article or comments?

        My view this:

        “Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.”

        This was a comment from Christian Myers, super great guy,researcher and sad(on my side) for He is an atheist(I would have love him to be a theist(Christian) but that is just me 🙂 I enjoyed his comments and his love for reasoning)

        One: First I do not agree with the reasoning behind it, that is why I wrote in comments to show that we are in danger of committing “Genetic Fallacy” or “Speciesism”

        Two: Now that I read it again I see that Myers’ reasoning did not aline with the explanation, because he attack moral values and duties for not being Objective or but Subjective, which is putting a ladder in the wrong building. For the right building is Objective-Moral-Values-and-Duties not any or mere Moral Values and duties.

        His reasoning overlooked the difference between subjective moral values and duties to objective moral values and duties.

        Three: Even If objective moral values and duties were by biological evolution and social conditioning, this does not undermine or refute that Objective moral values and duties exists. Thus does nothing to weaken,refute, the Moral argument for existence of God.

        The Argument goes like this:

        1.If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties does not exist.
        2.Objective moral values and duties does exist
        3.Therefore God exist.

        Showing how minor premise (#2) came to be, how “Objective moral value and duties does exist” namely by biological evolution and social conditioning. It does nothing to the to the premise truth, that indeed Objective moral values and duties exist( if we question by undermining the reliability of biological evolution and social condition we comment Genetic Fallacy.

        All that this argument proposes is in this premise is that Objective moral value and duties does exist. How the came to exist, or how it they came to be excised, that is another arguments for another discussing.

        In Richard Dawkin Affirms Existence of God on Moral Argument, I showed how Dawkin in the God Delusion affirms all the premises of this argument but avoiding the final conclusion that God exist 🙂

  3. I didn’t say that the Scandinavian countries and Japan were better because of their lack of religion/belief in God. I said that they are evidence that it is possible to have a society without strong religion/belief in God that has morals just as good as or better than a religious country.

    • Dear mysthicsushi,

      Then we are on the same boat, Objective moral values and duties does not depend on the necessity of belief in God but Existence of God.

      I have defended this on the comments in Moral Argument for Existence of God. I would love you to read the explanation of the argument, then join the on going debate 🙂

      I really enjoy when atheists and theist come together and discuss with love, tolerance, gentleness and respect.

      Please see also Richard Dawkin’s Affirms Existence of God article 🙂

      Thank you so much for your comment.

  4. “If atheism were true in a possible world, then in that possible world, there would be no good, no evil, no values, rape, killing, stealing and the like would permissible. Why because we are no better than our cousins the Chimpanzee. Rape, killing, stealing is normal to the animal Kingdom. For there is no Objective moral value (good and bad-evil) no Objective moral duties(right and wrong).”

    Exactly. The current real world is just like your hypothetical world. Everything is possible is permissible. In our current world there is no good, no evil, no reward, no punishment. There are only actions and consequences, in both the human and the animal worlds. The terms “good” and “evil” are human inventions of the English language to express our opinions about things. Different languages express it differently, some in ways that probably cannot be translated word for word.

    Similarly, the terms “reward” and “punishment” are just different labels for the types of consequences. Generally speaking, the majority (or those elected by the majority) rules when it comes to determining the legal consequences, but the individual also 1chooses the consequences of the actions of others by how he responds to those actions. We don’t need God to have an opinion about something and use the words “good” or “evil” to describe it. We don’t need God to choose a response, either. We choose our response based on what we think the consequences will be.

    “Rape is actually good in atheistic naturalism, because a stronger male-organism passes along it strong gene to the next generation.”

    Rape is a successful mechanism for passing along genes regardless of one’s position as a naturalist, humanist, deist, moralist, Christian, Buddhist, or whatever. Fortunately in most societies today there are consequences for the rapist that make some (not all) males refrain from doing it, and prevent others from doing it repeatedly.

    “If you think we are better than other animals in Atheistic naturalism, then we commit speciesism.”

    If your definition of speciesism is the discrimination of one species over another, then I think most humans do discriminate against other animals because they don’t give other animals the same rights as humans (owning property, voting, access to education, legal representation, etc.). If your definition of speciesism is the exploitation or mistreatment of other animals, then that’s a bad thing (my opinion) and I don’t understand how that type of speciesism follows from naturalism.

    “If we are to act as the way atheistic naturalism theory suggests with should namely our DNA determines who we are, then yes we are no better no less than other species.”

    I think we have the _capability_ to act a lot better than other species, mainly because of written and spoken language which greatly improves our ability to communicate with each other and see others’ points of view (empathy). Most animals obviously have the ability to communicate to a lesser extent (as far as we know.) Language also gives us a much greater ability to learn about the world, learn about past events we did not experience, and ask questions of others, whereas animal learning is essentially limited to what they learn by experience. So yes, without the ability to communicate, we are chimpanzees with less hair and a few other physical differences. If we took a bunch of newborn humans and isolated them from birth in an environment with enough resources and care to keep them comfortably alive and healthy, my guess is their social behavior would be quite similar to that of chimpanzees long before the second generation reached adulthood.

    “Where is Objective Moral Values and Duties if DNA determines who we are?”

    I believe there are no objective moral values, other than perhaps a few we may be hardwired for that are detectable at an early age. But I don’t know how objective a toddler can really be when the “correct” moral decision may not be in his or her best interest, since empathy is typically not demonstrated before age 4. I think an individual’s moral values and duties are mostly learned throughout life, which is why they vary a bit (sometimes a lot) from culture to culture. If DNA didn’t determine who we were, we would all be the same.

    “Atheistic naturalism theories thus carry tempting but dangerous ideas (no good, no evil, no value just blind pitiless indifference). But this ideas are false because there are Objective moral values and duties. We indeed are wired with theses values and duties to which does not depend on Belief in God but Existence of God.”

    Since we’re wired with them, what objective moral values would we have without the Bible as a reference?

    “Good example of Atheistic dangerous ideas in action read the History of, Maoism, Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism and other atheistic states. ‘Ideas you see have consequences.’ I totally agree with the Serial Killer.”

    Atheism is simply lack of belief in a supreme being. The actions of people who do not believe in a supreme being have no bearing on whether such lack of belief is correct, which is my overall point. Not liking the consequences of a theory is a weak argument against the theory. If someone came up with a theory that untreated lung cancer eventually causes premature death, we couldn’t disprove the theory just because we don’t like the consequences if it’s true.

    I think Christians are making a similarly flawed argument when they bring up objective morality. If I agree there are no objective morals without the Bible, that says nothing about the existence of God.

    • Dear Brap

      Super thank you for your input on this one. I have enjoy every time I get a comment from you.

      Let look at what we have from our comment above 🙂

      “Exactly. The current real world is just like your hypothetical world. Everything is possible is permissible.”

      Is this true? I am possibly permit to just walk out side and shot someone without reason, just for the love of it?

      Am is a new Mother permitted to torture her newly born baby? It is possible for her not to feed it, starve it to death? Is that permissible?

      I am not saying it does not happen, of cause it does, the question is it permissible?

      Rape, is it also permissible? If we think this way Brap, then indeed there is no evil, no good, no value?

      You agree that there are no evil no good and no value because “The current real world is just like your hypothetical world.” Okay?

      Now, I will like you to act what you believe in the following and I want you to be honest with yourself:

      You agree that there are:

      No value– “Well Brap, you are silly, stupid, and deluded person and what you just commented is pure trash.”

      How did you take that?

      If you are like normal people then now you are grrrrr! Something burning in you 🙂 I would too if some tell me that, but why is our responses not okay with that “we have no value?

      Brap, there is Value(not because of Belief in God, but Existence of God) I welcome your debate on that one on Moral Argument for Existence of God article.

      Value- Brap you are smart guy,I love your comment, and I value them by valuing you and that is why I answer back, you are not stupid, and If I say you are stupid then I must be 100 times worst stupid 🙂 so the above was just an illustration and you are not delude, just a person who searches for the truth.

      Whether I accept your understand(Arguments or Belief namely not believing in God) or not you are valuable than what words can describe.

      We want to be valued, with our work, our deed or our action. You want me to value you even though your atheistic belief say there is no-value 🙂

      No good- “Well Brap, what you said is worst thing I ever read, it is so bad that I could not read it, yak, I feel like puking when I read it”

      Wow! No, there is Good, I might not agree with you but what you wrote is good and if I will not take it serious and read it and try to understand it then I am “no-good”

      Courage is Good, Helping other is Good, Loving each other is Good. On the other hand Killing innocent people, Raping, child molestation, torturing, these things are not good and our reaction when we see or go through these things tells the whole story.

      I was talking to naturalistic atheist on my 8 hour train ride and he said, “there is no good, no evil just how people look and call it” It happen that his mobile phone was on the table, I picked it and put it in my pocket. He asked me what I was doing, and I reply, I am stealing it from you. He said no you can not do that. I said of cause I can, that is how you look at it “there is no good, no evil” you reaction tells it is not good for me to take your phone, but you saying there is no good. so that is just how you look at it and call. I just happen to think different and call it different, I happen to think that taking your phone is good, and stealing is okay.

      At the moment he said I don’t care what you think, I just want my mobile phone back? I smile and give it back, and said to him that his reaction betrayed what he believe.

      Because no matter what I think about stealing, murder for no reason, torturing babies, it is Objectively morally wrong, not good whether we believe in God or not!

      “If we took a bunch of newborn humans and isolated them from birth in an environment with enough resources and care to keep them comfortably alive and healthy, my guess is their social behavior would be quite similar to that of chimpanzees long before the second generation reached adulthood.”

      Here we are committing Genetic Fallacy dear friend. How we get to know how to act right has nothing to do to the fact that we are to act right.

      “I think Christians are making a similarly flawed argument when they bring up objective morality. If I agree there are no objective morals without the Bible, that says nothing about the existence of God.”

      I would love to address this, but it will be a redundancy. Please click Moral Argument for Existence of God, and there, this Objection is being met.

      I have a good article related to this Richard Dawkin Affirms Existence of God on the bases of Moral Argument

      Thank you so much for your nice comment Brap

      Yours
      Prayson

      • “I am possibly permit to just walk out side and shot someone without reason, just for the love of it? Am is a new Mother permitted to torture her newly born baby? It is possible for her not to feed it, starve it to death? Is that permissible?”

        In this instance I am probably using a broader definition of the word “permissible” than I should be. I am saying “permissible” within the laws of nature, so it is really the same thing as “possible.” That is perhaps too broad, so let’s go with “permissible” within the laws and regulations of the state, country, province, etc. In that case I agree that many things most people consider horrible such as murder, rape, and torture are generally not permissible in the real world today. But I don’t agree that those atrocities would necessarily be permissible by law in the hypothetical atheist world, since the majority, or those elected by the majority, would likely be the rule makers. And since atheists are generally in agreement with the Golden Rule, I expect that would be the overriding theme of any laws in the hypothetical atheist world.

        Of course, using “permissible by law” as a way to tell good from bad leaves a whole lot of what most people consider bad still permissible by law today. Even a small 100% Christian nation couldn’t make every bad act against the laws of their nation.

        “You (Brap) agree that there are:

        No value- “Well Brap, you are silly, stupid, and deluded person and what you just commented is pure trash.”
        No good- “Well Brap, what you said is worst thing I ever read, it is so bad that I could not read it, yak, I feel like puking when I read it”

        Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion. I read another blog by someone who has been participating in apologetics online for a long time, has probably heard comments similar to mine hundreds of times before, and therefore would consider them of little or no value to the discussion on his blog. You and he would place different values on my comments, as would the readers of this blog. Which one of you is right? Is the value placed on something by an individual based on that individual’s prior experiences and current needs? I think value is similar to beauty, which is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

        “We want to be valued, with our work, our deed or our action. You want me to value you even though your atheistic belief say there is no-value.”

        I agree 100% with that first sentence, but I would rephrase the second sentence like this: “You want me to value you even though your atheistic belief says there is no intrinsic value, there is just an opinion of value that exists in the mind.”

        “How we get to know how to act right has nothing to do to the fact that we are to act right.”

        But if these objective morals are intrinsic to our species, or hard-wired, we shouldn’t need to be taught how to act, should we?

      • Dear Brap 🙂

        “Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion”

        Is this true or just another opinion?

        We are swimming in the deep waters Brap, Lets together try to shade light on what your comment proposes.

        “I am saying “permissible” within the laws of nature, so it is really the same thing as “possible.” That is perhaps too broad, so let’s go with “permissible” within the laws and regulations of the state, country, province, etc. “

        If what you say is true? Does it mean that Nazis murdering of the Jews was okay? It was permissible within the laws and regulations of Hitler’s Germany.

        Do you really believe that White Supremacy, racism and black slavery was okay and morally good because Americans or Colonials (before the Abolition of Slave trades,racing, etc) as a state agreed on was okay on those times?

        Do you think, Women not being allowed to vote or have role in government before Women rights in America was okay?

        Do you mean if the laws of the state declare that we ought to start killing each other, then killing will be okay/good and Valuable? Lets think Brap, reflect on what we are proposing, and reason together ?

        Please ponder this thing out?

        Whether the state agree or disagree, some things remain Objectively Moral evil, or good, right or wrong.

        Slavery was wrong then(when practiced), now and in the future, no matter what state opinion is on it.

        Murdering innocent people is wrong then, now, and in the future no matter what new-Hitler or Stalin or Mao opinions are?

        Abusing Children by Catholic or what ever priests is objectively morally wrong no matter what their opining(religious, in the name of the Lord) were, are or will be.

        “And since atheists are generally in agreement with the Golden Rule, I expect that would be the overriding theme of any laws in the hypothetical atheist world.”

        Sad to say, this is an argument from Ignorance. If I am an atheist, and it is all about opinion, and everything is relative, why care about Golden rule, is not that also just generally other people’s opinion.

        If I am of no value, no good,no evil, I simply need no Golden Rule opinion of any one.

        “Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion”

        Question, is your comment also a matter of your opinion?

        My ethic philosophy professor Paul Copan, help me here a lot. I used to think the same when I were an atheist. Everything(good or value) is just peoples opinion, just how people look at it.

        Here is how Paul helped me:) and I hope will help you not to fall in this trap again

        He said:

        First, we might clarify the position taken:

          “Are you saying there’s no truth, only opinion? If so, how do you know this is so?

          Are you interested in truth if it exists?

          Isn’t it possible some opinions are true and others false?

          Why do you take this position?

          Why even differentiate between your opinion and mine?

          Why prefer one opinion over the other?”

        There view that there is no truth, only opinion- is this true, or just an opinion? If it’s an opinion and there’s no truth, then why believe anything at all? Usually when someone dismisses your view as mere opinion, he thinks his opinion is true while yours is false. “It’s all opinion” isn’t just a matter of opinion; it’s a truth-claim.

        Now I will push harder, make new holes in our boat:

        “Whether something is good or of value is a matter of opinion”

        Is it true or just another opinion?

        So you actually believe that if people’s opinion about torturing babes is good, it is an okay opinion because it exist in their minds? If not, why is your opinion better than theirs?

        Do you believe that the Irish Catholic priest opinion while they abused children was good, valuable in their sight because it just existed in their minds?

        If your answer is yes, then Irish Catholic priest what they did is good and valuable on their opinion, and who care about your opinion if you defer?

        Somethings Brap are not mere opinions! I am sorry 😦

        Last:

        “But if these objective morals are intrinsic to our species, or hard-wired, we shouldn’t need to be taught how to act, should we?”

        Brap, just because 2*2=4, does it mean we should not be taught so? Do you mean we should just know this, poof out of no where?

        How about logic? Do you know it logic stay they way it is where we are taught or not? If it rain, they will be cloud on the sky, it rained, therefore they will be cloud on the sky. This thing even if they are not taught they are just there?

        Just because you learned that 2*2=4 did it change that 2*2 could be 5? How we get to learn something does not affect the truth.

        I will give you a better example:

        If a doctor told you that smoking may cause cancer, and you can to find out that the doctor is smoking, does that mean the doctor could not have being true in his preposition?

        Another think to think about, Objective Moral values and duties are not made up(created, or voted) they are discovered. No matter how long it take to discover them, just like 2*2=4 no matter if we did not discover multiplication tables.

        Thank you super much again Brap, you are the best and I enjoy the exchange of ideas, views and your belief.

        I do not care about your opinion/others opinions, on how I value you 🙂 I just do value you and if a Christian, or non-believer does not value you then something is not okay with them, mostly Christians for they are called to Value others as the way they value themselves 🙂

        Cheers!

        Yours
        Prayson

  5. The reality is that societies mostly devoid of religious belief/belief in God are no worse morally, and indeed better in some cases, than more religious ones.

    Take the Scandinavian countries and Japan, for example. All have low levels of belief in God and religious involvement. Yet their rates of violent crime are much lower than the US, which is probably the most religious “western” country, the poor and disadvantaged are cared for much better, government is less corrupt and more trusted by the citizens, and people generally live healthier and happier lives.

    • Hej mythicsushi,

      It is best that we know the difference between “belief in God” and “existence of God”.

      True the belief in God is not necessary for our Objective moral values and duties(it is the Existence of God that is necessary). So you are quite right when you say God-believer and non-believers are no more or less better than the other when it comes to living the Objective Moral values and duties.

      Both the believer and non-believers do things they ought not to. Example, The Christian crusaders(murdering in the name of the Lord) and witch-hunt(burning witches), and Burning of Priest or theologian whose view went against the authouritetive religious govern, and the list goes on, all these were,are and will be Objectively moral evil(not good). Islam? you know what the extremist do.

      The Irish Catholic priest child molester or abusing children. And on the list goes.

      But this is true to non-believers also, Atheists are not out of this nether and the history is shows this as Jonathan point, on atheistic regimes like Soviet Union Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and wow Maoism millions where killed in the name of this political atheistic movement.

      Ideas have consequences, people act according to what they believe(whether what is believe is true or not)

      Therefore whether deeds are done in the name of God or politic or science, they are Objectively moral evil.

      Logic Behind:

      “Take the Scandinavian countries and Japan, for example. All have low levels of belief in God and religious involvement. Yet their rates of violent crime are much lower than the US, which is probably the most religious “western” country, the poor and disadvantaged are cared for much better, government is less corrupt and more trusted by the citizens, and people generally live healthier and happier lives.”

      I will not agree with your conclusion that the less people believe in God the happier they become. Why because we are committing a Gambler’s fallacy


      Explanation of this fallacy:

      Assumption is made to take some independent statistics as dependent. The untrained mind tends to think that, e.g. if a fair coin is tossed five times and the results are all heads, then the next toss will more likely be a tail. It will not be, however. If the coin is fair, the result for each toss is completely independent of the others. Notice the fallacy hinges on the fact that the final result is not known. Had the final result been known already, the statistics would have been dependent.

      Why do I point to this because again Mother Russia(Soviet Union) or China and all other ex-atheistic state which the believe of God was rejected( read Stalinism and Maoism), did they archive healthier and happier stage? Was the general people’s live healthier and happier in this dark time of History?

      More over, poor countries like United Republic of Tanzania, to which I come from 🙂 It is a religious country, only 1% is non religious(I believe this will change as atheism gain its way)? and people’s lives are healthier(in relationships, community,though not wealthier) and happier(simple live, non-materialist though I believe we are going to be soon after the World being so small) comparing to many other countries in Africa that I know of.(I could be wrong or committing Argument from Ignorance 🙂 )

      It is among few African countries we rarely see on the News(BBC or CNN) (the Political contrivers or Tribal fights is almost minimal, of cause this could change of cause in a blink of second). Christians and Muslims living together, helping each other and working together, studying together(Education system is so poor) to develop this poorest Country in the World together.

      Yet, this will not conclude that Believe in God is what make this African country, Tanzania better than the rest since our neighboring country Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya are majority believer but their countries are in constant political dramas to which innocent civilians pay(Genocide in Rwanda 1994, Kenya elections, Uganda, rebel murdering and rape in Northern Uganda)

      Question to ask?

      US Vs Scandinavia or Japan,healthier and happier live if in deed this is true, is it only because of Religious belief? Could it be because of wealth? Or good social system? When you look at factors that could have contribute to the general healthier and happier lives of a Country we indeed need to think outside the box.

      But all the above has nothing to do with Existence of God, God exist whether we believe in Him or not.

      The on going debate on this blog on Moral Argument for Existence of God is a place to which I would love you to direct concern if it is possible to be Objectively Moral without Existence God(note: Not the Belief in God)

      Thank you for your great comment 🙂

      Yours
      Prayson

  6. Dear Brap,

    If Atheism is true then desirability of the prediction of Atheistic theories(no evil, no good) logically follows.

    If atheism were true in a possible world, then in that possible world, there would be no good, no evil, no values, rape, killing,stealing and the like would permissible. Why because we are no better than our cousins the Chimpanzee. Rape, killing, stealing is normal to the animal Kingdom.

    For there is no Objective moral value(good and bad-evil) no Objective moral duties(right and wrong)

    Rape is actually good in atheistic naturalism, because a stronger male-organism passes along it strong gene to the next generation

    If you think we are better than other animals in Atheistic naturalism, then we commit speciesism.

    If we are to act as the way atheistic naturalism theory suggests with should namely our DNA determines who we are, then yes we are no better no less than other species.

    Where is Objective Moral Values and Duties if DNA determines who we are?

    Atheistic naturalism theories thus carry tempting but dangerous ideas(no good, no evil, no value just blind pitiless indifference)

    But this ideas are false because there are Objective moral values and duties. We in deed are wired with theses values and duties to which does not depend on Belief in God but Existence of God.

    Good example of Atheistic dangerous ideas in action read the History of, Maoism, Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism and other atheistic states.

    “Ideas you see have consequences” I totally agree with the Serial Killer 🙂

Comments are closed.