Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

So it would be morally correct to rape little girls if society decided it was okay? Doesn't something have to be true and right that doesn't depend on what the majority of people think? Couldn't it be that society or ourselves are wrong? What gives you the hubris to determine what is right or wrong? What gives society that power? The universe may not be innately moral, but humanity surely is. This is one of the many reasons we are so different than the rest of creation.

Actually, burning people alive wouldn't be considered morally correct today, but it was seen as just peachy by the Catholic church 500 years ago. Having sex before marriage was once taboo. Raping little girls was once OK. Societal mores and standards are mutable.

There is no such thing as absolute morality, and even those aspects of morality that we might consider as absolute in that they are common to most societies, such as taboos against murder or incest, are subject to situational context.

And it is sadly naive to think or say that humanity is innately moral. One need only observe human behavior when the restraints have been loosened, even briefly, to see that that is not the case at all.

Quote: Evenbob

Why would I think
they know what's better for me than
I do.

Things that stand the test of time usually have value and are important. Things that last over 2,000 years you would be a fool to think are not important and have nothing to offer you.

Quote:

There is no creation, only evolution. And
we have only recently evolved so our brains
are big enough that we have self understanding.
The last mutation of our species had no
such luxury, and I'm sure had the morals of
an animal.

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you think brain size equals self understanding? Do you think morality comes from a mutation?

Quote: stinkingliberal

Actually, burning people alive wouldn't be considered morally correct today, but it was seen as just peachy by the Catholic church 500 years ago. Having sex before marriage was once taboo. Raping little girls was once OK. Societal mores and standards are mutable.

You can't mean that burning people, sex before marriage, and raping girls was once a good thing?!?

Quote:

There is no such thing as absolute morality, and even those aspects of morality that we might consider as absolute in that they are common to most societies, such as taboos against murder or incest, are subject to situational context.

To hold this crazy idea you would have to say there is nothing inherently wrong with murder or genocide and that whether they are right or wrong just depends on the situation. You don't really think that do you?

Quote:

And it is sadly naive to think or say that humanity is innately moral. One need only observe human behavior when the restraints have been loosened, even briefly, to see that that is not the case at all.

Human beings are innately moral, we are broken and are easily tempted to power, control, and pleasure - but in our core we are good. This is the doctrine of Original Sin. I find it very hypocritical of you to claim that you don't want a God watching over you and that you don't need any divine policing to be a good person and now you are saying that if we loosen the restraints humanity would become hedonistic animals. Isn't the very core of atheism proclaiming that there is no punishment or constraints on what we can or should do? It is the ultimate loosening of restraints and yet you claim that it leads you to great goodness. Please explain.

Quote: FrGamble

You can't mean that burning people, sex before marriage, and raping girls was once a good thing?!?



To hold this crazy idea you would have to say there is nothing inherently wrong with murder or genocide and that whether they are right or wrong just depends on the situation. You don't really think that do you?



Human beings are innately moral, we are broken and are easily tempted to power, control, and pleasure - but in our core we are good. This is the doctrine of Original Sin. I find it very hypocritical of you to claim that you don't want a God watching over you and that you don't need any divine policing to be a good person and now you are saying that if we loosen the restraints humanity would become hedonistic animals. Isn't the very core of atheism proclaiming that there is no punishment or constraints on what we can or should do? It is the ultimate loosening of restraints and yet you claim that it leads you to great goodness. Please explain.

You're twisting my words, and thus no longer entitled to a response.

Quote: FrGamble

Things that stand the test of time usually have value and are important.

Maybe, maybe not. Would you like me
to list some completely irrelevant things
in the OT that have stood the 'test of
time'? Lets start with Leviticus.

Quote: Evenbob

Not me, science says that. The last mutation
of our species had a much smaller brain than
us and wasn't capable of self realization. They
could use primitive tools, but so can chimps.
These early humans lacked to ability to
separate themselves from the world they
lived in. Makes you wonder what the next
mutation will bring, and if it isn't already
happening.

Actually, Neanderthals had considerably larger brains than us. It's not brain size per se. It's the efficiency of the brain's electrochemistry, its effectiveness at growing new neural pathways, and the amount of energy the body is wired to deliver to it. We basically have a Formula One engine installed in a Ford Fiesta body. There have been evolutionary drawbacks to having a brain that in many ways, overstresses the body it's in.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Actually, Neanderthals had considerably larger brains than us. It's not brain size per se. It's the efficiency of the brain's electrochemistry, .

I think that's correct, it's been a long
time since I read about it. They had
bigger skulls and bigger brains, but
lacked the sophistication our modern
brains have. They were unable to be
self aware, the thing that separates
us from the animals. They had no
morals, per se, the concept would be
alien to them. It took evolutionary
mutation to give us our present
brain and there's no reason to think
it's not ongoing.

Quote: stinkingliberal

You're twisting my words, and thus no longer entitled to a response.

I don't think so, maybe you could give an example? What I think is happening is you are realizing you can't hold your position and instead of looking at new ideas or ways of thinking you are just shutting down.

Quote: Evenbob

I think that's correct, it's been a long
time since I read about it. They had
bigger skulls and bigger brains, but
lacked the sophistication our modern
brains have. They were unable to be
self aware, the thing that separates
us from the animals. They had no
morals, per se, the concept would be
alien to them. It took evolutionary
mutation to give us our present
brain and there's no reason to think
it's not ongoing.

I think that's incorrect, too. The cave paintings they left behind show self-awareness, in that only a self-aware being could create an image showing himself doing something. And as far as morals go, morality is basically behavior approved by the group that promotes the group's survival. Neanderthals, by all evidence, survived for tens of thousands of years in what was a pretty harsh environment. They also were organized enough to pretty much wipe out all of Europe's megafauna. So they must have had a pretty advanced social structure, which in turn suggests that they had moral codes and laws regarding individual behavior.

We tend to think of them as primitive cavemen, but on the evolutionary scale, they had completed well over 99% of the journey from hominids to us. They weren't all that different from us.

Quote: stinkingliberal

I think that's incorrect, too. The cave paintings they left behind show self-awareness, in that only a self-aware being could create an image showing himself doing something. And as far as morals go, morality is basically behavior approved by the group that promotes the group's survival. Neanderthals, by all evidence, survived for tens of thousands of years in what was a pretty harsh environment. They also were organized enough to pretty much wipe out all of Europe's megafauna. So they must have had a pretty advanced social structure, which in turn suggests that they had moral codes and laws regarding individual behavior.

We tend to think of them as primitive cavemen, but on the evolutionary scale, they had completed well over 99% of the journey from hominids to us. They weren't all that different from us.

Neanderthals are homo sapiens.