"can You Live A Moral Life If You Don't Believe In God?"

[Skankboy]

Morals derive from social necessities, not some "internal compass". If this were true, the value systems of cultures throughout time wouldn't vary to such a huge degree. If there were truly and "absolute morality" of somekind, than there would be an action or idea that has been considered taboo in every culture, in every time, throughout history. No such taboo exists, believe me, I've looked. If you've got one I haven't seen, I'd love to hear it...

 

 

I assume you got distracted by the other questions we've asked on this thread, but I would still very much like to hear what you have to say to the above statements. If morals are "written on the hearts of men" where's the evidence?

 

 

I'd still like a response to this Chaz...

[Trancelation]

As for morality.

 

Why does a Christian do anything moral?

Answer: Fear of hell

 

Why does a non-religious person do anything moral?

Answer: Good feeling

 

Any questions?

This is absolutely absurd.

 

You apparently don’t understand the concept of eternal security for the believer. After receiving Christ as personal Savior, the believer is freed from the fear of hell and any consequence of going there. This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

 

 

He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor 1:21-22).

 

 

 

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

 

Christians do not fear hell, so please cease to speak on behalf of all Christians.

 

 

 

chaz

Why should one stop speaking on behalf of Christians when you do the same? For that matter, who said we were? The fact that the sole purpose of Christianity's existence is to avoid Hell, does not mean that all Christians fear Hell. I know some professed Christians that DO NOT BELIVE in Hell.

 

Nonetheless, that is what Christianity is all about: saving oneself from a terrible place designed to be as terrifying as possible. There is no other reason to be Christian, regardless of whatever reason one designs for themselves.

 

But you don't know that every Christian does not fear Hell.

 

And as far as your 'concept of eternal security' (isn't it funny that all Christians have are concepts?), false Christians have always been a fear of Christians, and certainly falling to the wayside is possible. It's why the Bible says it is, quote, "impossible," unquote, for someone to come back after leaving the fold.

 

So apparently becoming a Christian does not guarantee you will remain a Christian . . . once again illustrating that there is no change in a person for accepting Jayzus Chree-ist. Or are those that do not change not really Christians? We can always count on believers to not believe in others.

[Kuroikaze]

 

This is absolutely absurd.

 

You apparently don’t understand the concept of eternal security for the believer. After receiving Christ as personal Savior, the believer is freed from the fear of hell and any consequence of going there. This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

 

 

He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor 1:21-22).

 

 

 

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

 

Christians do not fear hell, so please cease to speak on behalf of all Christians.

 

 

 

chaz

 

Yes, but most Christians interpretation of scripture is that if one is "really" saved they will do good works, in the end this is the same thing.

 

Christians do good works because if they aren't doing them, then they were never really saved in the first place, so they play mind games with themselves like this "OK, I did something moral so I must be saved right?...unless the only reason I did it was to PROVE I was saved...in which case maybe I'm not saved and I'm just tricking myself...better go do something moral again....." repeat ad nauseum.

 

While the christian may belief they are saved by grace, most of them also believe that if they aren't doing good works they don't "really" believe. Leading to a spiral of doubt and worry. I should know, I went through it all the time.

 

Oh, most of them will claim security of salvation, I know I did. Most of them even really believe it, but most christian deep down are continually struggling to prove that their faith is real and living with the psychological torment of their own beliefs. I very much doubt you are different.

[Skankboy]

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

Still waiting...

 

If it's "written on our hearts" why is there little commonality in the morality of various cultures (including the judeo-christian ones) throughout time?

 

[Reverend AtheiStar]

You apparently don’t understand the concept of eternal security for the believer. After receiving Christ as personal Savior, the believer is freed from the fear of hell and any consequence of going there. This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

 

Oh really? Apparently you haven't read your book. I recieved Christ as my personal savior and then rejected him. This means I qualify for what is spelled out here:

 

Hebrews 6

 

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

Since I try to blaspheme the Holy Spirit at least once a day (Fuck the Holy Ghost!) I qualify for what is spelled out here:

 

Matthew 12:31-32:

 

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

 

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

Then there are the verses that show that the Bible is a book rooted in determinism. Your god, if he was to exist, wrote out a Divine Plan. This means that certain people, whether they received Jeebus or not, would have been born just to go to Hell. Certain things in this DP, could also possibly entail your god doing whatever he wanted with your precious soul despite what is said in the Bible. What would be stopping a god from sending everyone to Hell regardless of how they lived their life? Don't you think he'd just laugh if you were to say "But it say here..."? What if Heaven is the lie and Hell is the only reality because your god is evil? What if if your screams of agony equal out to your god experiencing multiple orgasms? Oh, I do love this game! Your input?

 

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

Wrong. They do it first to kiss the ass of their god. It's all about the brownie points. It's the simplistic system of Rewards and Punishments that permeates the Bible.

 

Christians do not fear hell, so please cease to speak on behalf of all Christians.

 

LMAO! Woooo! Wow, that's a funny one. Need some testimony on that? Most Christians are scared shitless of Hell! I've witnessed it over and over. I speak to Christians all the time. You're in denial, buddy.

 

I'd still like a response to this Chaz...

 

He doesn't go by evidence. That's what those wicked scientific and logical types require. All he needs is one verse and he believes. It's his line of code. He's been programmed.

 

Variable, I love that picture! It's going in my Comedy file. lol...

 

http://www.reverendatheistar.com/comedy7.htm

[quicksand]

One really big problem that dogs the eternal security doctrine for the Christian that believes and sites it is they can no longer argue for morality or the morality of their god as a source of that morality. If all it takes is too believe in Jesus, then what is the motivation thereafter to do anything moral since Hell is of no motivation to do so. Good deeds are not required. Just belief.

 

This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

If Jesus was in anyway God (or even a slight or minimal facet of God), what price did He/Jesus/God really pay?

 

None.

 

And it ain't my observation. This was a highly contested theological issue debated much through middle ages and is largly ignored today by theologians.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

One really big problem that dogs the eternal security doctrine for the Christian that believes and sites it is they can no longer argue for morality or the morality of their god as a source of that morality. If all it takes is too believe in Jesus, then what is the motivation thereafter to do anything moral since Hell is of no motivation to do so. Good deeds are not required. Just belief.

 

That is an excellent point! If his position in the afterlife is guaranteed, and he's stated he has no fear, then I would think he could go out and become a genocidal maniac. What's to worry about? His position is secure. Besides, through the Jesus Loophole™, all is forgiven!

[Reverend AtheiStar]

This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

If Jesus was in anyway God (or even a slight or minimal facet of God), what price did He/Jesus/God really pay?

 

None.

 

Yup. What is pain to a god? Nothing. What meaning could electrical impulses running down nerve fibers into a brain, that really has no purpose, possibly have? The god would simply be inhabiting the body, much like a driver of a car does. If you smash your bumper in accident do you physically feel it's pain? No, of course not. But even if said god did choose to feel the pain, I would think that a god's pain tolerance would have to be just as huge as its powers! What is death to a god? Nothing. A god could shed 1,000 bodies a day and still be perfectly fine. The bodies would just be meat puppets to be discarded for another if it so chose. Death carries no personal meaning to an immortal.

[Legion]

The question is: Can you live a moral life if you don't believe in God?

 

It is difficult for me to believe that some people can get hung up on this kind of thing. For me it seems obvious that YOU MOST DEFINITELY CAN.

 

What if we flip the question around? Can you live an amoral life if you believe in God?

 

You most certainly can.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

The question is: Can you live a moral life if you don't believe in God?

 

It is difficult for me to believe that some people can get hung up on this kind of thing. For me it seems obvious that YOU MOST DEFINITELY CAN.

 

What if we flip the question around? Can you live an amoral life if you believe in God?

 

You most certainly can.

 

Morality trancends religion. The religionists try to own it, but they can't. Morality is a product of evolution just like everything else we find in nature. It's the product of a brain and our emotional systems.

[Legion]

Rev that's a fine way of saying it. Morality transcends religion. I'll probably remember that one.

 

I probably would have phrased it like: Morality is not entailed by beliefs. Or something to that effect.

[chaz]

Morals derive from social necessities, not some "internal compass". If this were true, the value systems of cultures throughout time wouldn't vary to such a huge degree. If there were truly and "absolute morality" of somekind, than there would be an action or idea that has been considered taboo in every culture, in every time, throughout history. No such taboo exists, believe me, I've looked. If you've got one I haven't seen, I'd love to hear it...

 

 

I assume you got distracted by the other questions we've asked on this thread, but I would still very much like to hear what you have to say to the above statements. If morals are "written on the hearts of men" where's the evidence?

 

 

I'd still like a response to this Chaz...

Yes, I did get distracted with so much activity in this thread…sorry about that.

 

 

You have asked for evidence that morality is written on the hearts of men. The evidence is that we all have a conscience that differentiates right from wrong (animals do not have this characteristic, by the way). This moral conscience is inherent and is exhibited from infanthood until death in each and every man.

 

Even ungodly nations have made laws for their citizens; many of those laws follow with what God has given in the 10 commandments. This is because by instinct, people know right from wrong.

 

The intrinsic nature of man has compassion and sympathy on his fellow man (again, characteristics that animals do not have). If a moral nature evolved (as some foolish people seem to assume) from a survival of the fittest environment, why would morality, compassion, and sympathy develop within EVERY single man that has lived throughout history?

 

Again, there is absolutely and entirely no reconciliation between evolution’s survival of the fittest and man’s inherent moral nature that involves compassion and sympathy on his fellow man.

 

 

chaz

[quicksand]

That is an excellent point! If his position in the afterlife is guaranteed, and he's stated he has no fear, then I would think he could go out and become a genocidal maniac. What's to worry about? His position is secure. Besides, through the Jesus Loophole™, all is forgiven!

The classic way in which the Christian defends this doctrine is they then further qualify it by adding no its by belief and deeds. But anyone can dig into the bible, "quote" Jesus (it's suspect as to actually what Jesus – if he existed, did, in fact, say) and harmonize the two. That's fine by me, however, then Hell is really unnecessary innovation on the part of the theology. Instead, its used as a barb against those that do good deeds and don't believe.

 

Morality trancends religion. The religionists try to own it, but they can't. Morality is a product of evolution just like everything else we find in nature. It's the product of a brain and our emotional systems.

All this babble about the alledged predominance of Christian morality rises from the economic and political aparthied of 3rd and 4th century Rome. Pagan's and Christian broadsided each other with talk about who was the more the deviant religous culture. Pagan's said the Christian would meet in private and have orgy's with each other and share each other's wives. Christians said the same damn things about Pagan's as well.

 

It's all agit-prop.

 

___________________

 

I feel like nit-picking here...

 

is that we all have a conscience that differentiates right from wrong (animals do not have this characteristic, by the way)

Could you support this?

 

And also answer me how does a human metric of right and wrong have to do with the way animals must live and survive in the wild? For instance, human marriage patterns have vary greatly throughout the centuries. Good ole Abe allegedly sowed his seed more than Genghis Kahn. (That's one of God's commandments, which I am sure you know of.) Today, we find polygamy abhorrent and immoral (Except there are some Christians sects that still practice with religous zeal polygamy). Now take the Seahorse, they keep one mate throughout their lifetime. (One of the reasons why they are headed toward to extintion btw.) Total monogomy. Is that good and therefore moral?

 

Seems to me the Seahorse is so many more ways, more moral than Abe cause they know that keeping one mate for life is right.

 

Even ungodly nations have made laws for their citizens; many of those laws follow with what God has given in the 10 commandments. This is because by instinct, people know right from wrong.

Um, as I read the US Constitution there is no mention that we shall not worship other gods. Oh, and we're capitalists. Seems like we covet like mo-fo here. Guess we're ungodly, even though we have the highest concentration of fundie Christians and self-idenitified Christians on the planet.

 

The intrinsic nature of man has compassion and sympathy on his fellow man

And to kill and maim his fellow man as well. All things being equal, I'd say that is our true nature. Sugar-coating what we are into some shadowy image of an invisible god does us no good.

 

sympathy develop within EVERY single man that has lived throughout history?

Easy, cause it has survival benefits. Group hunting and gathering for one, esp. considering that it takes nearly forever for our children to be self-sufficient.

 

Again, there is absolutely and entirely no reconciliation between evolution’s survival of the fittest and man’s inherent moral nature that involves compassion and sympathy on his fellow man.

Poppycock.

 

I understand how you rather have this be a discussion on evolution, instead of the issue of this thread at hand, cause you've been beaten and beaten badly cock.

[Skankboy]

Thanks for responding Chaz.

 

The evidence is that we all have a conscience that differentiates right from wrong (animals do not have this characteristic, by the way). This moral conscience is inherent and is exhibited from infanthood until death in each and every man.

 

Possibly, but the concepts of "right" and "wrong" vary so much throughout history that I don't believe this a valid argument for absolute morality.

 

Even ungodly nations have made laws for their citizens; many of those laws follow with what God has given in the 10 commandments. This is because by instinct, people know right from wrong.

Laws are a necessity for any large group of people to be able to function as a society. I think you'll find the only commonality between their laws and the 10 commandments are those that contribute to the society and need have nothing to do with divine revelation. For example, stealing - no society could exist where stealing from it's own members was condoned. In the united states, only 2 are actually illegal (murder, stealing), lying is illegal in a specific sense (purgury), but that's all.

 

The intrinsic nature of man has compassion and sympathy on his fellow man (again, characteristics that animals do not have). If a moral nature evolved (as some foolish people seem to assume) from a survival of the fittest environment, why would morality, compassion, and sympathy develop within EVERY single man that has lived throughout history?

 

I think you misunderstand the term "survival of the fittest". Which society would be more likely to survive? A group that has come to common agreements on a code of behavior (ie laws) or one that has no such structure and each individual is left to his own devices for survival? Survival of the fittest is not the same as "might makes right".

 

And if these were innate, why need laws at all?

 

Again, there is absolutely and entirely no reconciliation between evolution’s survival of the fittest and man’s inherent moral nature that involves compassion and sympathy on his fellow man.

I believe this was already answered but I'll reiterate. Your inability to reconcile these seems to stem from a misuderstanding of "survival of the fittest". Compassion can most certainly make a group of individuals more "fit" to survive.

 

If absolute morality actually existed in the manner which you describe, why do moral values vary so widely throughout history and time? Can you name even one activity, even one, that was not condoned buy a society at some point or another?

 

If this knowledge of "right" and "wrong" is innate, why are there so many different definitions for both?

 

[Variable]

Again, there is absolutely and entirely no reconciliation between evolution’s survival of the fittest and man’s inherent moral nature that involves compassion and sympathy on his fellow man.

 

I think someone fighting for his/her survival is one of the most moral things a person can do.

 

Imagine you are laying in a hospital with some terrible disease and the nurse walks in. She has a severe limp and looks incredibly frail. You're thinking if you blew she would fall over. Her breath wheezes as she walks around the hospital room to take your vital signs.. She is covered in sores that look very contagious. You question the nurse's ability to care for you.

 

Another nurse walks in. She has a fit, athletic body. A healthy gait. And good color, indicating she has good circulation. Because she takes care of herself, she also has a sharp mind.

 

Now which nurse, who holds your life in her hands, do you want attending to you in your time of need. The nurse who is neglecting her health, or the one who takes care of herself?

 

or..

 

Scenario 2

 

You have severe depression and suicidal tendencies.

 

You make an appointment with counselor 1. He has lines etched in his face from frowning so much. He is hunched over, but not from bad posture. His skin is ashen and he hasn't shaved or showered in a week. This guy is not a happy person. Feeling quite alarmed you make an appointment with counselor 2.

 

Counselor 2 walks upright. He is smiling. Obviously he feels good about himself and who is. He feels he is a valuable person and has something to offer the world.

 

Now who do you want counseling you for depression and suicidal tendencies???

[Variable]

You have asked for evidence that morality is written on the hearts of men.

 

You can drop this rhetoric while here, and change "men" to "fellow persons/human beings". On this forum, a penis is not required to be a full fledged member of the human race

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Rev that's a fine way of saying it. Morality transcends religion. I'll probably remember that one.

 

I probably would have phrased it like: Morality is not entailed by beliefs. Or something to that effect.

 

Thanks! I'm used to phrasing things in ways that make cool bumper stickers. My wife and I are always thinking of new ones on the road! My favorite right now, that I came up with, is a parody of AiG:

 

Darwin Said It.

Science Proved it.

That Settles It.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Morals derive from social necessities, not some "internal compass". If this were true, the value systems of cultures throughout time wouldn't vary to such a huge degree. If there were truly and "absolute morality" of somekind, than there would be an action or idea that has been considered taboo in every culture, in every time, throughout history. No such taboo exists, believe me, I've looked. If you've got one I haven't seen, I'd love to hear it...

 

 

I assume you got distracted by the other questions we've asked on this thread, but I would still very much like to hear what you have to say to the above statements. If morals are "written on the hearts of men" where's the evidence?

 

 

I'd still like a response to this Chaz...

Yes, I did get distracted with so much activity in this thread…sorry about that.

 

 

You have asked for evidence that morality is written on the hearts of men. The evidence is that we all have a conscience that differentiates right from wrong (animals do not have this characteristic, by the way). This moral conscience is inherent and is exhibited from infanthood until death in each and every man.

 

Even ungodly nations have made laws for their citizens; many of those laws follow with what God has given in the 10 commandments. This is because by instinct, people know right from wrong.

 

The intrinsic nature of man has compassion and sympathy on his fellow man (again, characteristics that animals do not have). If a moral nature evolved (as some foolish people seem to assume) from a survival of the fittest environment, why would morality, compassion, and sympathy develop within EVERY single man that has lived throughout history?

 

Again, there is absolutely and entirely no reconciliation between evolution’s survival of the fittest and man’s inherent moral nature that involves compassion and sympathy on his fellow man.

 

 

chaz

 

Animals do have these characteristics -- I posted extensive evidence for this obvious position. You're just too blind to see it. That's very, very sad. You believe this completely without evidence, too. That would be because his "evidence" is all within the confines of his mythological scripture. My imaginary friend said it, I believe it. Good believerbot!

 

Making an emotional, moral human is something that natural selection has easily done. Emotions and large brains have immense survival value. They are both valuable systems that have gradually gotten more and more complex since life's start 3.5 billion years ago. Go back and read what I gave you. It'll open your sad little closed mind.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Honor Among Beasts

Think altruism, empathy and a sense of fair play are traits only humans possess? Think again

By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK

Time Magaine

 

July 03, 2005

 

Anyone who has owned dogs or spent much time watching them is familiar with the posture: hind end up, chest down on the ground, forelegs stretched forward, an eager expression on the face. It's obviously a friendly, playful gesture, and for most dog lovers, that's all you need to know. Ethologists--animal-behavior experts--go a step further. They call this move the "play bow" and know it's used not just by dogs but also by wolves and coyotes to signal an interest in the romping, pretend-fighting sort of games that canines of all kinds seem to love.

 

But Marc Bekoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado, always suspected there was something more going on. True, the posture happens most often at the beginning of a bout of canine play. But it also happens in the middle, and not randomly. And the more closely Bekoff observed dog behavior, the more he began to recognize other ritualized motions and postures--some of them so fleeting that he couldn't really keep track. So he began making videotapes, then playing them back one frame at a time. "The more details I saw, the more interesting it got," he recalls. "It wasn't just dogs playing; it was also dogs exchanging an incredible amount of information as they played."

 

In short, Bekoff was able to show--after at least a decade of painstaking observation and analysis--that canine play is actually a complex social interaction in which the participants constantly signal their intentions and check to make sure their behavior is correctly interpreted. Dogs that cheat--promising a playful bite but delivering a harsh one, for example--tend to be ostracized.

 

That understanding is nothing short of revolutionary. Only a decade or so ago, scientists were arguing vigorously over whether animals had emotions: just because a dog looks sad or a chimp appears to be embarrassed doesn't mean it really is, the skeptics said. That argument is pretty much over. The idea of animal emotion is now accepted as part of mainstream biology. And thanks to Bekoff and other researchers, ethologists are also starting to accept the once radical idea that some animals--primarily the social ones such as dogs, chimps, hyenas, monkeys, dolphins, birds and even rats--possess not just raw emotions but also subtler and more sophisticated mental states, including envy, empathy, altruism and a sense of fairness. "They have the ingredients we use for morality," says Frans de Waal, a professor of primate behavior at Emory University in Atlanta, referring to the monkeys and chimps he studies.

 

That doesn't mean animals necessarily have a fully developed moral or ethical sense. "I don't say dogs are fair the way you and I are fair, or have the same moral systems," says Bekoff. But it does mean that-- just as with so many other attributes once considered unique to humans, including toolmaking and language--animals have at least rudimentary versions of what we call morality. That would conform to Darwin's ideas of evolution, and indeed, Darwin himself was convinced this must be true. "It would be bad evolutionary biology," says Bekoff, "to assume that moral behavior just pops on the scene only with us."

 

Study after study bears him out. In one of De Waal's experiments at Atlanta's Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center, for example, pairs of capuchin monkeys (the species favored by organ grinders) have to cooperate in dragging a heavy tray so they can get the food on it. They quickly figure out how to do so, sharing the effort and the food. But when the food is placed on one side of the tray, giving only one monkey access to it, they still share. "There is no need for the one who gets all the food to do it," says De Waal. "He could sit in the corner and eat all by himself."

 

In another experiment, De Waal and his students reward two monkeys for a task by giving them cucumber. It's not a favorite food, but they happily go on doing the task anyway. Then the scientists begin giving one of the monkeys grapes--like caviar for a capuchin. At that point, the monkey that is still getting cucumber refuses to play. Says De Waal: "It's like me discovering my colleague, who works just as hard as I do, gets a salary that is twice the size of mine. I was perfectly happy before."

 

Both those results can be explained in part by self-interest. But De Waal has also observed behavior that can be seen only as empathetic. When a male loses a fight and sits on the floor screaming, the other chimps will comfort it. "They come over to these distressed individuals and embrace them and kiss them and groom them, and try to calm them down," De Waal says. True, there's an implied benefit for the comforters--the hope that others will do the same for them if they end up in that situation--but that's a level of emotional abstraction that would once have been presumed impossible.

 

At TerraMar Research on Bainbridge Island, Wash., animal behaviorist Toni Frohoff has also observed dolphins behaving with what appears to be altruism--although not predictably. In one case, she recalls, she and her colleagues watched a group of dolphins assemble around a female swimmer the researchers later learned was exhausted to the point at which she was afraid for her life. "Conversely," Frohoff says, "I have been 'abandoned' [by dolphins], where all of a sudden they'd disappear and I'd see a shark."

 

Does that mean the supposed altruism of dolphins--not just in Frohoff's studies but also in anecdotal reports of the animals' rescuing sailors--is a myth? No, she says: "The mythology in some cases is true." But dolphins have adapted so long in such a different environment to humans that there's reason to suppose that their ethics might be equally different to ours.

 

Dolphins, dogs and primates are the usual suspects when scientists talk about higher mental functions, but fairness, at least, extends even deeper into the lower animal kingdom. If you watch rats wrestle, says Steven Sivy, a biologist at Gettysburg College, you'll see that the bigger rat lets the smaller rat win every now and then so that the smaller rat will keep playing. That, he says, could be interpreted as a sense of fair play, although he emphasizes that a rat's behavior is probably Darwinian--based not on thoughtful consideration but on what has worked in the past to keep species alive. "I can't see a rat sitting around and contemplating the ethical consequences of what it's doing," he says.

 

At Bowling Green State University in Kentucky, psychologist Jaak Panskepp is similarly leery of using words like morality and ethics to describe animal behavior. He is sure that rats and other animals do experience joy, sadness, anger and fear--because the wiring of the brain is set up to generate those feelings. (Actually, Panskepp discovered a few years ago that rats chirp in laughter, albeit in response to tickling, and in a register too high for the human ear to detect.) Nobody has yet found the neurocircuits for ethics or morality, however, so Panskepp is reluctant to comment about those qualities. But he does accept that some animals have strict rules of behavior. "Cockroaches probably don't have a sense of justice," says Panskepp. But dogs and rats, which are social animals, clearly do.

 

So do birds, says Dan Blumstein, a former student of Bekoff's, now studying animal behavior at UCLA. While he hasn't addressed the question through formal research, Blumstein has seen hints of behavioral rules in songbirds. A given species tends to have similar songs but with local "dialects" that vary from one territory to another. If a bird sings with a nonlocal accent, he says, "everybody knows: 'Oh, my God, there's an invader.' Then they get upset and kick it out." The question, Blumstein says, is whether that's a sign of ethics or just instinct.

 

While some behaviors are obviously instinctive, Bekoff is convinced that others are not. "If you study animals in the complex social environments in which they live," he says, "it's impossible for everything they do to be hardwired, with no conscious thought. It really is." And once again, he cites play as perhaps the most obvious example. Play between dogs involves extremely complex, precise behavior, he says. "They're really close, they're mouthing, but they don't bite their own lips; they almost never bite the lip of the other animal hard, nor the eyes, nor the ears." And that requires communication and constant feedback. "Just think of basketball players faking left and going right," says Bekoff. "There's no way you could be doing that by pure instinct."

 

As for the play bow, his guess that it meant more than just "Let's play" turned out to be correct. "It says, 'I want to play with you' but also 'I'm sorry I bit you so hard' or 'I'm going to bite you hard, but don't take it seriously.'" It even works between species: Bekoff has seen wild coyotes bow to dogs--and vice versa--before they engage in something like play. "At least they don't fight," says Bekoff. "The play bow changes the whole mood."

 

Meanwhile, dishonesty is punished across all canid species. "I know coyotes best," says Bekoff. "Coyotes will signal play and then try to fight or mate with others, but if they do that enough, they can't get other animals to play." Does that behavior rise to the level of ethics or morality? If morality is simply living by the rules of a society, says hyena expert Christine Drea of Duke University, then yes, animals do that. But just because animals have rules and bad things can happen when those aren't followed, she says, "doesn't mean they're ethical creatures."

 

But while animals may not possess true ethics or morality, Bekoff, De Waal and a growing number of their colleagues think fairness and cooperation may be the forerunners of those qualities, just as the apelike brain of our distant ancestor Lucy was the forerunner of our own, much more sophisticated minds. After all, Lucy was no Einstein—but without her, the leap from the tiny brains of primitive mammals to the subtle intelligence of an Einstein could never have occurred.

[Ouroboros]

Christians don't have any better method of knowing what is the right decision or what is morally correct. Actually the Christian method of "knowing" the right moral action is worse than a rational persons.

 

To explain, Christians have two guides for moral decisions. One is the book, and the other is their "inner voice". First of all the book is outdated. It contains laws and codes that no Christian follows, they follow some, but only the handful of laws that fit into society. So they follow the book-laws that don't cause too much disharmony with the world they live in. Secondly there are quite a few modern "laws" the Christian follow that are not in the Bible. These have been invented over the years to give Christians the reason to take a moral highground in issues like abortion, drug abuse and such. Now the second kind of guide the Christian has is the "inner voice". This is a very dangerous guide. Some people are crazy and don't know that it's their alter-ego talking, so this "inner guide" is not trustworthy. It's only by rational thought and reason that one can really know what the most moral decisions is for a situation. But Christians don't believe in that, they believe in "revealed" morality. And I consider that dangerous and not the best way of knowing what morality or moral action is.

 

My conclusion is that a free thinker can make better judgment and moral decision than a Christian that believes in "revealed" morality.

[NotBlinded]

Honor Among Beasts

 

 

Well, duh!

 

Really, I'm glad they have finally admited that. Anyone that has ever owned and paid attention to their pet can tell you it's true.

[NotBlinded]

As for morality.

 

Why does a Christian do anything moral?

Answer: Fear of hell

 

Why does a non-religious person do anything moral?

Answer: Good feeling

 

Any questions?

This is absolutely absurd.

 

You apparently don’t understand the concept of eternal security for the believer. After receiving Christ as personal Savior, the believer is freed from the fear of hell and any consequence of going there. This indeed is why Jesus paid the ultimate price on the cross.

 

 

He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Cor 1:21-22).

 

 

 

Christians do moral things first, because morality is written on the heart as it is in non-Christians, and secondly, to please the Lord.

 

 

Christians do not fear hell, so please cease to speak on behalf of all Christians.

chaz

Are you saying that you are not a Christian if you fear the Christian hell? You would have to believe the words in order to think you would go there to begin with. You are stuck in that black and white mindset that it is either the Christian hell or the Christian heaven...BUT, you must believe what the Christian book literally says about hell before you can fear it! The only reason to choose NOT to go to hell and choose Christ is because you believe in it to begin with and think that is the only choices there are. Well, it is IF YOU BELIEVE IT to begin with. The non-believer has no fear of hell to be freed from. Dang man, you even said, "the believer is freed from the fear of hell." You would have to be a Christian to fear the Christian hell!

 

Did I say that enough times?

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Honor Among Beasts

 

 

Well, duh!

 

Really, I'm glad they have finally admited that. Anyone that has ever owned and paid attention to their pet can tell you it's true.

 

I feel the same way. It's so obvious it's hard to believe that some poeple don't get it. When I finally get a house we are definitely getting a dog. I want our children to have first hand experience of this knowledge as I did.