Moneyguy1; I don't see any reason to disagree with you. On one hand you might be a little too hard on the human race; putting aside the creation issue for a moment, without God, and the resulting morals which have been communicated (in some fashion) from God, humans are no more deserving to live then lions, fish or protazoa (since I doubt I can spell ameobas correctly!).

The two differences that I can think of between other life forms and humans are that humans can reason and create ideas. The downside is that these ideas and creations allow us to create new ways to hurt others and ourselves (real time on-line child pornagraphy for example), often for little or no reason. So in that respect without morals, we're most likely worse off then other living things since for the most part they only kill to survive.

There are those who have led "moral" lives while not having an affiliation with a religion. All I was trying to say is we, as thinking, rational creatures should have an internally driven obligation to behave in a rational manner. For some, that means taking everything they can for themselves, and for others it means cooperation with others for the benefit of the whole. Those animals we think of as beneath us on the evolutionary scale sometimes show cooperation and caring that could serve as perhaps simplistic but relevant examples for us to follow.

Those who believe in God feel that it is God that provides this leveling power, and therefore providing a moral compass. Sadly, the God one belives in may be entirely different from the God of your neighbor. One person's God may say that killing those who differently believe is sanctioned, while another person's God may believe in acceptance, tolerance and understanding. The Aztecs...well, we won't even go there.

So, the concept of God is a very individual thing. I am fairly certain that no two people have the same internal picture of God.

But, the primary question is whether God as a concept is really necessary in order to provide that moral compass. My own opinion is that a belief in a God or gods codifies this moral code, providing a base for those who need it. I believe in God, but I do not believe that I should depend on God to tell me personally what is "right" or "wrong". If I am made in the image of God, that image, includes the concepts of right and wrong which in themselves should be sufficient for me to do the moral thing, simply because it is right. not because of an anticipation of reward or a fear of reprisal.

To alf and all other atheists:
Since I'm always hearing this complaint, turnabout is fair play:
I am sick of you guys trying to shove your beliefs down my throat. If you chose not to believe in God then that is a personal choice but keep it to yourself. Don't try to make me believe the way you do.

Por_sha

Both sides, unfortunately, do the same, neither willing to agree that it is an unanswerable question and therefore foolish to even debate.

I am not atheist. :rolleyes:

Very well put!

Moneyguy - Your points are very valid. Especially the "a relationship with God is a very individual thing..." I believe it can be the most personal relationship possible.

Some of my posts may have been mis-understood. As a person who believes in God, I just find it very difficult to understand how morality and dissering what is right and wrong can be achieved without a God or higher being who sets forth the "morality code."

I believe both "sides" of the argument believe that before anything got started (either by Creation or Evolution), there was chaos - a big mix of intergallactic goop. (The Bible calls it a void). So out of this chaos, the Christian believes that God created the universe. On the other hand, those who do not believe in God believe that the universe evolved from nothingless and chaos to order, harmony, and life. How can order, morality, dissernment of right and wrong come out of chaos? For me, that is the hardest point or argument that I cannot understand. Can someone explain how that is resolved?

Thanks,
-Z-man.

Z

Assume God stes up the scene for creation, then permits it to evolve on its own. Sometimes we, as humans, set up experiments and let them go their own way to discover how things interrelate.

As for morality without a God, I see it as (please do not take this as a religious slam) the difference between a person walking on his or her own versus one using a cane. For some, the existence of God is a necessity, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Now: Personally, I believe in God. But...Do I live my life to please God or to please myself? If by pleasing myself I do good things and treat others with kindness, I am doing what God wants (evidentially), but I am doing it because it is right and not because it is demanded. Free will, remember?

So, in my tiny mind, I have no problem believing that one can be moral without believing in some form of higher authority. If we believe that we were made in His image, there has to be some innate nobility which we can choose to accept or deny. Our choice. That old free will problem again.

As far as the argument between creationism and evolution, What is the problem? If one believes in God, then one should recognize that the Creator can do anything He (or to be P.C.) She wishes at any pace re. desired. Active interference with the process (creation), or hands off (evolution). Any attempt to put God in a box and limit power is doomed to failure.

Z-man, you will never get a logical explanation, because there is not one. Without God, there is no right and wrong. Without God, we are no more important than any other matter in the universe. Without God, our life is only a tiny blip on the cosmic highway without meaning, substance or value. Some will try to sugar coat it or find "value"...but in the end it will fall apart...it has to because without God we came from nothing, and therefore are nothing. We are a cosmic accident. I agree, it's hard to understand how people overlook this simple concept and "create" value (i.e. right and wrong)...I guess it's the only way to make their life seem worthwhile. Yea, tough words and it seems mean, but it's the only conclusion you can come to if God does not exist.

But alas, God does exist so we do have meaning and value. So then the question is, since God does exists, what is my duty to Him? The Gospel of John is a great starting point in answering this question.

v/r
Wayne C.

The Ethic of Reciprocity does not require a god.

Why do you not rape and kill? Is the ONLY reason the punishment you might get after death? Or are there more reasons?

True, in one sense. But the question is, if there is no god, what is good? How does one determine good? What standard is used to determine good (and thereby evil). Without God, whatever standard is used to determine good is useless becuase it not based on anything with authority.

As a Christian, the answer is obvious. For non-Christians I believe the answer is found in Romans 2:14-15, also known as Common Grace. Essentially, God's law is written on man's heart since we are created in His image hence man knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses accordingly. This article by John Murray provides a more in-depth and thorough answer.

v/r
Wayne C.

Cynical, yet tempting thought..

Rather plausible, Mike

Wayne, you and I must come from two different planets. Your post reads as absolute nonsense - Without God there is no right or wrong? How many double shots of coolaid did it take to come up with that? :) It was my parents, not god, not church, not sports celebrities, not actors, who taught me right from wrong. Now that they are gone my conscience guides me along this continuous path. My job is to pass these values to my children. My family and friends would have an issue with the remark that w/o God there is no substance or value.

ok, so what is the source of good and evil? It's ok to say one "knows" it, but without a god, you still have to define the source and on what authority/standard that source has in determing (establishing) good and evil before you can say you know good and evil. Make sense?

Oh, and just to be clear, I am NOT saying people do not have value. I believe we are ALL created in God’s image and thereby have immeasurable value. I am questioning the ability to determine good and evil without god, strictly a philosophical question.

v/r
Wayne C.

I submit that there is no "good" and "evil". Those are concepts that have been created by man. They don't exist as real, tangible things therefore there is no "standard" or authority that establishes what they are.

Mike

Have any of you ever felt guilty? Why? Because you might be punished, or because you hurt someone?

Have you ever had something stolen from you? How did it make you feel? How about other crimes? Have you ever been the victim of another crime? How did it make you feel?

Hopefully neither you nor any one close to you has ever been the victim of a really violent crime, like rape or murder. But I’m sure you can imagine what it would feel like if you were raped, or your wife were raped, or if your wife were killed.

Now, if you killed someone, or raped someone, they and their family would feel tremendous pain and suffering.

The big question is: How would you feel if you inflicted this pain and suffering on someone?

Shame.

God, by his mercy and grace, has given a way of dealing with sin and misery, namely faith in Christ.

Wayne

And where did they get their values from that were passed to you? Was it religion? Was it faith? Was it a learned set of socially acceptable standards of behaviour? There is no inherited nor inherent concept of good or evil.

Good and evil are standards set by society.
Take slavery for example. Most of us see it as evil, though at one time it was as benign as owning a horse.