If There's No God, Why Is Scamming Wrong?

[@psilynt1]

If what is good and bad is SUBJECT to what God says is good and bad, that is SUBJECTIVE.

[@TheologyJeremy]

If God were a non-eternal, changing being, you would be right.

[@RustyWalker]

@@TheologyJeremy Where in the definition of subjective does it specify the duration of existence or whether the being changes? God not changing would make him dogmatic, not objective.

[@username82765]

Theists always try to make this seem so complex. It's not... at least not the basics. From ants to elephants, any animal that uses group dynamics to survive and thrive have rules or "goods and evils" on how to interact with each other. Anything that weakness trust among the group is "bad" anything that strengthens trust among the group is "bad or evil". I'm not going to want to work with other humans if I constantly fear being robbed assaulted, raped, murdered etc... Once you accept that then anything that erodes trust within the group is "bad" or "evil" If I'm worried about being assaulted, raped, murdered etc .. then I will avoid working with others. Now that we have passed by basic survival things have become more complicated but it's all built on group dynamics.

[@TheologyJeremy]

You're speaking of assault/rape/murder as if they are universal evils. I of course agree, because there is a Creator who has defined objective morality. However, universal morals can't exist in an atheistic system. Also group dynamics is not a good reason for doing or not doing something. If you have resources that benefit me, there's no reason why it wouldn't be 'good' for me to take you out and take your resources. You'd say, the group wouldn't trust you then. I'd counter that you're turning trust into a objective good. What if I don't value trust or I value resources over trust? Everything can be 'good' in an atheistic worldview, no matter how twisted and harmful. There's only social consequences (which can be evaded).

[@username82765]

@@TheologyJeremy *what is an "Atheistic system"? *I'm not speaking of objective morals. I'm explaining how I think they came about as a natural part of evolution. *Until someone can present a reliable method to tell objective morals from subjective morals. The topic is irrelevant.

[@InsideTheStadium]

💯 facts, Thanks for sharing ✌🏼🙏🏼❤ Prayers going out for everyone who is struggling or facing problems. I pray you beat your struggles and your problems I Jesus mighty name. Dont Give up ✌🏼🙏🏼💯 Love yall I know what I was going through and what God did for me when I called on him in prayer. I will never forget your kindness towards me and I will give you praise all the days of my life no matter what anyone says, because I know the dark and painful place I was before I called on you in prayer, and I know what I asked, you heard me and helped me and I'm forever grateful God. Thank you Jesus

[@kilgen28]

I agree with psilyt1. Your ideas of right and wrong do not define objective ethics for everyone. “You shall not murder.” Do you think it would be wrong for someone to harm you? Or are you ok with that? Think about it. Go talk to any judge in your area. Do you think their work is legit? Tell your plans to a judge.

[@TheologyJeremy]

Hi Gary, I never said my ideas of right and wrong define ethics. I said God is the standard, because he is eternal and the creator. Ethics flow from his character rather than being arbitrary. They are unchanging and universal. If atheism were true, I may not want someone to murder me, but that wouldn't make it wrong. An animal may not want to be killed, but humans don't care what they think (especially bugs/rodents etc). There would be no right or wrong if atheism were true. Like you pointed out with your judge comment, there may be societal consequences, but that doesn't make it objectively right or wrong.

[@robindude8187]

"...certain belief systems, if you carry them to their logical conclusion, ... shouldn't have a problem with stealing and doing bad things..." Like Christianity! If you can just constantly go back to your invisible friend and say 'I know I am flawed and sinful, please forgive my sins', no matter what those sins are, then you can do anything you like! "...you need God for there to be good and evil..." Nah. If you really look into it, what people all seem to agree is 'the good' is that which leads to human health and happiness, and that which is 'the evil' is... the opposite of that. "...you don't get objective morality without God..." There is no such thing as objective morality. A god doesn't fix this. In order to be 'objective', something must be the case if examined in some way regardless of observer or opinion, but any morality _based in_ a god is _subjective_ because it's dependent upon the subject _of_ that god, on that god's opinions and attitudes. In order for morality to be truly objective, it has to be true _regardless_ of what any gods think about it. "...there has to be an objective standard that is outside of you..." Human health and happiness. It's not 'part of you', it's separate. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, cutting of someone's head objectively reduces their health. So does taking things from them under false pretenses (ie, stealing). "..and, of course, that could change over time..." Is it permissible to own people as property and pass them on to your children? If you think your god would say 'no', then this has changed over time. Are you required to sacrifice animals, goods, and other things to your god? If you say no, this has changed over time. Your god seems to have _no trouble_ changing the rules whenever the mood strikes. The interesting thing is you _live by_ subjective morals, you follow the _modern world's_ view of morality, and not those that were in the past. (We know this because if you tried to live by _actual_ biblical morality you'd be a criminal in practically every country on Earth.) So while I can't demonstrate this _necessarily,_ it certainly _looks like_ what Christians are doing is living by their subjective, society driven morals, and then _pretending_ that their god 'always meant' it to be that way. "...there's some worldviews that go against this, and what I'm thinking about specifically is atheism and evolutionism..." Atheism isn't a worldview. I doubt 'evolutionism' is, either. Neither would the combination of the two be. That would be like saying 'theism' is a worldview, or 'yahweh belief', even. It's not. "...both [atheism and evolutionism] are, at their core, non-theistic..." Evolution doesn't discuss a god at all. Plenty of theists accept the fact of macro-evolution as demonstrated by evidence. "...I think [evolution] is a belief system that comes out of atheism..." In the same way that the Germ Theory of Disease or the General Theory of Relativity do, and to the same extent. They aren't 'belief systems', they are scientific theories backed up by evidence, testing, prediction, and falsifiability. "...the fact that care for another person, that you should treat them as you want to be treated, now that is a distinctively Christian belief..." "Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself." - Baha'i, Baha'u'llah, Gleanings. "This is the sum of duty; do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you." - Hinduism, Mahabharata 5/1517 "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism, Udana-Varga 5/18 "One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct... loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." Confucianism, Confucius, Analects 15/23 "Not one of you tryly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself." - Islam, The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith "Regard your Neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." - Taoism, T'ai Shang Kan Tin P'ien, 213-218 "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism, Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a "I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all." - Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299 "One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated." - Jainism, Mahavira, Sutrakritanga "Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself." - Zoroastrianism, Shayast-na-Shayast 13/29 "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarianism, Unitarian principle. Tell us all again how this idea is 'distinct' to Christianity. "...if you would take an evolutionary worldview, an atheistic worldview, why on Earth should you care for another person..." From the point of view of evolution, all that matters is the species. The _individual_ is largely irrelevant to the overall. Being selfish has the problem that it hurts others of your species and thus _reduces_ the chances that your species will survive in the long run. Especially for a species such as we are. Atheists, usually through Secular Humanism, note much the same thing. We _need_ each other to survive. Wanna prove that to yourself? Try to see how long you can survive _on your own_ without relying on the skills of others. That means you can't _buy_ anything because that is trading for the skills of others. Grow your own food, make your own clothes, etc, etc. Even in the television show 'naked and alone', they weren't... there were two people out there. The reality is that you are _overwhelmingly_ likely to die of starvation or disease without other humans to help you survive. All it takes is one sip of a bit of bad water and you're dead. This would be _even more true_ if we humans hadn't _already_ altered the world around us and effectively wiped out all the 'dangerous creatures' in it (teaching many of them to fear mankind). Rewind the clock 500,000 years to before there were humans at all, and _your_ sorry butt, even if you had a mate, are unlikely to last long enough to reproduce, and even if you do _they_ are unlikely to make it themselves. So, since we _need_ each other it becomes pretty obvious that if you're hurting others, you're also hurting _yourself._ It, thus, goes against your own self-interest to do such things. You have to be myopic, then, to do it, sacrificing tomorrow for today. Clearly any social species that survives won't, usually, do that. "...evolution says it is the survival of the fittest, it is the strong that dominate and get to go on..." Evolution largely works at a species level. It also talks about _fitness,_ not _strength._ Being _better adapted_ to a situation doesn't always mean being 'stronger'. Sometimes being _weaker_ can be an advantage. Strong muscles require a _lot_ more food to power, and in a situation where food isn't so plentiful, not _needing_ a lot of food can help. Besides, a _species_ that cooperates better is _far_ more likely to survive than the same species where cooperation is lacking. Evolution is a _great_ driver for the morals we have, and _why_ most of morals for most folk focus on, well, _our_ species. "...in atheism there is no difference between humans and animals or inanimate objects..." Yeah, that's like saying there's no difference between people of _your_ country and people of _other_ countries. It's near impossible for anyone to feel that way. The thing is, we care more about _us_ than we do animals because we're us. We care more about _animals_ than we do _inanimate objects_ because we recognize that animals seem to have reactions we can recognize as being 'close to us'. It's not that hard to follow. Besides, saying there's no reason to treat them differently is like saying there's no reason to react to a fragile glass figurine differently than you would a steamroller. I take it you aren't about to try handling that figurine as roughly as you would the steamroller, so... "...you can't expect somebody, if you're gonna believe in evolutionary theory and atheism to treat their neighbor rightly..." Statistics disagree. In the USA population as a whole, atheists make up about 5% of the overall population, but in the _prisons_ of the USA they make up 0.02% of the population. Atheists seem to commit fewer crimes (ie, they treat their neighbors rightly) than their Christian counterparts. Moreover, those who accept the evidence for evolution tend to be _educated_ (unlike, apparently, you) and the _highly educated_ are _also_ under-represented in prisons. So... yeah, you _should_ expect those who hold those positions to be as kind or _more_ kind than those who think they have a direct link to some absolute who happens to agree with every value they hold.

[@RustyWalker]

1. "You need God for there to be good and evil." I disagree. "Good" and "evil" are labels we apply to the best and worst of human behaviours that result in beneficial effects or harm and or detrimental effects for your fellow sentient creatures. Why does it follow that you need God for that? Alternatively, you could say that "good" and "evil" result naturally from our neurology, empathy, social instinct, and intelligence, whether or not we were created by a God. In which case, the arising of "good" and "evil" are independent of God. 2. "You don't get an an objective morality without God." It's questionable whether you get objective morality *with* God. The only way you can argue that is by defining it to be the case, and I'm not interested in what you define to be the case. I'm interested in what you can *show* to be the case. The red flag here is of course the stories of the Old Testament. God in those stories does not behave how we consider moral. That's not a problem if you treat the stories as literature - as stories told to instruct people in greater moral truths, but it is a problem if you insist they are actually historical events. On the other hand, you could say morality is an expression of how we interact with each on a one-to-one basis according to status, deference, intelligence, education, culture, societal norms, enlightened self-interest, and so on. 3. "If there is no God, there is no good and evil." You're begging the statement - assuming the truth of your own premises without cause or evidence. 4. "If God 'defines' "good" and "bad," why can't people define "good" and "bad" too? If it is only a matter of definition, why does it matter who the agent is? And what makes that objective? 5. ".. and of course that could change over time." Which is exactly what *has* happened. You just gave a prediction of what subjective morality would look like and provided the evidence for it in the same breath. 6. Atheism isn't a worldview. It's an answer to a single question, "Do you believe at least one god might exist?" to which I simply answer, "no." The more complex answer is that no theist has put a proposition on the table for a god that I feel would warrant my belief. Every single one I have looked at has come down to at least one of: circular reasoning, question-begging, arguments from incredulity or ignorance, black-and-white fallacy (my-God or no-God," and wishful thinking (not exclusive). So, although a theist could be correct entirely by accident, there is no sufficient justification for me to believe them. 7. Evolutionism is not a worldview (or a valid description of people that accept evolution is true because it is supported by *all* available evidence). Evolution describes how species have evolved over time according to environmental and genetic pressures. It makes no comment on the existence or otherwise of a god, nor how people *should* behave in a modern society. One thing to note - we are not wholly confined by our evolution any longer. 8. Scamming and stealing are defined to be wrong. The actual word *itself* already describes an action or behaviour that is not acceptable. It's built into it. Now, read the 10 commandments again and note which words already connote a negative action: murder, steal, adultery, false witness, and covet. All of these already carry negative connotations. Those negative connotations had been defined *before* the commandments were given, and everybody knew what those connotations were. All the commandments did was codify that into law for the Hebrews. This was not unique nor innovative. The Hammurabi code had a similar format.

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

Well I am an Atheist and I know it is wrong. How dishonest is the guy in this video. Doesn't Theology Jeremy understand how awful he is slandering me. Hey Theology Jeremy, isn't it objectively immoral of you to lie about me that I can't be moral? Does it make you feel good by falsely accusing (AKA lying) about others? Of course I know scamming is Objectively wrong in my world view and I can prove it to you. One of my foundational core principles(this is subjective) is the golden rule(written down by Confucius 500 years prior to the Jesus story - so we humans figured this out with no help needed from any god or gods). It is not my only principle, but for purposes of limited time it is all I need to demonstrate to you how my morals are objective here(based on subjective principles). Example: Since I wouldn't want to be scammed, it would be therefore Objectively wrong for me to scam someone else. See how easy it is for me to demonstrate my moral system. Of course you could disagree with my subjective base, but that would mean you don't believe in the golden rule. But if you do believe in the golden rule, just remember this was around a very long time before the Jesus story and probably around long before Confucius wrote it down. Please answer me. A - Are gods morals true because he says they are true? Or B - Are gods morals true because they are true? Or C- both A & B which would mean we only need B - it wouldn't matter if god said them or not, the answer would still be B.

[@InsideTheStadium]

Off topic, but it might interest you to know that there are actual pages of scripture found that is in an England museum now. When found it was studied by 4 different scientists, 3 atheist and 1 Christian scientist. They all found the scripture to be from 30 to 60 ad. Remains and belongings of disciples were found, it's all public information, look it up. It's not even a mystery anymore, at this point, anyone that denies God, Jesus or his word ( Bible), has done absolutely no research, or has something personal against it and wouldnt believe it even if proof hit them in the face. Or maybe some are in love with their sin, and dont want to believe because they don't want to stop that sin or leave that lifestyle, But it's not because of proof, because there's proof everywhere you look. All you have to do is turn on your computer. - Prayers for everyone to beat any struggles their facing right now. Prayers for those who are in need, that you receive provision in Jesus mighty name I pray. Love you all. I know where I was and what God did for me when I called. I will never forget your kindness when I needed you God, I will give you praise all the days of my life. Thank you jesus

[@SalemK-ty4ti]

@@InsideTheStadium Someone else told me about this awhile ago. I couldn't find it in my search. Do you have the name of scriptures and the museum name? I would like to investigate this. Thank you