do you understand the basics? a) love god. b) treat others ( love them ) as you want to be treated ( loved ). few people really love god. love is behavior, not an attitude. so loving god means doing what he says to do and not doing what he says not to do. according to Jesus, it isn't necessary to follow all of the Mosaic dietary laws now, and he fulfilled the tenets of the rest of the Levitical code, as well, so those OT strictures aren't part of the package. but here's where the rubber meets the road: a) we love whom we prefer to love; b) we love when we prefer to love; c) we love how we prefer to love. this is normal behavior for us. if loving someone requires a large sacrifice on our part, we weigh out the pluses and minuses, and we decide on those factors. we don't say, "what does he/she really need for me to do...regardless of the cost to me." so it's far less a matter of what not to do and more a matter of what to do. "sins" of omission are as weighty as "sins" of commission.
That's not a moral, or an ethical behaviour, or anything like that. It's something unique to particular faiths that is irrelevant to other faiths, or people without faith. It's a particular requirement of those faith only, just as believing in and loving hindu gods is to hindus. Really, in terms of human behaviour, what impact does not loving god have? It's utterly meaningless except to those who see loving god as being vitally important. You really think that idea came from the bible? People hadn't thought of of that before, and non-christians around the world don't buy into that idea? do you not have children? Do you think parents don't put their kids first? Even those without kids will often put themselves out greatly for those they care about.
All of which biology does a fairly good job explaining. Facts are so much more wondrous than fiction.
And the explanation is that any kind of moral behavior is a by product of the evolutionary process. So just like a dog raises its hind leg to pee, so do we behave in a certain way because of a byproduct random mutations and natural selection. However, no one would say that the dog would be doing something immoral or that he has a duty to raise his hind leg when he pees. Given metaphysical naturalism, one can only point to what is and there is no way to get from what is to what should be. A dog raises his hind leg when he pees, people respect other people´s beliefs, humanity strives for equality and justice. There are things that are the case and not things that should be the case. Therefore, a metaphysical naturalist cannot logically ground the belief that any actions ought to be done or ought not be done. And no, the bible does not infuse our reality with morality, the bible (or any other holy book) could not exist, and we could still have moral oughts.
I'll ask the question in a less subtle way... Why are you limiting your scope to "metaphysical naturalists" or atheists? Why does what you're saying not apply to everybody else, or does it?
If this is true then it is so for your position as well, if it is not true for your position then it is not true for the position you are arguing against. At any rate your nonsense was dealt with by Foosinho already. Just as with previous threads you demonstrate that you're incapable of applying the same scrutiny (poor though it may be) to your position as you apply to the straw men you argue against.
I didn´t really disagree with much of what Foosinho had to say and if you are referring to him linking a Wikipedia page on secular humanism as a solid rebutal, then you should call it quits, for your sake.
Do you agree that the premise of your thread is a non-starter? If not then saying you don't really disagree with much of what he said is misleading.
It applies to everyone who believes that their existence is simply the product of a naturalistic process and that no intention went into their existence that infused them with moral and rational oughts that are grounded in reality.
Unless that, however, if nature is all there is and we are the result of random mutations and natural selection, that would be impossible.
Animals defend their children and family. Animals form groups with rules and punishments for breaking rules. Apes even mediate differences within their groups. Being moral is a beneficial trait, and is selected for in evolution.
by preference... you've just established one of my points. we love whom we prefer to love... look. i'm not saying that people aren't caring. i'm saying that loving others -- not the ones we especially care about -- is very challenging. putting yourself out for some whom you dislike is contrary to our selfish nature. sometimes we do those things, but not as a rule. to follow Jesus properly, it's the behaviour you must train yourself to perform. you must become free to do what is needed, including putting yourself out for someone you dislike. as i said before, love isn't how you feel; it's how you act.
But then what exactly are you acting according to? What you think is appropriate for that person? How do you know what is best for them, by your intellect? By your feelings? Intuition? And how is it you're so sure that this action you're performing is for the person's benefit and not just a performance for god, so actually for your benefit?
loving jesus is important to christians and absolutely nobody else. It's purely part of christianity, not something all humans should ideally strive to do. You might as well claim that supporting a football team is vital in people's lives, because without it they won't fully appreciate football. Loving jesus does not make anyone a better person. You might claim people who "find god" turn their lives around, but it's not loving jesus that does that, it's finding a meaning in their life.
this is why i keep saying that you don't get "the God thing". loving Jesus doesn't make you a better person by your definition of love. you think love is how you feel. loving Jesus means following him, which means learning to do what he would do. he said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." doing what Jesus did makes you a better person.
But since you can't logically or phisically prove that you were made supernaturally, infused with moral and rational thoughts, the morals which you have, you can't claim are absolutely right or wrong and ground that claim in reality. If I claim something is morally wrong, it can't be anything more than a personal opinion (you're right in that sense) even if it is a personal opinion shared by so many people that it becomes a consensus in society and in many cases, written in law. You can say that you think something is absolutely wrong because god has given you an intrisic set of morals and so you can know, absolutely, but that is based on nothing more than an opinion that you happen to be right about what you beleive.
First of all, not all atheists are "metaphysical naturalists" as you define that term. Secondly, as has already been pointed out to you, philosophers have debated the nature of morality for centuries. There are many philosophical arguments about morality that aren't based on theism, or are compatible with atheism. No, it doesn't. Moral thoughts which are infused in us through biology are no less real than moral thoughts which are infused in us via a supernatural force, except that the biological explanation makes rational sense and the supernatural one does not. In that respect, the naturalistic explanation and the moral codes that result are actually much more grounded in reality than the fantastical explanation. How interesting that he/she is classifying those two facts as "misconceptions."