We ask you, humbly, to help us. We hope you enjoy this web site and what it represents.
So what is your point exactly? I guess you mean something like what you posted in another thread: When it's all boiled down, science relies on faith in materialistic presuppositions.
You have no basis, therefore, to question Christianity at all, except by experience and choice.
You have to claim there are different ways of gaining knowledge in a non-naturalistic way. Every miracle, vision, prophesy, the creation, the resurrection and whatever your faith relies on: You could still verify that they exist, just maybe not where they came from.
But according to what we know at the moment and how tests of similar claims worked out it seems highly unlikely that they did really happen. Lorkas June 12, at Anonymous August 30, at 4: Hats off to Joseph.
I completely agree with the author of this website that belief in God can not provide us with an objective morality, as shown clearly by these examples, which more generally illustrates the Euthyphro dilemma g: However, I believe that the same challenge could be posed to any form of atheistic moral realism.
Over the past decades, numerous discoveries in neurology and evolutionary psychology have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that our moral intuitions ultimately stem from the shaping of our brain by evolution and that WITHOUT any such emotional intuition, no moral system can be built from reason alone.
This is well illustrated by the study of the brains of psychopaths: No moral system can be created without the appeal to at least one kind of intuitions, the brute facts of nature never lead to moral duties and obligations.
Now, I want to state a version of the Euthyphro dilemma which shows the impossibility of defining an objective atheistic morality: Let me now develop the first point: Given the huge dimension of the sample, it is more than likely that many such intelligent beings have evolved conceptions of morality which would appear completely disgusting to us.
When invading a city and killing or enslaving all its inhabitants, their brain generate a warm feeling of happiness, satisfaction. When however confronted with weakness among their own folk, they feel an overwhelming indignation, anger, rage which lead them to kill the individual guilty of failureand after having done that, their brain awards them with an intense feeling of pleasure.
Now imagine such beings arrive at our earth and conclude based on their evolutionary intuitions that it would be moral and perfectly good to enslave all human beings capable of working and to kill all others.
What would an human atheist and moral realist say to these lizards? Do they ought to behave in a way coherent with the moral intuitions they have and slaughter or enslave all humans?
My contention is that it would be completely impossible to show to these creatures that killing innocent beings is wrong: Now, a defender of godless moral realism could agree with me it is fallacious to rely on evolution to define an objective morality in the same way it would be fallacious to rely on the commandments of a deity.
But he could then argue that there exists a moral standard independent of Evolution upon which moral realism would be based.
The problem of this argument is the following: As I have said, no moral system can be grounded by mere logic or factual analysis alone, at some point moral intuitions due to Evolution are always going to come into play.
Take for example the possibility of torturing a baby just for fun: Neuroscience has proven that such reaction does not stem from a rational consideration of all facts but rather from instinctive gut feelings. Afterwards, people try to rationalize their belief by backing them up with arguments and mistakenly think they feel this disgust because of their reasoning although it is the other way around.Essay on The Ethics of Homosexuality Words | 7 Pages.
same sex. Homosexuality is ethical, and I will provide rational arguments for, and irrational arguments against the topic.
A few objections are as follows: It is forbidden in the Bible and frowned upon by God; It is unnatural; Men and women are needed to reproduce; There are no known. Religion, homosexuality, New Testament - Morality of Sexuality. Stephen's Sexual Desire and Religious Morality Essay - Throughout his life, Stephen is consumed by conflicting desires, the strongest of which being his sexual .
Dec 19, · The Morality of Homosexuality; The Morality of Homosexuality it makes me glad that I no longer believe in a god or are forced to reconcile religious beliefs with logic and sensible morality. W hen Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world.
The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. My arguments will be ignoring a major element in factoring the morality of homosexuality, the law.
Yes, many people know that stealing and murder are both wrong, but this is based on socialization and learning passed down from previous generations. In her essay, “Homosexuality: A Case Study in Moral Argument,” Catholic theologian Lisa. The relationship between religion and homosexuality has varied greatly across time and place, within and between different religions and denominations, and regarding different forms of homosexuality and rutadeltambor.comt day doctrines of the world's major religions vary vastly generally and by denomination on attitudes toward these sexual orientations.