I am a good person and I don't need a god for that

No. Notice I said it develops. You aren't born with it, but you also aren't born knowing how to walk or even experience object permanence. Both are still a natural part of development, as is basic empathy. Seems to coincide with the stage in development where we finally realize that other people exist and have their own experiences just like we do (aka, what's called "The Theory of Other Minds.")

 

So in your view, "goodness," or any sort of moral sense is a natural part of growing up. It doesn't need to be taught, it's innate?

 

You really don't.

 

Which one?

 

There are more than one?

 

If he is all powerful and created everything, then he did order it. How could anything be other than exactly how he wishes it to be if he's all powerful?

 

Do you know how many gods man has believed in?

 

Please don't take me too seriously in this thread.

 

your right, this is why left handed people are evil.

 

God has been your inner guide to goodness and there is no way to get away from God.
It's a bit more of truth one would seek than goodness. The devil plays pretend in goodness all the time.
The books are there for a aid, trials, tribulation and confusion.

 

It's like crawling or object permanence. You don't start off knowing it, but you learn it through innate instincts and experience as part of natural neurological development. This is why we see other animals exhibiting it without being taught, whey we see universal trends across human populations, and why we consider anyone who fails to learn this to be mentally ill.

 

That's fascinating that you think "goodness" is something innate that humans gradually grow into, like walking. It sounds almost religious.

 

Not really. It's just basic empathy, which exists even among some animals. So, no, not religious at all. What religion did elephants convert to when they started helping hide injured animals from predators? What religion did whales convert to when they started saving seals and humans from sharks? What religion did rats convert to when they started taking care of their injured and captured friends? The very fact that it exists in non-human animals, that it is universal among humans regardless of religion, and that we regard anyone who doesn't develop it as being mentally ill points to the innate capacity. Hell, children start exhibiting it before they even learn spoken language, much less religion. In fact, it's much more superstitious/religious to believe that it ISN'T an innate capacity.

 

You are assuming other animals have morality, and there are "good" and "bad" animals. I'm not sure that's true. Animals do what animals do. Humans seem to have a lot more agency than an elephant.

The reason I'm calling it religious is because you seem to have made up an entire theory of good and evil based on animal instincts, which seems ridiculous to me. More to the point, there doesn't seem to be any science behind it. If you make up something that you believe in without any evidence, wouldn't you call that religious?

 

No, I'm assuming that some animals exhibit empathy, which is an empirical fact.

Then you haven't done your homework.

Scientists disagree with you on this one. There's tons of peer review research on animal empathy.

Good thing I've followed the evidence showing, once again, that your science denialism seems much more religious than my following of scientific evidence.

 

Hi all, fresh meat here.

I would like to ask Yardmeat a simple question with a complex answer-

What is the objective secular reason why theft objectively wrong?

Because, if theft ain't objectively wrong then it's really just a matter of the fashion of the day. Ain't it?

Well maybe not. The. way I see it, in order to conclude that theft is objectively wrong you need to make a leap of faith, that religious leap being steadfast belief that each individual owns their own body.

As a consequence of owning a body, each individual is responsible for the consequences of the actions they take. If a body works they get to eat, and if a body's hands produce something that body owns the fruit of their labor.

Exactly like how God made all the material world, then Eve and Adam took the fruit of God's labor when specifically ordered not to eat the forbidden fruit. And that's the very first sin desribed in the bible- theft.

Theft Is objectively wrong. But it takes a religious leap of faith to get there.

 

We were not talking about "empathy" we were talking about good. Please see the subject line.

So if there is scientific evidence that humans and animals are naturally "good" please provide it.

 

If you have a concept of good that doesn't involve empathy, please feel free to provide it.

You could save yourself some time by reading the thread.

 

Too busy always trying to be the "smartest guy in the room"

 

Yes, in the OT God did order destruction of their enemies. You made it sound like He ordered them to only kill children, which Psalm 137:9 might sound like, but it was a prediction of what was to come. When He ordered the destruction of the enemies, but some were allowed to survive, bad things always followed in form of revenge, - sometimes decades later.

 

Empathy is a component, as his kindness, but neither are the whole definition.

Now if there is a post which presents your particular theological view as science, please point it out.

 

I never said that he said to kill ONLY children, just that he specifically ordered to kill children (according to the Bible), and I made no reference to Psalms. Ordering people to kill babies over something their ancestors did centuries before (which the Bible says God did) is pure evil. Why did you refuse to talk about the actual verses I provided and instead try to shift to a verse that I didn't bring up and have never brought up? Are you willing to discuss the verses I actually mentioned or was this a hit and run?

 

Well don't make it so easy for me.

 

Kindness is part of empathy, so you aren't introducing anything new. What do you think there is to morality beyond empathy and reason?

 

You didn't refer to anything, so I assumed you meant the Psalms. Later you said it was about 1 Samuel.

Good luck putting God on trial.