“there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong,”
Here is the flaw in the logic. Of course this behaviour would still be considered wrong, because:
1) It is illegal. It is a violation of criminal statutes that do not appear to be sourced, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.
2) It is immoral, in that it violates societal mores.
One of the main problems with providing morals/ethics from God, is that the feedback system is very weak. You only find out whether you have violated God’s rules until after you have died. If you violate the law (which comes from the state) you find out much quicker.
The legal system, despite its flaws, is more effective in enforcing law and order for this reason. With judeo-christianity, you have this Schrodinger’s cat syndrome, where you can’t determine whether actions are “good” or “bad” until after death. Thus you have the bizarre situation where eternal damnation could hinge on reading skills.
Or worse, translation skills. It is possible that millions of people will end up in hell based on the translation difference between “kill” and “murder”.
1) It is illegal. It is a violation of criminal statutes that do not appear to be sourced, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.
So if a law was passed saying its OK to kill members of group X, you’d have no problem killing them. My point is that the “it’s illegal” argument is a total cop-out.
“there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong,”
Here is the flaw in the logic. Of course this behaviour would still be considered wrong, because: 1) It is illegal. It is a violation of criminal statutes that do not appear to be sourced, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible.
2) It is immoral, in that it violates societal mores.
One of the main problems with providing morals/ethics from God, is that the feedback system is very weak. You only find out whether you have violated God’s rules until after you have died. If you violate the law (which comes from the state) you find out much quicker.
The legal system, despite its flaws, is more effective in enforcing law and order for this reason. With judeo-christianity, you have this Schrodinger’s cat syndrome, where you can’t determine whether actions are “good” or “bad” until after death. Thus you have the bizarre situation where eternal damnation could hinge on reading skills.
Or worse, translation skills. It is possible that millions of people will end up in hell based on the translation difference between “kill” and “murder”.
something to think about.
So if a law was passed saying its OK to kill members of group X, you’d have no problem killing them. My point is that the “it’s illegal” argument is a total cop-out.
Morality and legality are very different things. These two sets overlap, of course, but are not nearly identical.
That assumes God is pretty stupid and powerless. Not a good assumption to along with the assumption of the existence of hell.