Evolution
Replies
-
It's nice to hear that some Christians believe that the Bible contains parable, metaphors, etc. It's always struck me odd that some believe that the Bible is all factual events that actually happened and refuse to believe that maybe some of it is stories used to help people better accept it.
That's just ignorance (in the true meaning of the word). There are many uneducated Christians, and not everyone is able to afford a Christian education. We need to do better in our parishes on educating our people.0 -
1. The “invite” is all around you. The invite is found in your own inner drive to find meaning and purpose in your life. It is found in the fact that your very existence is a mystery that causes you to ask about what it means. I would also say that the greatest invitation is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.I'll bold my answers to each point below.
Not wanting to rehash this topic, but I did want to reply to you on the above.
1.People are “sent to hell” because they choose to reject God’s love and grace. “Believing in him” has to do with a loving, trusting response to God’s loving invitation. Those who reject that have determined themselves to the despair that comes from knowing they have rejected the only thing that can truly make them happy
I must have missed the invite. And trust me, I've tried countless times to get invited to the party. It just ain't happening. I don't see it as 'rejecting' anything as there's nothing to reject.
Our free acts are truly free but are only possible because the divine power is able to cause free beings. This results in two facts: (a) all reality comes from God and serves God’s purposes and (b) humans are free in the way they respond to God. I don’t see anything in your reply that undermines these two facts.2.God’s “control” of all things is not a rival or counter force to our freedom. Human freedom is a result of divine power and providence, not a force that is in opposition to it. God’s plan includes free acts by creatures and therefore our acts can be truly free and also incorporated into God’s plan without implying a contradiction.
But again, if something is TRULY part of God's will/plan/whatever you want to call it, then our choices really aren't our own choices if God already has planned things out. Anyway, if everything was part of God's plan, then he'd already know who would end up atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.
God knows how it all turns out because God also knows the means to that end, including our prayers.3.You are thinking of God’s relationship to time like someone looking into a crystal ball and seeing the future. This is simply wrong. Every “now” moment is present to God in his mode of being: unchanging present. Our “now” moments are present to us in our mode of being: changing, temporal/sequential moments. It is simply a mistake to transfer our experience of time and freedom to God’s mode of being. Regarding our prayers, there is nothing contradictory or incoherent in saying that our prayers in one moment are incorporated into God’s providential plan for the future. In other words, the presence of “tomorrow” in God’s present does not mean that tomorrow does not logically depend on the events of today. One may pray today and God’s eternal plan take account of those prayers so that they are truly “means” and instruments by which God achieves his purposes.
Again, if God is omnipresent and all-knowing, etc, then the prayers aren't going to matter to ultimately what he has planned. I keep hearing how God already knows the end of the story and how things play out, etc, so obviously praying or not praying isn't going to matter in the end if there's already a final chapter written.
God’s “testing” of us is also the means he uses to cause us to grow into being more fulfilled as his creatures. The athlete works out and perfects his/her body as a means to becoming a great athlete. Human persons are not born in a completed condition. We arrive at our completion through a process of growth and this life is a crucial part of that. In the end what matters is not whether I like some part of what is happening to me but whether or not this life is a divinely-given journey.4.Your objection to God’s plan is like judging Star Wars by watching the first five minutes of episode four or judging a ****en’s novel by reading three pages of chapter three. You are not looking at the whole picture. Can you really look at the 15 billion years of cosmic history and not be amazed at the dynamic movement towards living and then conscious and then intelligent, self-directing beings? The story is absolutely astonishing. How can you possibly say that the whole story of the cosmos, once all factors are considered, does not turn out to be an absolutely beautiful story? Furthermore, most people in the world find countless reasons to be grateful for their lives and many reasons to hope for a better world. What is wrong with me seeing the good of life as a reason to give thanks to God and also see evils in the world as an invitation to use the intellect and freedom given by God to advance our world and make it better? Why can’t I also see this life as a “test” of sorts to see whether I choose to embrace this good gift of life and work against evil or ignore the good and focus only on the evil? What is illogical about that?
I guess to me, if people need religion to feel whole or feel content with how things are, that's fine with me. But honestly, I don't think I'd want to believe in a God that wants to 'test' me to see if I'm worthy or not. I'd rather live my life the best I can because that's all I think there is.Touching on what you said about billions of years of cosmic history, most people who deny evolution also deny that the earth is billions of years old.
Also, I think we can embrace the gift of life without believing that a giant man in the sky was the one who gave it to us. You don't need religion to appreciate what you have, to be good to one another, to live a good life and do your best.
I would argue that belief in God (in the classical meaning of that term) is essential to providing a sufficient grounding for all the things you mentioned. If an atheist follows a moral law and believes there is a real, objective meaning to human life he/she is believing and doing something good but without a sufficient foundation for it. There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support morality or cosmic meaning/purpose. In my understanding, by definition, atheism is the denial of any objective basis for such things. The only “absolute” for an atheist is a universe that is a brute fact and is not the result of any intelligent, purposeful, meaningful cause.0 -
It's nice to hear that some Christians believe that the Bible contains parable, metaphors, etc. It's always struck me odd that some believe that the Bible is all factual events that actually happened and refuse to believe that maybe some of it is stories used to help people better accept it.
That's just ignorance (in the true meaning of the word). There are many uneducated Christians, and not everyone is able to afford a Christian education. We need to do better in our parishes on educating our people.
Precisely! As both a Christian, albeit not a particularly religious one (I know that sounds odd, but I have always had issues with organised religion and don't see that as incompatible with having faith and subscribing to the particular system of belief with which I was raised) and, once upon a time, a Literature major, it is very clear to me that the Bible, along with many other early texts, is highly allegorical - it's a teaching tool, and a way of codifying certain sociological norms that were important to its' creators.
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation. I will never forget being required to read Marx for a Comparative Literature paper, and being stunned at how far the ideas and ideals Marx wrote about, many of them very laudable, were twisted in the interpreting by Lenin, and even more so, Stalin, for example.
I don't particularly belong to any religious community any more, but more widely to the Christian tradition and faith. I certainly hope I will be able to give my own future children the benefits of an education in the same tradition I experienced. However, what is essential to me, both personally, and on a wider scale, is that leaders should inform in order to prompt personal thought and reflection, rather than to dictate a mode of thinking or belief - and that holds for me in every field of life - religion, science, politics, the works! In that regard, we all, Christian, atheist, Buddhist or agnostic, have a long way to go.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support morality
what do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??0 -
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation.
This is why it is important for us to rely on theologians, religious scholars, and those most educated in not just the Bible, but the history of all religions. Just want to add that I am not saying 'everything' in the Bible is poetry, parable, or hyperbole. There are actual eye witness accounts to much of it from the people closest to Jesus or alive during His time.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support moralitywhat do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.0 -
Macpatti is right - those who believe the Bible is an absolute transcription of the Word of God, intended to be read and applied literally, most often do so through ignorance. Like any text, secular or religious, the interpretation is key, and interpretation, especially in an earlier historical context when fewer people were sufficiently educated to read the Bible for themselves, or to see parallells between similar documents, is highly susceptible to manipulation.
This is why it is important for us to rely on theologians, religious scholars, and those most educated in not just the Bible, but the history of all religions. Just want to add that I am not saying 'everything' in the Bible is poetry, parable, or hyperbole. There are actual eye witness accounts to much of it from the people closest to Jesus or alive during His time.
Absolutely, but I think we agree that a lot, particularly in the Old Testament, which is the part most relevant to this particular discussion, is not intended to be taken literally. I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of your preferred interpreters, but I would certainly make reference to such whilst reaching my own conclusions.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support moralitywhat do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.0 -
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.
The problem I have is the use of the term "selfish". Like you say meeting needs such as our survival are advantageous. Calling that "selfish" would the same as telling a mother who wants her newborn to survive that she's being "selfish". Maybe there's a bit of truth to that if you want to think of it that way, but it's certainly not what we think of when we think of the word.
I believe our morality evolves with us (hey look we're actually talking about evolution again!). It's clearly improved over time. Say what you want about the bible, if you were to meet the people who actually wrote it you would consider them barbarians. Like anyone else from our time. Most of them would be furious that a woman was even speaking to them. So I have no problem with the knowledge that my morality is superior to the men who wrote all the ancient books on religion. It's proven to me simply by reading them.
It was once ok to treat women as slaves, as well as having actual slaves. To this day the persecution of gays is justified with biblical teachings. Our morality simply can not come from the bible as it is currently better than the bible. There are things in there we all know are simply deplorable behavior. I don't care if your God condones it, things like rape, incest and slavery are wrong. I do not get this from religious teaching. Religion has taught at various times that all these things are fine.
Our morality comes from the fact that we need one another to survive. Reptiles have no morality. They are born with all the tools and knowledge they need for their lives. Humans are different. We rely on one another. We are weak and fragile at birth. Newborn infants begin immediately learning the difference between happy faces and sad faces and what it means to their well being. Helping others helps us, and so we have morality. The saying I head is "reptiles eat their young, mammals care for their young, human beings save up for a year to take their kids to Disney."
This is my belief on why we can be moral creatures, without god. Some of us clearly are already. To say that without the bible, the one that condones slavery, there is no morality is nonsense to me. It isn't even objective morality using the bible. Good and bad changes regularly based on God's whims at the time. So there's no objective morality and that's ok. We're learning. As we learn we improve. As we improve..
we evolve.0 -
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.
1.Your first paragraph seems to admit what I was claiming. I would clarify, though, that atheism not only does not have a moral code but it also does not have the resources to provide a moral code. The atheist view of the world precludes any real morality underpinnings or “source.”
2. I take your second paragraph to be an admission that the atheist understanding of human actions is selfishly motivated? I agree that treating someone well “so you get the golden ticket to heaven” is also selfish. If that is the primary motivation for a Christian to treat another well then it is no better, I don’t think, that the selfish acts of an atheist. The true Christian motivation for treating another person well is that they are a person, made in God’s image, that has a profound worth and value that should draw from us a response of love. In other words, I treat another person with love and kindness because they are a being of value and significance that I want to experience love and kindness. I am to see other persons as reflections of the nature of God and therefore having an intrinsic value and goodness that should be treated with love. It is not selfish, I don’t think, to find delight and happiness is doing good for another. This is the essence of altruism. I certainly think that atheists can find delight in the experience of loving and doing good for others, I just don’t think they can explain why this is a moral duty.
3.Yes race, genocide and slavery are bad. There are laws and commands against such things in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Take a few moments to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find each of those actions condemned in no uncertain terms. Do you really think that Christians endorse those kinds of things? Christians have fought against them for a very long time. You can’t read very much of Martin Luther King, Jr. without finding how deeply influenced he was by basic Christian concepts in his fight against injustice based on race. You say that we know that such things are wrong now without being told by God but it seems dramatically unfair and ahistorical to act as if the current moral sensitivities about such things has nothing to do with millennia of permeation by Christian and biblical concepts that led to moral advance. Concerning the texts you mention from the Old Testament, you cannot possibly think that such “war texts” reflect the general message of the Bible about morality and human relationships (if you are familiar with the rest of the Bible). Isolating middle-eastern war texts and trying to use them as a basis of societal ethical codes is simply not fair to the Bible and it ignores the thousands of years of reflection and developing understanding and application of the Bible. What we find in those texts about war is similar to what we find today when a person might say after a sporting event: “We slaughtered them!” or “We annihilated them!” No one understands that to be a literal statement of what was really done. A careful reading of the Old Testament war stories shows that they are similar uses of hyperbole/exaggeration in a manner that is still quite common the middle east. Further, this approach to the Bible fails to see the gradual growth in insight and depth of understanding regarding morality that is reflected in the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the fact that God accommodated himself to human depravity and sinfulness in order to gradually lead his people to a more profound understanding of the moral life. You are taking your present more developed moral sensitivities (that are the result of absorbing them from a culture highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition) and anachronistically using that to judge a culture of 3500 years ago that was at a much more primitive stage of moral development. I just don’t think this is a fair way to evaluated to moral influence of the Bible. If you put yourself in the world of Moses or Joshua, I think you will find that their moral concepts exceeded those of their contemporaries.0 -
The problem I have is the use of the term "selfish". Like you say meeting needs such as our survival are advantageous. Calling that "selfish" would the same as telling a mother who wants her newborn to survive that she's being "selfish". Maybe there's a bit of truth to that if you want to think of it that way, but it's certainly not what we think of when we think of the word.
I believe our morality evolves with us (hey look we're actually talking about evolution again!). It's clearly improved over time. Say what you want about the bible, if you were to meet the people who actually wrote it you would consider them barbarians. Like anyone else from our time. Most of them would be furious that a woman was even speaking to them. So I have no problem with the knowledge that my morality is superior to the men who wrote all the ancient books on religion. It's proven to me simply by reading them.
It was once ok to treat women as slaves, as well as having actual slaves. To this day the persecution of gays is justified with biblical teachings. Our morality simply can not come from the bible as it is currently better than the bible. There are things in there we all know are simply deplorable behavior. I don't care if your God condones it, things like rape, incest and slavery are wrong. I do not get this from religious teaching. Religion has taught at various times that all these things are fine.
Our morality comes from the fact that we need one another to survive. Reptiles have no morality. They are born with all the tools and knowledge they need for their lives. Humans are different. We rely on one another. We are weak and fragile at birth. Newborn infants begin immediately learning the difference between happy faces and sad faces and what it means to their well being. Helping others helps us, and so we have morality. The saying I head is "reptiles eat their young, mammals care for their young, human beings save up for a year to take their kids to Disney."
This is my belief on why we can be moral creatures, without god. Some of us clearly are already. To say that without the bible, the one that condones slavery, there is no morality is nonsense to me. It isn't even objective morality using the bible. Good and bad changes regularly based on God's whims at the time. So there's no objective morality and that's ok. We're learning. As we learn we improve. As we improve..we evolve.
Glad you're in here, Brett!
First, I did not originally argue that the Bible is only source of morality. Indeed, the Bible itself teaches that nature informs us about what is right and wrong so that all people are “without excuse” when they violate the moral order. I do think the Bible can be defended against all your accusations but the whole matter is really going beyond my original argument. My argument was that atheism does not have the intellectual resources to sufficiently ground morality. I don’t see anything in your reply that undermines that claim. You essentially explain “morality” is reducible to survival instinct. That admits my point that atheism does not have the resources to ground morality. You cannot say that some actions are inherently “wrong” you can only say that some actions tend to preserve the species and others do not.
You speak like it is immoral to enslave women or persecute gays, but why? I disagree with those actions because I believe they are contrary to the moral dignity of human persons, a dignity derived from a transcendent ground of meaning and the ultimate origin of the human person: God. You have no such ground. What gives you the right to say that an ancient society that enslaved women and brutally murdered its enemies was not justified in these actions? What if they perceived them as useful acts for survival? Do you say they were morally “wrong”? What justifies that moral condemnation? My suspicion is that you are drawing from a source of moral reasoning that atheism simply has no room for.0 -
Patti (and I'm doing this to try to shorten our long responses down to quick ones), what you just said proves that we don't get objective morality from God. We get a set of morals that changes over time depending on interpretations. So that throws objective morality out the window.
I bring this up because so many people look down on subjective morality, when the truth is that's all morality, always.0 -
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.
1.Your first paragraph seems to admit what I was claiming. I would clarify, though, that atheism not only does not have a moral code but it also does not have the resources to provide a moral code. The atheist view of the world precludes any real morality underpinnings or “source.”
2. I take your second paragraph to be an admission that the atheist understanding of human actions is selfishly motivated? I agree that treating someone well “so you get the golden ticket to heaven” is also selfish. If that is the primary motivation for a Christian to treat another well then it is no better, I don’t think, that the selfish acts of an atheist. The true Christian motivation for treating another person well is that they are a person, made in God’s image, that has a profound worth and value that should draw from us a response of love. In other words, I treat another person with love and kindness because they are a being of value and significance that I want to experience love and kindness. I am to see other persons as reflections of the nature of God and therefore having an intrinsic value and goodness that should be treated with love. It is not selfish, I don’t think, to find delight and happiness is doing good for another. This is the essence of altruism. I certainly think that atheists can find delight in the experience of loving and doing good for others, I just don’t think they can explain why this is a moral duty.
3.Yes race, genocide and slavery are bad. There are laws and commands against such things in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Take a few moments to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find each of those actions condemned in no uncertain terms. Do you really think that Christians endorse those kinds of things? Christians have fought against them for a very long time. You can’t read very much of Martin Luther King, Jr. without finding how deeply influenced he was by basic Christian concepts in his fight against injustice based on race. You say that we know that such things are wrong now without being told by God but it seems dramatically unfair and ahistorical to act as if the current moral sensitivities about such things has nothing to do with millennia of permeation by Christian and biblical concepts that led to moral advance. Concerning the texts you mention from the Old Testament, you cannot possibly think that such “war texts” reflect the general message of the Bible about morality and human relationships (if you are familiar with the rest of the Bible). Isolating middle-eastern war texts and trying to use them as a basis of societal ethical codes is simply not fair to the Bible and it ignores the thousands of years of reflection and developing understanding and application of the Bible. What we find in those texts about war is similar to what we find today when a person might say after a sporting event: “We slaughtered them!” or “We annihilated them!” No one understands that to be a literal statement of what was really done. A careful reading of the Old Testament war stories shows that they are similar uses of hyperbole/exaggeration in a manner that is still quite common the middle east. Further, this approach to the Bible fails to see the gradual growth in insight and depth of understanding regarding morality that is reflected in the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the fact that God accommodated himself to human depravity and sinfulness in order to gradually lead his people to a more profound understanding of the moral life. You are taking your present more developed moral sensitivities (that are the result of absorbing them from a culture highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition) and anachronistically using that to judge a culture of 3500 years ago that was at a much more primitive stage of moral development. I just don’t think this is a fair way to evaluated to moral influence of the Bible. If you put yourself in the world of Moses or Joshua, I think you will find that their moral concepts exceeded those of their contemporaries.
1. I absolutely agree, atheism has no moral foundation.
2. You basically just rehashed what I and you had said before, that you treat people with love and kindness so that you may experience love and kindness. All of the fluff about people having intrinisic worth isn't attributable to God. Almost everyone except sociopaths think human beings have worth.
3. Yes, some of the people had superior morals to their biblical peers. That should be proof enough though that the bible was man written with no supernatural guidance. An all powerful being could have laid down all of the law in the beginnning, not allowed man to slowly mature to new levels. But picking on the people of the bible is too easy. Stoning teenagers, rape, genocide. I go straight for the core. Old testement God is as evil.
First off, asking Abraham, the father of all 3 current abrahamic religions is asked by the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe to gut his own child to prove devotion. That's sick and twisted.
Second, Pharoah and his soldiers kill all the first born Hebrews in an act of barbarism that is indefensible (supposedly). So God's answer to a rebellious Pharoah is to kill all of the Egyption first born children? Little babies and kids among them? Why would they be punished? And people wonder how idiots in the middle east are killing each other over the offenses of prior generations.
Last, I know a lot of people who try and justify all of that depraved behavior of God as just being whacky old testemant God. Jesus changed all that. But for all of the great things Jesus said, which I think a lot was Revolutionary in that part of the world at the time, you can't get away from the fact that Christ does not give you real options. It is believe in him and his message, or an eternity in hell being tortured. That's not a choice. Forcing some one to love you through fear is evil.0 -
Glad you're in here, Brett!
First, I did not originally argue that the Bible is only source of morality. Indeed, the Bible itself teaches that nature informs us about what is right and wrong so that all people are “without excuse” when they violate the moral order. I do think the Bible can be defended against all your accusations but the whole matter is really going beyond my original argument. My argument was that atheism does not have the intellectual resources to sufficiently ground morality. I don’t see anything in your reply that undermines that claim. You essentially explain “morality” is reducible to survival instinct. That admits my point that atheism does not have the resources to ground morality. You cannot say that some actions are inherently “wrong” you can only say that some actions tend to preserve the species and others do not.
You speak like it is immoral to enslave women or persecute gays, but why? I disagree with those actions because I believe they are contrary to the moral dignity of human persons, a dignity derived from a transcendent ground of meaning and the ultimate origin of the human person: God. You have no such ground. What gives you the right to say that an ancient society that enslaved women and brutally murdered its enemies was not justified in these actions? What if they perceived them as useful acts for survival? Do you say they were morally “wrong”? What justifies that moral condemnation? My suspicion is that you are drawing from a source of moral reasoning that atheism simply has no room for.
Patti you make excellent points.
Here's the thing about atheism. It says NOTHING about what a person believes. Only what they do not believe. They believe in no gods, that's it. From there they (we) can have all sorts of completely different and varying beliefs. Nothing about being an atheist says you have to believe in evolution. It says nothing about any beliefs. It is a negative position (not in that way). It speaks only to the existence of a divine power.
I say that it's wrong to enslave people based on the simple notion that I would not want to be enslaved. If it's not something I'd want for me then it's wrong to want that for others. It's just about not being a hypocrite. I don't think I need any sort of divine being for that.
You bring up later books of Catholicism that change the primitive biblical views on slavery, rape, etc. But it's not like everyone has read these works or is playing by the rules, the vast majority have not. Yet we still see slavery, rape, etc. as wrong.
Morality is essential for our survival and progress as a species. Without it we would never have made it this far.
AH! I can use evolution as my final proof here. There are numerous examples of what we would consider morality in the animal kingdom. Elephants mourn their dead, vast numbers of species work to protect their own kind, some monkeys will even sacrifice their own lives to save others of their tribe. Did God give these animals morality? Why would he, they have no souls, they'll receive no salvation. Why would animals be given morality from a creator who sees them merely as window dressing for the use of the human species?0 -
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.
1.Your first paragraph seems to admit what I was claiming. I would clarify, though, that atheism not only does not have a moral code but it also does not have the resources to provide a moral code. The atheist view of the world precludes any real morality underpinnings or “source.”
2. I take your second paragraph to be an admission that the atheist understanding of human actions is selfishly motivated? I agree that treating someone well “so you get the golden ticket to heaven” is also selfish. If that is the primary motivation for a Christian to treat another well then it is no better, I don’t think, that the selfish acts of an atheist. The true Christian motivation for treating another person well is that they are a person, made in God’s image, that has a profound worth and value that should draw from us a response of love. In other words, I treat another person with love and kindness because they are a being of value and significance that I want to experience love and kindness. I am to see other persons as reflections of the nature of God and therefore having an intrinsic value and goodness that should be treated with love. It is not selfish, I don’t think, to find delight and happiness is doing good for another. This is the essence of altruism. I certainly think that atheists can find delight in the experience of loving and doing good for others, I just don’t think they can explain why this is a moral duty.
3.Yes race, genocide and slavery are bad. There are laws and commands against such things in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Take a few moments to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find each of those actions condemned in no uncertain terms. Do you really think that Christians endorse those kinds of things? Christians have fought against them for a very long time. You can’t read very much of Martin Luther King, Jr. without finding how deeply influenced he was by basic Christian concepts in his fight against injustice based on race. You say that we know that such things are wrong now without being told by God but it seems dramatically unfair and ahistorical to act as if the current moral sensitivities about such things has nothing to do with millennia of permeation by Christian and biblical concepts that led to moral advance. Concerning the texts you mention from the Old Testament, you cannot possibly think that such “war texts” reflect the general message of the Bible about morality and human relationships (if you are familiar with the rest of the Bible). Isolating middle-eastern war texts and trying to use them as a basis of societal ethical codes is simply not fair to the Bible and it ignores the thousands of years of reflection and developing understanding and application of the Bible. What we find in those texts about war is similar to what we find today when a person might say after a sporting event: “We slaughtered them!” or “We annihilated them!” No one understands that to be a literal statement of what was really done. A careful reading of the Old Testament war stories shows that they are similar uses of hyperbole/exaggeration in a manner that is still quite common the middle east. Further, this approach to the Bible fails to see the gradual growth in insight and depth of understanding regarding morality that is reflected in the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the fact that God accommodated himself to human depravity and sinfulness in order to gradually lead his people to a more profound understanding of the moral life. You are taking your present more developed moral sensitivities (that are the result of absorbing them from a culture highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition) and anachronistically using that to judge a culture of 3500 years ago that was at a much more primitive stage of moral development. I just don’t think this is a fair way to evaluated to moral influence of the Bible. If you put yourself in the world of Moses or Joshua, I think you will find that their moral concepts exceeded those of their contemporaries.
Sorry, I also forgot to add this. As far as I know, there is no knew bible. There has been no new messiah, angel messengers or anything else. So if Martin Luther or the Pope began condemning things that aren't specifically forbidden in the bible, how did these guys come to that conclusion without help. I suppose you'll say it was divind intervention.
1. I absolutely agree, atheism has no moral foundation.
2. You basically just rehashed what I and you had said before, that you treat people with love and kindness so that you may experience love and kindness. All of the fluff about people having intrinisic worth isn't attributable to God. Almost everyone except sociopaths think human beings have worth.
3. Yes, some of the people had superior morals to their biblical peers. That should be proof enough though that the bible was man written with no supernatural guidance. An all powerful being could have laid down all of the law in the beginnning, not allowed man to slowly mature to new levels. But picking on the people of the bible is too easy. Stoning teenagers, rape, genocide. I go straight for the core. Old testement God is as evil.
First off, asking Abraham, the father of all 3 current abrahamic religions is asked by the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe to gut his own child to prove devotion. That's sick and twisted.
Second, Pharoah and his soldiers kill all the first born Hebrews in an act of barbarism that is indefensible (supposedly). So God's answer to a rebellious Pharoah is to kill all of the Egyption first born children? Little babies and kids among them? Why would they be punished? And people wonder how idiots in the middle east are killing each other over the offenses of prior generations.
Last, I know a lot of people who try and justify all of that depraved behavior of God as just being whacky old testemant God. Jesus changed all that. But for all of the great things Jesus said, which I think a lot was Revolutionary in that part of the world at the time, you can't get away from the fact that Christ does not give you real options. It is believe in him and his message, or an eternity in hell being tortured. That's not a choice. Forcing some one to love you through fear is evil.0 -
Patti (and I'm doing this to try to shorten our long responses down to quick ones), what you just said proves that we don't get objective morality from God. We get a set of morals that changes over time depending on interpretations. So that throws objective morality out the window.
I bring this up because so many people look down on subjective morality, when the truth is that's all morality, always.
Not so. In the Bible we see a growing appreciation and insight into the moral order. This does not suggest that objective moral principles change only that human awareness of the contents of morality changes. There is a great difference. There is an objective moral order that we discover and that sheds light on our inconsistencies and errors of reasoning and acting.
If you say that morality is purely subjective then you cannot "judge" another "morality". If you cannot judge another's morality then why do you think your criticisms of the Bible have any force? The reality is that you do think your moral judgments have objective value and therefore are confident that others will see the strength of your criticisms of the Bible.0 -
Patti you make excellent points.
Here's the thing about atheism. It says NOTHING about what a person believes. Only what they do not believe. They believe in no gods, that's it. From there they (we) can have all sorts of completely different and varying beliefs. Nothing about being an atheist says you have to believe in evolution. It says nothing about any beliefs. It is a negative position (not in that way). It speaks only to the existence of a divine power.
I say that it's wrong to enslave people based on the simple notion that I would not want to be enslaved. If it's not something I'd want for me then it's wrong to want that for others. It's just about not being a hypocrite. I don't think I need any sort of divine being for that.
You bring up later books of Catholicism that change the primitive biblical views on slavery, rape, etc. But it's not like everyone has read these works or is playing by the rules, the vast majority have not. Yet we still see slavery, rape, etc. as wrong.
Morality is essential for our survival and progress as a species. Without it we would never have made it this far.
AH! I can use evolution as my final proof here. There are numerous examples of what we would consider morality in the animal kingdom. Elephants mourn their dead, vast numbers of species work to protect their own kind, some monkeys will even sacrifice their own lives to save others of their tribe. Did God give these animals morality? Why would he, they have no souls, they'll receive no salvation. Why would animals be given morality from a creator who sees them merely as window dressing for the use of the human species?
Atheism does say that you believe there is no transcendent source of reality and therefore at least implies that you limit your explanations of reality to materialistic ones (at least that is the general trend in my experience). There are many implications of atheism beyond simply the denial of God.
Your position on slavery may work for you but it depends on thinking it is immoral to be a hypocrite. Why is that "wrong"? What if another person achieves a position of power, loves power, and kills or enslaves everyone who threatens their position of power. What is "objectively" wrong with that? You may argue that such a person is a hypocrite and not considering the feelings of others but he would simply reply that such "values" are nothing but weakness and they contradict his values. You are incapable of arguing from any transcendent basis against his moral position.0 -
Atheism does say that you believe there is no transcendent source of reality and therefore at least implies that you limit your explanations of reality to materialistic ones (at least that is the general trend in my experience). There are many implications of atheism beyond simply the denial of God.
Your position on slavery may work for you but it depends on thinking it is immoral to be a hypocrite. Why is that "wrong"? What if another person achieves a position of power, loves power, and kills or enslaves everyone who threatens their position of power. What is "objectively" wrong with that? You may argue that such a person is a hypocrite and not considering the feelings of others but he would simply reply that such "values" are nothing but weakness and they contradict his values. You are incapable of arguing from any transcendent basis against his moral position.
But I don't need the transcendence to know he's wrong. While he may say "hey it works for me!", that does not mean our opinions are on equal footing. We have the masses, the beliefs of society as a whole, to factor in. Maybe that one person sees nothing wrong with abusing power, but the people who live in their community almost certainly do. We are social creatures and our morality is a part of our society.
Does this mean that you can't always say a person is "wrong"? It can. To me murdering children would probably be the single most horrible thing a person can do. But I can still think of instances where it's not only acceptable, but the only humane option. So it can't be wrong all the time, no matter what. Subjective morality is the way the world works. If it is objective than what is wrong is always wrong. It doesn't matter that the times were different and humanity was still learning of God's word. If it's objectively wrong to enslave people than it's wrong always, even if condoned by God. So now we have an instance where the creator of our morals is violating them and is wrong based on his own teachings. You think of it that way and "God vanished in a puff of logic.", to quote Douglas Adams.0 -
There is no way that what an atheist affirms about this world can sufficient support moralitywhat do you mean by that. Do you mean that an atheist cant have sufficient morals, or that their morals are without a point??
I mean by those words that atheism does not provide a sufficient intellectual justification for moral behavior. If an atheist acts morally, and I’m certainly not denying that he can, he does so based on considerations that atheism cannot fully justify. For example, if an atheist treats another human being as a being having intrinsic moral significance, this is not because the atheist world-view can justify or properly ground such a position. The atheist view of the world holds that our world is the product of a blind, meaningless process. You are a mere “accident” of a blind process. To treat another human as a being having moral significance and worth is to attribute a value to a person that exceeds what your intellectual resources can validly support. I’m glad for those atheists who think there is such a thing as moral value in other human persons (and beyond) but I find no reason to think they can justify this position. Most atheists I’ve studied or listened to argue for some version of hedonism as their ethical theory. In my experience, they tend to argue for some kind of “enlightened self-interest” (to quote one atheist I heard discuss this in a public forum). In other words, we are all selfish animals; it is to my advantage that other people have at least some of their selfish desires satisfied; therefore we should all be selfish but allow others to be selfish, too, and do our best not to intervene with another’s pursuit of selfish ambitions. The recent book on morality by Sam Harris is a sophisticated attempt to do the same thing. He tries to argue that science shows that certain kinds of behavior are more advantageous for humans (for survival and pleasure purposes). Again, the motive is survival and fulfillment of selfish pleasures. Whatever else may be said of their theories, none of this is “morality” as traditionally understood. Morality involves recognizing that some behaviors are objectively good and others are objectively disordered precisely because they do or do not conform to an objective moral order or law. Atheism cannot possibly hold (at least to my understanding) that there is any kind of objective moral law or order. If it can, I’d like to know how.
So you're essentially saying that atheists cannot find a base for their morals and views?
How do you explain Buddhists, then?0 -
Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.0
-
Of course they did, because they were taught by their parents, who were likely taught my their parents who eventually were likely to have some very religious background (not specifically chrisitianty). Society's basic moral values however, have been fairly well based on Christianity for the soul reasoning that the most powerful empires of all time have had religious motivations. Because you choose to be an atheist does not mean that religion has no impact on how you think and behave. You've been raised with basic religious values, we just don't think of them that way much anymore.Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.
So this arguement of "how people behave morally" is pretty much moot. You almost all have the same answer, some just still believe in the original motivations, while others act in that way because they want to be good people in general (and don't want to be arrested for blindly killing someone....)0 -
Atheism doesn't have a moral code. All it means is that these people have seen no convincing evidence that there is a God. There are no commandments that go with it. It's not a belief structure or a complex philosophy or religion. IT simply states that they do not believe there to be a god.
That being said, I see no distintion between the selfishness of treating someone well in society so that you may be treated will and treating some one well so you get the golden ticket to heaven. They are both selfish motivations. God just seems to add that extra incentive of hellfire and tortute if you mess up.
As far as humans not having the ability to have morality without God, is rape, genocide, or slavery a bad thing? Because not only are there no commandments or rules against those major crimes against humanity, but the judeo christian God seems to approve of all of it. He openly embraced slavery as long as it wasn't his people, told Moses to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Cannanites in a slaughter....except for the virgin girls to be saved for his soldiers. So against war crimes and soldiers raping young girls is ok? Of course not. And we know that now without being told by your God.
1.Your first paragraph seems to admit what I was claiming. I would clarify, though, that atheism not only does not have a moral code but it also does not have the resources to provide a moral code. The atheist view of the world precludes any real morality underpinnings or “source.”
2. I take your second paragraph to be an admission that the atheist understanding of human actions is selfishly motivated? I agree that treating someone well “so you get the golden ticket to heaven” is also selfish. If that is the primary motivation for a Christian to treat another well then it is no better, I don’t think, that the selfish acts of an atheist. The true Christian motivation for treating another person well is that they are a person, made in God’s image, that has a profound worth and value that should draw from us a response of love. In other words, I treat another person with love and kindness because they are a being of value and significance that I want to experience love and kindness. I am to see other persons as reflections of the nature of God and therefore having an intrinsic value and goodness that should be treated with love. It is not selfish, I don’t think, to find delight and happiness is doing good for another. This is the essence of altruism. I certainly think that atheists can find delight in the experience of loving and doing good for others, I just don’t think they can explain why this is a moral duty.
3.Yes race, genocide and slavery are bad. There are laws and commands against such things in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Take a few moments to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will find each of those actions condemned in no uncertain terms. Do you really think that Christians endorse those kinds of things? Christians have fought against them for a very long time. You can’t read very much of Martin Luther King, Jr. without finding how deeply influenced he was by basic Christian concepts in his fight against injustice based on race. You say that we know that such things are wrong now without being told by God but it seems dramatically unfair and ahistorical to act as if the current moral sensitivities about such things has nothing to do with millennia of permeation by Christian and biblical concepts that led to moral advance. Concerning the texts you mention from the Old Testament, you cannot possibly think that such “war texts” reflect the general message of the Bible about morality and human relationships (if you are familiar with the rest of the Bible). Isolating middle-eastern war texts and trying to use them as a basis of societal ethical codes is simply not fair to the Bible and it ignores the thousands of years of reflection and developing understanding and application of the Bible. What we find in those texts about war is similar to what we find today when a person might say after a sporting event: “We slaughtered them!” or “We annihilated them!” No one understands that to be a literal statement of what was really done. A careful reading of the Old Testament war stories shows that they are similar uses of hyperbole/exaggeration in a manner that is still quite common the middle east. Further, this approach to the Bible fails to see the gradual growth in insight and depth of understanding regarding morality that is reflected in the Bible. Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the fact that God accommodated himself to human depravity and sinfulness in order to gradually lead his people to a more profound understanding of the moral life. You are taking your present more developed moral sensitivities (that are the result of absorbing them from a culture highly influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition) and anachronistically using that to judge a culture of 3500 years ago that was at a much more primitive stage of moral development. I just don’t think this is a fair way to evaluated to moral influence of the Bible. If you put yourself in the world of Moses or Joshua, I think you will find that their moral concepts exceeded those of their contemporaries.
1. I absolutely agree, atheism has no moral foundation.
2. You basically just rehashed what I and you had said before, that you treat people with love and kindness so that you may experience love and kindness. All of the fluff about people having intrinisic worth isn't attributable to God. Almost everyone except sociopaths think human beings have worth.
3. Yes, some of the people had superior morals to their biblical peers. That should be proof enough though that the bible was man written with no supernatural guidance. An all powerful being could have laid down all of the law in the beginnning, not allowed man to slowly mature to new levels. But picking on the people of the bible is too easy. Stoning teenagers, rape, genocide. I go straight for the core. Old testement God is as evil.
First off, asking Abraham, the father of all 3 current abrahamic religions is asked by the all powerful ruler and creator of the universe to gut his own child to prove devotion. That's sick and twisted.
Second, Pharoah and his soldiers kill all the first born Hebrews in an act of barbarism that is indefensible (supposedly). So God's answer to a rebellious Pharoah is to kill all of the Egyption first born children? Little babies and kids among them? Why would they be punished? And people wonder how idiots in the middle east are killing each other over the offenses of prior generations.
Last, I know a lot of people who try and justify all of that depraved behavior of God as just being whacky old testemant God. Jesus changed all that. But for all of the great things Jesus said, which I think a lot was Revolutionary in that part of the world at the time, you can't get away from the fact that Christ does not give you real options. It is believe in him and his message, or an eternity in hell being tortured. That's not a choice. Forcing some one to love you through fear is evil.
I think I love you.0 -
Anyway, regarding morality, I'd much rather take a person who is moral based on their own conscience, beliefs, personal values, etc than someone who is moral because they believe that a big man in the sky wants them to be. People shouldn't need the thought of a deity to be a person with good moral character. It doesn't matter if you want to fluff up the 'well atheists don't have their morals grounded in anything' stuff. Frankly, that doesn't make a lick of difference if the morals of atheists don't have a 'common denominator' although one could argue that the common denominator is simply the regard for life and other beings.0
-
Of course they did, because they were taught by their parents, who were likely taught my their parents who eventually were likely to have some very religious background (not specifically chrisitianty). Society's basic moral values however, have been fairly well based on Christianity for the soul reasoning that the most powerful empires of all time have had religious motivations. Because you choose to be an atheist does not mean that religion has no impact on how you think and behave. You've been raised with basic religious values, we just don't think of them that way much anymore.Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.
So this arguement of "how people behave morally" is pretty much moot. You almost all have the same answer, some just still believe in the original motivations, while others act in that way because they want to be good people in general (and don't want to be arrested for blindly killing someone....)
But you stopped short. Humanity predates religion. So all of us who got these values originally got them from people with no religious beliefs. If you want to keep tracing it back...0 -
Anyway, regarding morality, I'd much rather take a person who is moral based on their own conscience, beliefs, personal values, etc than someone who is moral because they believe that a big man in the sky wants them to be. People shouldn't need the thought of a deity to be a person with good moral character. It doesn't matter if you want to fluff up the 'well atheists don't have their morals grounded in anything' stuff. Frankly, that doesn't make a lick of difference if the morals of atheists don't have a 'common denominator' although one could argue that the common denominator is simply the regard for life and other beings.
It's off-topic, but I agree wholeheartedly.
0 -
Of course they did, because they were taught by their parents, who were likely taught my their parents who eventually were likely to have some very religious background (not specifically chrisitianty). Society's basic moral values however, have been fairly well based on Christianity for the soul reasoning that the most powerful empires of all time have had religious motivations. Because you choose to be an atheist does not mean that religion has no impact on how you think and behave. You've been raised with basic religious values, we just don't think of them that way much anymore.Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.
So this arguement of "how people behave morally" is pretty much moot. You almost all have the same answer, some just still believe in the original motivations, while others act in that way because they want to be good people in general (and don't want to be arrested for blindly killing someone....)
But you stopped short. Humanity predates religion. So all of us who got these values originally got them from people with no religious beliefs. If you want to keep tracing it back...
Ding ding ding!
Plus, Hammurabi's Code was written long before Jesus was even a blip in existence (1780 BC). It's the oldest known set of laws to exist. Its copying in subsequent generations indicates that it was used as a model of legal and judicial reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi0 -
Of course they did, because they were taught by their parents, who were likely taught my their parents who eventually were likely to have some very religious background (not specifically chrisitianty). Society's basic moral values however, have been fairly well based on Christianity for the soul reasoning that the most powerful empires of all time have had religious motivations. Because you choose to be an atheist does not mean that religion has no impact on how you think and behave. You've been raised with basic religious values, we just don't think of them that way much anymore.Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.
So this arguement of "how people behave morally" is pretty much moot. You almost all have the same answer, some just still believe in the original motivations, while others act in that way because they want to be good people in general (and don't want to be arrested for blindly killing someone....)
But you stopped short. Humanity predates religion. So all of us who got these values originally got them from people with no religious beliefs. If you want to keep tracing it back...
Yes and no. You can go back as far as "cave man" days, but to say we are instinctively moral beings would be inaccurate as well. Killing was a natural part of life. You did it to survive, you did it to show power. Years of intellectual and societal development have changed our alleged "instincts". We do not directly kill for power anymore (and I say directly because war to me is an indirect method of killing for power) .
Society and beliefs have changed vastly over the years. But you cannot really deny the influence of religion (especially Christianity) on our present society. I'm from Canada (and thus don't know the American anthem off the top of my head) but in Canada we still sing "God keep our land, glorious and free". Influence of religion is everywhere, and I guarantee if you look into even some political documents(older, not as much recent ones) you would find that the influence of god is still found amongst them.
You do not have to believe in a god. But do not assume you're values are "because you want to be a good person" that may be why you do or do not implement such actions, but that does not mean that without any influence of religion modern society would hold those very same values. (Of course this is also a weak argument because we've never seen a world that wasn't influenced by religion, so how can we know how it would have developed had no "higher power" ever existed?)0 -
Yes and no. You can go back as far as "cave man" days, but to say we are instinctively moral beings would be inaccurate as well. Killing was a natural part of life. You did it to survive, you did it to show power. Years of intellectual and societal development have changed our alleged "instincts". We do not directly kill for power anymore (and I say directly because war to me is an indirect method of killing for power) .
Society and beliefs have changed vastly over the years. But you cannot really deny the influence of religion (especially Christianity) on our present society. I'm from Canada (and thus don't know the American anthem off the top of my head) but in Canada we still sing "God keep our land, glorious and free". Influence of religion is everywhere, and I guarantee if you look into even some political documents(older, not as much recent ones) you would find that the influence of god is still found amongst them.
You do not have to believe in a god. But do not assume you're values are "because you want to be a good person" that may be why you do or do not implement such actions, but that does not mean that without any influence of religion modern society would hold those very same values. (Of course this is also a weak argument because we've never seen a world that wasn't influenced by religion, so how can we know how it would have developed had no "higher power" ever existed?)
So it's a valid argument when saying that we got our morals from religion, but when it's shown that isn't the case it no longer applies? You know having your cake and eating it too will lead to weight gain.
:happy:
You are correct. Our morality has vastly improved since primitive times. But even then people were not without morality. If so we'd have never made it as a species. We rely on one another. The basics of morality have always been in us, they've only grown (evolved) with time. If God has always been, provides objective morality, and never changes why have our values and beliefs changed? Clearly our morals evolve with no divine influence. It wasn't Christ who freed the slaves, it was Lincoln. His take on religion? "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
And I never deny the influence of religion on society. That's why my gay friends can't marry the people they love. It's why stem cell research doesn't receive government funding. It's why there were two smoking holes where the World Trade Center once stood.
Many folks assume that religion = good morals. I do not.0 -
Of course they did, because they were taught by their parents, who were likely taught my their parents who eventually were likely to have some very religious background (not specifically chrisitianty). Society's basic moral values however, have been fairly well based on Christianity for the soul reasoning that the most powerful empires of all time have had religious motivations. Because you choose to be an atheist does not mean that religion has no impact on how you think and behave. You've been raised with basic religious values, we just don't think of them that way much anymore.Are you saying if it weren't for the Bible you'd probably be a serial killer? Just because Atheists don't base their morals on a book doesn't mean they don't have any. Killing another person is just as illegal in China as it is in the US. My parents taught me not to lie, steal, hurt others, etc.
So this arguement of "how people behave morally" is pretty much moot. You almost all have the same answer, some just still believe in the original motivations, while others act in that way because they want to be good people in general (and don't want to be arrested for blindly killing someone....)
But you stopped short. Humanity predates religion. So all of us who got these values originally got them from people with no religious beliefs. If you want to keep tracing it back...
Not to mention the fact that empires, like the Persian Empire, predating Christianity had a humanitarian charter (the first that I am aware of) and was the first to use skilled PAID labor to build monuments and cities instead of slaves. How did that Emperor come to that conclusion, unless his God had superior morals to the Hebrew god. If you study enough history, not just Christian history, it becomes apparent that many societies had value systems that were comprable to christian values, and some like Summeria and others predated the Hebrews.0 -
So it's a valid argument when saying that we got our morals from religion, but when it's shown that isn't the case it no longer applies? You know having your cake and eating it too will lead to weight gain. :happy:
You are correct. Our morality has vastly improved since primitive times. But even then people were not without morality. If so we'd have never made it as a species. We rely on one another. The basics of morality have always been in us, they've only grown (evolved) with time. If God has always been, provides objective morality, and never changes why have our values and beliefs changed? Clearly our morals evolve with no divine influence. It wasn't Christ who freed the slaves, it was Lincoln. His take on religion? "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
And I never deny the influence of religion on society. That's why my gay friends can't marry the people they love. It's why stem cell research doesn't receive government funding. It's why there were two smoking holes where the World Trade Center once stood.
Many folks assume that religion = good morals. I do not.
Perhaps the initial motivation of my argument has not been clear. I am not a particularly religious person. As a math and science double major I prefer stone cold fact over "beliefs".
I am not saying religion=good, atheism = bad. I merely was stating that religion influenced our present morals and values GREATLY. And this initial influence religion has had on our society has been the primary reason we hold these values. You do not have to believe in a god to want to be a good person, also believing in a god does not equate a good person. We all have very similar morals and values, that changed over time. After all, I think there was a time when rock music was considered "the devils music" and now my local church has guitars.
Also, perhaps the misinterpretation of my arguement is also coming from the fact that you assume I believe in the bible. To me believing in A god =/= the bible. The bible is stories which (sometimes) have a good message. Nothing more than a story book to read to your children at night time.
We grow, we evolve we change. But to do so we needed something to grow and change from. Hence, the influence of religion. Not necessarily the belief, the influence. Which you all ready agreed upon. So I suppose that means you agree with me ?
And as I read this over I realize my points are all over the place. But out of pure uni student laziness, when I know I'm not being graded I'm not going to care 0
This discussion has been closed.