For those who believe the bible is our primary source of morality

draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
For those who believe the bible is our primary source of morality

If you believe we don't/shouldn't kill, steal, or lie because of the ten commandments, I'm curious: why don't you just bully, embarrass, or make fun of other people instead? You're not breaking any commandments as far as I can tell, so why should you feel any guilt about doing it rampantly? Unless there's a mention in the bible about this, there must be some reason independent from it as to why you're not getting your kicks from harmlessly annoying people whenever you feel like it.

However, if there is in fact mention of things of this nature it (admittedly I don't know since my attention span is too short to survive the thing front to back), are you not still making a personal decision as to whether or not to accept/discard the standards it commands of you?

(Yes I have no posts previous to this one, but as a long-time lurker I feel at home enough here to post this question. xD)


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Because Jesus didn't do

Because Jesus didn't do those things.  Simple enough.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I think a better question

I think a better question is: if you are not doing these things because Jesus didn't do them, and only because Jesus didn't do them, how does that make you moral? You are not exercising any moral judgment, not following any dictate of conscience but rather slavishly obeying a higher authority. You are like an animal that doesn't leave the yard because it knows it is not supposed to. It doesn't know why it isn't supposed to and it doesn't even really know whether it is right or wrong to do so, it just obeys. That is religious morality.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
then is there no other

then is there no other reason these behaviors are immoral or unacceptable to you?


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Really?

draggycat wrote:

If you believe we don't/shouldn't kill, steal, or lie because of the ten commandments, I'm curious: why don't you just bully, embarrass, or make fun of other people instead? You're not breaking any commandments as far as I can tell, so why should you feel any guilt about doing it rampantly? Unless there's a mention in the bible about this, there must be some reason independent from it as to why you're not getting your kicks from harmlessly annoying people whenever you feel like it.

However, if there is in fact mention of things of this nature it (admittedly I don't know since my attention span is too short to survive the thing front to back), are you not still making a personal decision as to whether or not to accept/discard the standards it commands of you?

(Yes I have no posts previous to this one, but as a long-time lurker I feel at home enough here to post this question. xD)

Edison Trent wrote:

Because Jesus didn't do those things.  Simple enough.

I don't know, aside from kicking over tables in the Temple Courtyard, the whole threat-of-hell thing seems to be a bit of bullying to me.

I seem to remember all those instances where JC deliberately embarrassed various Philistines...

Let's see, maybe telling an old woman that she was a dog wouldn't qualify as making fun of her.

Jesus was a bit of an asshole.

LC >:-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:If you

draggycat wrote:

If you believe we don't/shouldn't kill, steal, or lie because of the ten commandments, I'm curious: why don't you just bully, embarrass, or make fun of other people instead? You're not breaking any commandments as far as I can tell, so why should you feel any guilt about doing it rampantly? Unless there's a mention in the bible about this, there must be some reason independent from it as to why you're not getting your kicks from harmlessly annoying people whenever you feel like it.

However, if there is in fact mention of things of this nature it (admittedly I don't know since my attention span is too short to survive the thing front to back), are you not still making a personal decision as to whether or not to accept/discard the standards it commands of you?

(Yes I have no posts previous to this one, but as a long-time lurker I feel at home enough here to post this question. xD)

The way I see it, those who claim religion is the reason for morality have morality completely incorrectly indefined.  They claim without rules/rewards/punishments (as given by the bible) we would have no morals, but I have mine without even taking such things in to account.  To me, morality is irrelivant of rules/rewards/punishment, but what one feels is right or wrong, so doing what one feels is wrong irregardless of rules/rewards/punishment is immoral.  That is why the religious version of "morality" scares me.  These people don't have morals as far as I see, just rules based on 2000 year old laws that allowed slavery, stoning, and hundreds of other things we see in modern times as immoral.  If current laws were actually based on christian morals as per the bible, western societies laws would be indistinguishable from shangria law.  The current morals and laws of western society just prove how incorrect and false religion in itself is.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:These people

thingy wrote:

These people don't have morals as far as I see, just rules based on 2000 year old laws that allowed slavery, stoning, and hundreds of other things we see in modern times as immoral. 

actually i'm pretty sure average religious people have the same morals as everyone else, but are only mistaking the source of them. their behavior towards other people would be much the same (irrelevant of rules/rewards/punishment) with or without their religion, and i pose this question in hopes that they can surprise me with a good reason why this isn't so.

and, if i'm not mistaken, isn't 'morality' as defined by religion in a nutshell why we don't murder, rape, lie, and steal? the commandments is after all what people point to when they want to accredit morality to religion, and if bullying is immoral, it certainly hasn't been addressed there.

 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:and, if i'm

draggycat wrote:

and, if i'm not mistaken, isn't 'morality' as defined by religion in a nutshell why we don't murder, rape, lie, and steal?

Let's say I'm handcuffed to a car. I see a kid go by with a lollipop that I desperately want to steal. I struggle and fight, but I can't break out of the handcuffs to go get the lollipop.

So the handcuffs are the reason why I didn't steal. Are they morals?

Of course not. So the above definition of morality is too simplistic.

From the Canadian Oxford dictionary: morals - Standards of behaviour; principles of right and wrong.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:draggycat

Tilberian wrote:

draggycat wrote:

and, if i'm not mistaken, isn't 'morality' as defined by religion in a nutshell why we don't murder, rape, lie, and steal?

 

yes, by this i mean a completely incorrect mislabeling, as in apart from the actual definition of what morality is.

 

but boy, sure is no shortage of similis to go around.


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I think a

Tilberian wrote:

I think a better question is: if you are not doing these things because Jesus didn't do them, and only because Jesus didn't do them, how does that make you moral? You are not exercising any moral judgment, not following any dictate of conscience but rather slavishly obeying a higher authority. You are like an animal that doesn't leave the yard because it knows it is not supposed to. It doesn't know why it isn't supposed to and it doesn't even really know whether it is right or wrong to do so, it just obeys. That is religious morality.

Agreed. We follow Jesus' example because that's what we are told to do.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I don't know, aside from kicking over tables in the Temple Courtyard, the whole threat-of-hell thing seems to be a bit of bullying to me.

He never harmed any people though. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't recall JC threatening hell to anyone.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

I seem to remember all those instances where JC deliberately embarrassed various Philistines...

Philistines..haha. I think you mean Pharisees. He did show them up, yes, but they needed to get off of their proud mentality.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Let's see, maybe telling an old woman that she was a dog wouldn't qualify as making fun of her.

Jesus was a bit of an asshole.

LC >:-}>


He was testing her faith. Read here for a more detailed description.

thingy wrote:

The way I see it, those who claim religion is the reason for morality have morality completely incorrectly indefined. They claim without rules/rewards/punishments (as given by the bible) we would have no morals, but I have mine without even taking such things in to account.

Without religion, we would still have morality. There would be differences between that and religious morality, but the basics would be the same. Atheistic morality does exist, in one way it is rules that, when followed by people, make society function better as a whole, i.e. people live happier, more fulfilled lives. It could also be defined as a pact signed among members of society, i.e. "I won't kill you and you won't kill me", and "I won't steal from you and you won't steal from me", the basis of this being treat others as you yourself want to be treated. I would define Biblical morality as love God, love others. And by love I mean undying willingness to do anything for someone while wanting nothing in return. Remember, it's what Jesus did Smiling.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Great, religion is the new

Great, religion is the new source of my morality and like Abraham ( who married his half-sister ), David , Solomon, etc  I will now seek to gather to myself dozens ( if not hundreds ) of wives and concubines.  Thank you God for your immutable moral principles.

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: I don't

Quote:
  I don't recall JC threatening hell to anyone.

"Then he (Jesus ) will say to those on his left,'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'" Matthew 25:41

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Morality

There is a simple answer to this.  Virtually every faith in the world subscribes to some form of the golden rule ie. do to others what you would want them to do to you-Matt. 7:12.  Most people don't want to be bullied, embarassed or made fun of so generally those are things to be avoided. 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Name one place in the Bible

Name one place in the Bible the practice of polygamy was ever endorsed.  God was working with people within cultures that had practices at odds with his perfect standard.  In the ancient near east, your wealth was determined by the number of children you had and the size of your estate etc.  More wives meant more children and thus more workers for your fields, livestock etc.  God's moral standard is stated in Genesis, one man for one woman. 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
There are many more of god's

There are many more of god's rules handed down than just the 10 commandments. Don't have time to look them up but there were several pages of them. I seem to recall something about if a man rapes a virgin in a field he should pay her father 50 shekels and marry her.

If you want morals from the bible you really have to pick and choose.

The first thing Moses did when he brought the 10 commandments (1st edition) down from the mount was kill thousands of people. Then at god's command he and his followers commited mass genocide to get land for themselves.

If the only message you get from the bible is god is love, you are missing 99% of it.

(PS: god and Jesus are fictional characters anyway)

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Christians don't live in a

Christians don't live in a theocracy so that is why many of the laws of the Old Testament are no longer relevant.  They governed a people who had their God has their ruler.  why do the above actions bother you?  Wouldn't they make sense in a survival of the fittest type of view? I seriously don't get the moral outrage of atheists.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
my ATHEIST moral outrage

  my ATHEIST moral outrage is the lack of world morals .....

1,000,000 dead Iraq's. 10,000,000 injured. Mental suffering ?????????????  But they is going too have an after life !  Religion is our poison ..... I AM OUTRAGED ......  


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:Name one place

spumoni wrote:

Name one place in the Bible the practice of polygamy was ever endorsed.....  God's moral standard is stated in Genesis, one man for one woman. 

 

2 Samuel 12:7-8 

"Then Nathan said to David,'You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel says: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms.  I gave you the house of Israel and Judah.  And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

 

 

Also, Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, Had two wives ( Rachel and Leah )....and two concubines ( Bilah and Zilpah ).  All with God's blessing.  Jacob's wives were also sisters which violates Leviticus 18:18...still no punishment from God.

Read Genesis 29:16 through Genesis 30:22 and you will read irrefutable proof that God not only approved the polygamous marriage but even went so far as to bless this arrangement by answering the prayers of Jacob's WIVES.

"When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was Barren."

"The Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband."

"Then God remembered Rachel ; he listened to her and opened her womb."

 

Also Abraham was married to Sarah, his half-sister. ( Genesis 20:12  )  Abraham was guilty of incest according to Leviticus 20:17 but was never punished by God.

One man for one woman?  Ha, that's funny !

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:There is a

spumoni wrote:

There is a simple answer to this.  Virtually every faith in the world subscribes to some form of the golden rule ie. do to others what you would want them to do to you-Matt. 7:12.  Most people don't want to be bullied, embarassed or made fun of so generally those are things to be avoided. 

To be honest, this is exactly what lead me away from christianity.  What turned me from my religion was religion class in itself as we learnt about other religions.  They all taught similar-ish things.  The only difference essentially (as I saw it in 9th grade) was the dance we did, the words we said, the songs we sung.  Stick the left foot in before the right foot, or stick the right foot in before the left foot.  Surely any loving god wouldn't give a rats arse what foot we stuck in first, what specific words we said, or took part in the dance at all, as long as we were good as to the best of our abilities and beliefs as far as right and wrong?  As long as we believed and meant what we said.

I was brought up roman catholic, religion class taught me about other forms of catholocism.  Same god, same essential core teachings, different dance.  That's all there is to it.  If there is a god, surely it wouldn't care less about the dance, but more about whether you followed the teachings.  Believing the pope is the head of the church or not, that is all that separates catholics from other christians, that is nothing more than a dance.

Whether the teachings come from the religion or from society, just follow your morals, follow what you believe is right and wrong.  Think about them and analyse those beliefs for yourself.  See, know, understand why you believe them.  I sought, I analized, I learnt that to me homosexuality (something I once thought was wrong) is now no different to me than taste in foods, cars, art, even colours.  It's just a matter of taste as to what sort of person you're attracted to similar to the colours you're attracted to, or the food, the cars etc.  Love being a stronger emotion simply brings on stronger feelings for that taste.

So what makes christianity so real?  Nothing.  Society has moved beyond needing it.  It moved beyond needing it a few hundred years ago.  The same morals and beliefs apply with or without religion.  The American constitution is proof of that.  The simple answer is this, religion isn't needed.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote:Tilberian

Edison Trent wrote:

Tilberian wrote:
I think a better question is: if you are not doing these things because Jesus didn't do them, and only because Jesus didn't do them, how does that make you moral? You are not exercising any moral judgment, not following any dictate of conscience but rather slavishly obeying a higher authority. You are like an animal that doesn't leave the yard because it knows it is not supposed to. It doesn't know why it isn't supposed to and it doesn't even really know whether it is right or wrong to do so, it just obeys. That is religious morality.

Agreed. We follow Jesus' example because that's what we are told to do.

 

So you're not consciously or intentionally moral.

You are only consciously and intentionally submissive.

 

Edison Trent wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I don't know, aside from kicking over tables in the Temple Courtyard, the whole threat-of-hell thing seems to be a bit of bullying to me.

He never harmed any people though. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I don't recall JC threatening hell to anyone.

 

No one, including Jesus, has to overtly threaten hellfire because the threat is implied. It's much the same as this familiar kind of threat:

"Hey, mack. This is a nice little store you got here.... would be a real shame if something happened to it."

"Hello, my son. You are a beautiful child of god, and I want you to join me in heaven... (though it would be a real shame if you chose not to accept...)"

 

Edison Trent wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
I seem to remember all those instances where JC deliberately embarrassed various Philistines...

Philistines..haha. I think you mean Pharisees. He did show them up, yes, but they needed to get off of their proud mentality.

 

Yes, how dare you pharisees go around telling people that you are the only means by which to contact my father! I will destroy this stupid and arrogant system of yours and sacrifice myself so that ALL people can contact my father whenever they want!

(But only through me, which is the purported point of the sacrifice, but ssshhh....)

 

Edison Trent wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Let's see, maybe telling an old woman that she was a dog wouldn't qualify as making fun of her. Jesus was a bit of an asshole. LC >:-}>

He was testing her faith. Read here for a more detailed description.

I tried that excuse once when I got caught teepeeing a house.

"I was only testing her faith, officer."

Doesn't work. Only works for Jesus because he has a rich daddy. =P

 

Edison Trent wrote:

Without religion, we would still have morality. There would be differences between that and religious morality, but the basics would be the same. Atheistic morality does exist, in one way it is rules that, when followed by people, make society function better as a whole, i.e. people live happier, more fulfilled lives. It could also be defined as a pact signed among members of society, i.e. "I won't kill you and you won't kill me", and "I won't steal from you and you won't steal from me", the basis of this being treat others as you yourself want to be treated. I would define Biblical morality as love God, love others. And by love I mean undying willingness to do anything for someone while wanting nothing in return. Remember, it's what Jesus did Smiling.

 

Well as long as we're just allowed to define things however we like, I define Biblical morality as "do and believe whatever God tells you, because God tells you that doing and believing whatever he tells you is moral, and you must believe this as a first requirement, and you will do so, even though the first requirement technically doesn't fall within the range of the things god said were moral to do and believe, but you must do it anyway and believe that it is also moral, because everything that god says is good and moral, because god says so, and you believe everything god says, because he told you to, ad infinitum...."

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Dear Spumoni

 This letter is to inform you that the base elements of the ten commandments --do not kill, lie, steal-- existed in hunter/gatherer societys, without these morals their tribes simply could not survive. For thousands of generations the tribes of cro-magnons thrived without verbal or written language and more importantly without your religious dogmas.                                                                                                                      When Jesus held his mini riot in the temple market why didn't the local securty people stop him? Answer; his followers were nearby and numerous and ARMED!!! Don't believe me? Then try this; What did St.Peter do first when the Roman soldiers came to arrest J.C.?  Why didn't the Romans hack Peter into small bits. Answer;  5 Roman soldiers vs. 7 ARMED apostles, the Romans weren't stupid, or maybe; just maybe the story is myth.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Some more choice laws from

Some more choice laws from god (Leviticus):

For every one that curses his mother or father shall surely be put to death.

the man that commiteth adultery with another man's wife... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a women.... they shall surely be put to death.

if a man take a wife and her mother they shall be burnt with fire

etc, etc

and why doesn't anyone make burnt offerings to god anymore? It specifically states that you have to do it in the bible!

Just as well we don't live in a theocracy

 

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Edison Trent
Theist
Edison Trent's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-11-10
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:So you're

Archeopteryx wrote:

So you're not consciously or intentionally moral.

You are only consciously and intentionally submissive.

We are both.  First, we are told what is right and wrong by God, therefore that is what we follow.  Secondly, we want to be moral (as defined by the Bible) to please God.

Jeffrick wrote:

When Jesus held his mini riot in the temple market why didn't the local securty people stop him? Answer; his followers were nearby and numerous and ARMED!!! Don't believe me? Then try this; What did St.Peter do first when the Roman soldiers came to arrest J.C.?  Why didn't the Romans hack Peter into small bits. Answer;  5 Roman soldiers vs. 7 ARMED apostles, the Romans weren't stupid, or maybe; just maybe the story is myth.

Somehow I doubt you have any evidence for your nice little Jesus army theory Smiling.

ronin-dog wrote:

Some more choice laws from god (Leviticus):

For every one that curses his mother or father shall surely be put to death.

the man that commiteth adultery with another man's wife... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a women.... they shall surely be put to death.

if a man take a wife and her mother they shall be burnt with fire

etc, etc

and why doesn't anyone make burnt offerings to god anymore? It specifically states that you have to do it in the bible!

Just as well we don't live in a theocracy

It is amazing how strict the OT laws are (I honestly wouldn't do very well at following them), but because we are no longer saved by the law we are no longer bound to it.  We are under a new covenant by the grace of Jesus, and we are given His free gift of salvation.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Hey Ed , I AM JESUS , I

  Hey Ed , I AM JESUS , I AM GOD , I worship nothing ..... All is ONE .... Idol worship is dogma .... wake up and be god too .... a saving message from big J , and Buddha too.     We are GOD !      Can ya feel it !  


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent

Edison Trent wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

So you're not consciously or intentionally moral.

You are only consciously and intentionally submissive.

We are both.  First, we are told what is right and wrong by God, therefore that is what we follow. Secondly, we want to be moral (as defined by the Bible) to please God.

No, you're only submissive. Try substituting the word "god" with another name.

 

I, Archeopteryx, for example, say that everything I ask of people is only asking them to be moral.

First, I require that no one take showers on Thursdays. If they must clean themselves, they must do it with a moist rag (but only blue rags may be used!).

I require that people never sleep more than 7 hours. Sleeping more than 7 hours is sinful. Set your alarms accordingly.

I require that people never speak of, nor ever even think about, polar bears. Did you just think of one? Pff. Sinner.

Most importantly, I require that people give me 10% of their weekly income.

 

If you do these things, then you are moral, because morality is whatever I say it is. If you do not do these things, then you are immoral, and you will be fed to ravenous grizzly bears, because not doing these things is immoral, because if I say something is immoral, then it is.

 

Submissive. =]

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Actually, apart from the

Actually, apart from the rules jesus specifically changed, like working on the sabath, he said the old laws were fine.

If you are freed from the old testament, why do you still follow the 10 commandments? Why is the old commandment still preached?

Christians pick and choose what suits them, but then still claim that the bible is the work of god and can't be argued with. If you are christian, muslim or Jew the old testament is the foundation of your religion. Surely if it is the word of god it is either all true and good or not.

Ignoring the embaressing bits is like living in a luxury apartment on top of a structurally unsound, crumbling old building and saying, "oh, don't worry about the old bit, my bit is sweet!"

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:There is a

spumoni wrote:

There is a simple answer to this.  Virtually every faith in the world subscribes to some form of the golden rule ie. do to others what you would want them to do to you-Matt. 7:12.  Most people don't want to be bullied, embarassed or made fun of so generally those are things to be avoided. 

 

then why should our reasons for avoiding doing these things go beyond that? if Matt 7:12 really had any influence on peoples' conduct toward others, then surely it came to mind back in the sandbox days when you were deciding whether or not to push the fat kid down? let's admit it, your motives for doing it and the adult's reasons for punishing you would have been identical without the bible ever existing.

spumoni wrote:

why do the above actions bother you? Wouldn't they make sense in a survival of the fittest type of view? I seriously don't get the moral outrage of atheists.

the fittest also includes those who are best advantaged to reproduce. think about who a woman is more likely to want to have her children with: a murderous brute, or a principled gentleman?

 

 

 

 


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Don't think "survival of the

Don't think "survival of the fittest" when you think of evolution. It is a lot more subtle than that.

They are not Darwin's words. He allowed them to add it in to a later edition of Origin.. as long as it wasn't used out of context. His worst mistake ever.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Evolution is life's war ,

  Evolution is life's war , and not mindless, consciousness wants more, well I do ..... "the fittest"  .... you can't deny yourself .....     


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:the fittest

draggycat wrote:

the fittest also includes those who are best advantaged to reproduce. think about who a woman is more likely to want to have her children with: a murderous brute, or a principled gentleman?

Have you seen all the letters that "murderous brutes" get in prison? If you'll pardon the directness, brutes get way more ass.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Have you

HisWillness wrote:

Have you seen all the letters that "murderous brutes" get in prison? If you'll pardon the directness, brutes get way more ass.

i'll bet, since it's kind've hard to express an offer of your ass to a locked up murderer without a tangible form of communication as a letter.

furthermore, if brutes really had so much more appeal to reproduce with, you'd think you'd see their numbers outweigh that of law-abiding daddies in our society.

(all kinda makes me curious to see how suggesting killing people would fare as a dating tip)

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:furthermore,

draggycat wrote:

furthermore, if brutes really had so much more appeal to reproduce with, you'd think you'd see their numbers outweigh that of law-abiding daddies in our society.

What country do you live in again? (Also, when I said "brute", I guess I should have qualified it with "non-murderous".)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 And Will said unto

 And Will said unto ProzacDeathWish, "You are the man! For thou has issued this day unto the ignorant two solid smack-downs and thine avatar is the coolest."

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What

HisWillness wrote:

What country do you live in again? (Also, when I said "brute", I guess I should have qualified it with "non-murderous".)

i live in a country where women are free to choose their spouses, and aren't compelled to set themselves on fire if the brutal men they were forced to marry don't manage to beat them to death first.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:i live in a

draggycat wrote:

i live in a country where women are free to choose their spouses, and aren't compelled to set themselves on fire if the brutal men they were forced to marry don't manage to beat them to death first.

K. Jeez. Actually, I was just thinking that you set up a bit of a false dichotomy with "murderous brutes" and "principled gentlemen". Most of the men I know are brutes, they just aren't criminals. The guys I know who aren't brutes get no sex. That's where I was going with that.

Agreed, though, patriarchal theocracies are scary.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
ah then mah bad, cause the

ah then mah bad, cause the 'brute' i've been keeping in mind was the murderous one brought up by spumoni in his bastardized 'survival of the fittest' scenerio. different kind of brute you're talking about, and probably more superficial. (might be a matter of taste on that level).

on that note, my boyfriend didn't get any sex for a month after i'd learned that he'd killed several deer on recent hunting trips. (from me anyway... just to beat anyone to the joke. Eye-wink).

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:on that

draggycat wrote:

on that note, my boyfriend didn't get any sex for a month after i'd learned that he'd killed several deer on recent hunting trips. (from me anyway... just to beat anyone to the joke. Eye-wink).

You mean he didn't bring back the venison, or you don't like that he killed the deer?

Personally, I don't see the point - it's not like you can't get farmed venison, and it's hardly sporting to go after a deer with a rifle. If the deer could fire a rifle, that's sport.

EDIT: wait, did you say a month? What're you, some sort of sexual camel? That's insane.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


draggycat
draggycat's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2007-10-08
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You mean

HisWillness wrote:

You mean he didn't bring back the venison, or you don't like that he killed the deer?

in a debate about the sexual appeal of brutal as opposed to non-brutal, i think that's a given.  i fucking hate him if he steps on a moth.

hiswillness wrote:

EDIT: wait, did you say a month? What're you, some sort of sexual camel? That's insane.

it's actually pretty easy to resist a guy who's killed a bunch of animals when you're an animal lover. (marge's quote to lisa "you're a woman. you can hold onto it forever" comes to mind....) besides, to be fair, i gave him only a few days for every deer. i think it's a friggin bargain.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Edison Trent wrote:Because

Original point:

If you believe we don't/shouldn't kill, steal, or lie because of the ten commandments, I'm curious: why don't you just bully, embarrass, or make fun of other people instead?

Edison Trent wrote:

Because Jesus didn't do those things.  Simple enough.

 

Simple enough, as long as you don't really bother to think about it.

If you do, you'll see that the 'he didn't do those things" claim is false.

 

Jesus said, “whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22).  Yet, he himself did so repeatedly, as Matthew 27:19, Luke 11:40 & 12:20 show.  Shouldn’t he be in danger of hell too?  

Jesus also told us to “Love your enemies; bless them that curse you," but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition.  Matthew 12:34 (“0 generation of vipers”), and Matthew 23 :27 (“... hypocrites... ye are like unto whited sepulchres.“) are excellent examples of hypocrisy.  If Jesus himself is a sinner by his own admission then surely he can not be the “perfect lamb of god”.

 

Nor a good role model. Unless you want a good model for hypocrisy.

 

Your "jesus" bullied, name called, etc.

 
Oh, and here's a few more examples of his cruelty, ignorance, as per the myths accepted as facts by Christians:

 

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus strongly approves of the law & the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

In Matthew 8:21 Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead."

In Matthew 8:32 Jesus abuses animals by sending some devils into a herd of pigs, causing the pigs to run off a cliff & drown in the sea below. The acorn does not fall far from the tree. Was there a local shortage of Egyptian cows? Moo!

In Matthew 10:15 Jesus becomes a terrorist, and threatens genocide against cities.

In Matthew 10:28 Jesus tries to scare people by telling them that his dad can beat up their dad.

In Matthew 11:20-24 Jesus threatens more cities.

In Matthew 12:47-49 "Mister Family Values" himself (Jesus) is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers.

In Matthew 13:41-42 Jesus threatens to send his angels against any who offend him, and send them straight to hell. Love, peace, tolerance, and forgiveness are beneath him, apparently.

In Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus commits hypocrisy by demanding all others to honor their parents. "Sorry about being rude back in Matthew 12, Mom."

In Matthew 18:8-9 Jesus advocates self-mutilation, but for others, not him. He's perfect, thank you.

In Matthew 18:25 Jesus advocates slavery.

In Matthew 25:29 Jesus proposes a system of economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In Mark 5:12-13 Jesus spooks 2,000 pigs, causing them to jump of a cliff and drown in the sea. Is this evidence of more animal abuse, or is the story from Matthew 8:32 getting better with each telling?

In Mark 6:11 Jesus resorts to threatening cities again. Die, innocent babies, Die!!

In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus criticizes people for not killing their children, as they should have, according to Old Testament law. The same law Jesus broke when he was disrespectful to his Mother in Matthew 12:47-49.

In Mark 10:29-30 Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and children.

In Mark 11:13-14 Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though it was out of season. Apparently, "Mister Perfect" wasn't much of an agronomist, or ethicist.

In Luke 8:20-21 Jesus is disrespectful to his mother and rude to his brothers, again. Or still?

In Luke 8:27-37 Jesus heals a naked man who was possessed by many devils by sending the devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the sea. This messy, cruel, and expensive (for the owners of the pigs) treatment did not favorably impress the local residents, and Jesus was asked to leave. This story does get better with each telling!!

In Luke 10:10-15 Jesus terrorizes entire cities, claiming they will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. No doubt these people preferred their pigs.

In Luke 12:46-47 Jesus likens god to a sadistic, diabolical slave-owner, who will beat you "with many stripes".

In Luke 14:26 Jesus decides that it is not enough for men to abandon their families; they must actively hate them, too. Where is the love??

In Luke 16:17 Jesus declares that all the vicious, irrational laws of the Old Testament are binding forever.

In Luke 17:27 Jesus talks about Noah, neatly demonstrating his own ignorance of science, history, and justice.

In John 2:4 Jesus is, again, rude to his mother. She seems so nice, too.

In John 5:14 Jesus announces that god handicaps people as just punishment for their sins.

In John 7:8-10 Jesus lies to his family about attending a feast.

 

 

 

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

spumoni wrote:

Name one place in the Bible the practice of polygamy was ever endorsed.....  God's moral standard is stated in Genesis, one man for one woman. 

 

2 Samuel 12:7-8 

"Then Nathan said to David,'You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel says: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms.  I gave you the house of Israel and Judah.  And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

 

 

Also, Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, Had two wives ( Rachel and Leah )....and two concubines ( Bilah and Zilpah ).  All with God's blessing.  Jacob's wives were also sisters which violates Leviticus 18:18...still no punishment from God.

Read Genesis 29:16 through Genesis 30:22 and you will read irrefutable proof that God not only approved the polygamous marriage but even went so far as to bless this arrangement by answering the prayers of Jacob's WIVES.

"When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was Barren."

"The Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband."

"Then God remembered Rachel ; he listened to her and opened her womb."

 

Also Abraham was married to Sarah, his half-sister. ( Genesis 20:12  )  Abraham was guilty of incest according to Leviticus 20:17 but was never punished by God.

One man for one woman?  Ha, that's funny !

No doubt you've found great examples.  I still think you've failed to make your case.  Nowhere does God EXPLICITLY condone polygamy through decree or command.  God was working with people from other cultures and fallen individuals to achieve his purposes.  Every character in the Bible had sin issues and character flaws.  David commisioned the death of one of his top generals.  God achieved numerous purposes through this sinful man including the future messiah.  yet, David was punished for his sin.  I think there has to be a distinction between when something occurred and an implicit acceptance.  you may view God's withholding punishment as that but I wouldn't. 

 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
thingy wrote:spumoni

thingy wrote:

spumoni wrote:

There is a simple answer to this.  Virtually every faith in the world subscribes to some form of the golden rule ie. do to others what you would want them to do to you-Matt. 7:12.  Most people don't want to be bullied, embarassed or made fun of so generally those are things to be avoided. 

To be honest, this is exactly what lead me away from christianity.  What turned me from my religion was religion class in itself as we learnt about other religions.  They all taught similar-ish things.  The only difference essentially (as I saw it in 9th grade) was the dance we did, the words we said, the songs we sung.  Stick the left foot in before the right foot, or stick the right foot in before the left foot.  Surely any loving god wouldn't give a rats arse what foot we stuck in first, what specific words we said, or took part in the dance at all, as long as we were good as to the best of our abilities and beliefs as far as right and wrong?  As long as we believed and meant what we said.

I was brought up roman catholic, religion class taught me about other forms of catholocism.  Same god, same essential core teachings, different dance.  That's all there is to it.  If there is a god, surely it wouldn't care less about the dance, but more about whether you followed the teachings.  Believing the pope is the head of the church or not, that is all that separates catholics from other christians, that is nothing more than a dance.

Whether the teachings come from the religion or from society, just follow your morals, follow what you believe is right and wrong.  Think about them and analyse those beliefs for yourself.  See, know, understand why you believe them.  I sought, I analized, I learnt that to me homosexuality (something I once thought was wrong) is now no different to me than taste in foods, cars, art, even colours.  It's just a matter of taste as to what sort of person you're attracted to similar to the colours you're attracted to, or the food, the cars etc.  Love being a stronger emotion simply brings on stronger feelings for that taste.

So what makes christianity so real?  Nothing.  Society has moved beyond needing it.  It moved beyond needing it a few hundred years ago.  The same morals and beliefs apply with or without religion.  The American constitution is proof of that.  The simple answer is this, religion isn't needed.

 

I appreciate your candor but this type of statement reveals a lack of understanding in general of worldviews.  Each of them are very different with completely opposite conclusions for things such as the nature of reality, the problem of evil, origins etc.  I think your last statement is totally fallacious.  You are living on borrowed capital from a Christian worldview.  You can't sustain a logical argument for morality from a physicalist, naturalistic worldview.  Far from being "over" Christianity, society tries to live its premises without the content from which they are established.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote: This letter

Jeffrick wrote:

 This letter is to inform you that the base elements of the ten commandments --do not kill, lie, steal-- existed in hunter/gatherer societys, without these morals their tribes simply could not survive. For thousands of generations the tribes of cro-magnons thrived without verbal or written language and more importantly without your religious dogmas.                                                                                                                      When Jesus held his mini riot in the temple market why didn't the local securty people stop him? Answer; his followers were nearby and numerous and ARMED!!! Don't believe me? Then try this; What did St.Peter do first when the Roman soldiers came to arrest J.C.?  Why didn't the Romans hack Peter into small bits. Answer;  5 Roman soldiers vs. 7 ARMED apostles, the Romans weren't stupid, or maybe; just maybe the story is myth.

thanks for the letter.  However, you fail to recognize the existence of religious affinity within the earliest ancestorsof humans.  The burial of the dead with their belongings reveals metaphysical thought even within hunter/gatherer societies.  No doubt you had some type of social contract but such a system is no longer warranted in a society of self-sustained people.  while it had effectiveness in tribal cultures, this no longer is the case.

As for your security issues, pure fiction.  romans were not even permitted in the temple courts.  Peter took the sword from the soldier, they were not armed themselves. 

 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Some more

ronin-dog wrote:

Some more choice laws from god (Leviticus):

For every one that curses his mother or father shall surely be put to death.

the man that commiteth adultery with another man's wife... the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a women.... they shall surely be put to death.

if a man take a wife and her mother they shall be burnt with fire

etc, etc

and why doesn't anyone make burnt offerings to god anymore? It specifically states that you have to do it in the bible!

Just as well we don't live in a theocracy

 

 

Did you read my previous post?  These are the consequences of sin in the presence of God.  God is holy and sin brings death.  It is the cost of sin.  In the theocratic nation of Israel you had immediate consequences for sin.  People don't make burnt offerings because jesus was the final offering for sin. 


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Actually,

ronin-dog wrote:

Actually, apart from the rules jesus specifically changed, like working on the sabath, he said the old laws were fine.

If you are freed from the old testament, why do you still follow the 10 commandments? Why is the old commandment still preached?

Christians pick and choose what suits them, but then still claim that the bible is the work of god and can't be argued with. If you are christian, muslim or Jew the old testament is the foundation of your religion. Surely if it is the word of god it is either all true and good or not.

Ignoring the embaressing bits is like living in a luxury apartment on top of a structurally unsound, crumbling old building and saying, "oh, don't worry about the old bit, my bit is sweet!"

 

This argument is constantly made by atheists because they fail to understand the difference between a specific, cultural law and transcultural principles.  it has to do with historical-cultural context.  Early Israel was a theocratic nation and was in God's presence as a community.  This brought a higher level of accountability and consequences.  The ten commandments are transcultural, they apply to any situation.  Purity laws have to do with sin as an issue externally.  The coming of Christ brought the spirit of God and the change from external to internal issues.  Its not picking and choosing but recognizing the setting in which the laws were set.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Actually,

ronin-dog wrote:

Actually, apart from the rules jesus specifically changed, like working on the sabath, he said the old laws were fine.

If you are freed from the old testament, why do you still follow the 10 commandments? Why is the old commandment still preached?

Christians pick and choose what suits them, but then still claim that the bible is the work of god and can't be argued with. If you are christian, muslim or Jew the old testament is the foundation of your religion. Surely if it is the word of god it is either all true and good or not.

Ignoring the embaressing bits is like living in a luxury apartment on top of a structurally unsound, crumbling old building and saying, "oh, don't worry about the old bit, my bit is sweet!"

 

This argument is constantly made by atheists because they fail to understand the difference between a specific, cultural law and transcultural principles.  it has to do with historical-cultural context.  Early Israel was a theocratic nation and was in God's presence as a community.  This brought a higher level of accountability and consequences.  The ten commandments are transcultural, they apply to any situation.  Purity laws have to do with sin as an issue externally.  The coming of Christ brought the spirit of God and the change from external to internal issues.  Its not picking and choosing but recognizing the setting in which the laws were set.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:spumoni

draggycat wrote:

spumoni wrote:

There is a simple answer to this.  Virtually every faith in the world subscribes to some form of the golden rule ie. do to others what you would want them to do to you-Matt. 7:12.  Most people don't want to be bullied, embarassed or made fun of so generally those are things to be avoided. 

 

then why should our reasons for avoiding doing these things go beyond that? if Matt 7:12 really had any influence on peoples' conduct toward others, then surely it came to mind back in the sandbox days when you were deciding whether or not to push the fat kid down? let's admit it, your motives for doing it and the adult's reasons for punishing you would have been identical without the bible ever existing.

spumoni wrote:

why do the above actions bother you? Wouldn't they make sense in a survival of the fittest type of view? I seriously don't get the moral outrage of atheists.

the fittest also includes those who are best advantaged to reproduce. think about who a woman is more likely to want to have her children with: a murderous brute, or a principled gentleman?

 

 

 

 

 

Your first statement highlights the failure of a naturalistic worldview to sustain a true view of justice.  From a naturalist perspective, there is nothing wrong with the behavior.  We intrinsically know that is not the case.  Can an atheist give a ratinoal moral reason for why it is so?

 

Your second point seems ad hoc and arbitrary.


spumoni
Theist
spumoni's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
draggycat wrote:HisWillness

draggycat wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

You mean he didn't bring back the venison, or you don't like that he killed the deer?

in a debate about the sexual appeal of brutal as opposed to non-brutal, i think that's a given.  i fucking hate him if he steps on a moth.

hiswillness wrote:

EDIT: wait, did you say a month? What're you, some sort of sexual camel? That's insane.

it's actually pretty easy to resist a guy who's killed a bunch of animals when you're an animal lover. (marge's quote to lisa "you're a woman. you can hold onto it forever" comes to mind....) besides, to be fair, i gave him only a few days for every deer. i think it's a friggin bargain.

 

Aren't your feelings about animals self-contradictory with your view of nature? 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:No doubt you've


 

Quote:

No doubt you've found great examples.  I still think you've failed to make your case.   

 

Oh I assure you, I never had the slightest doubt as to what your response would be.

Interesting that, according to you, God is willing to condone sexual immorality as long as it is embedded within cultural customs.  Your explanation makes it all the more peculiar that God somehow decided to completely destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah when male homosexuality ( pedastery ) was very much a part of ancient middle-eastern societies.

 

I guess God doesn't care about sexual sins such as incest and multiple sex partners as long as it's between male and female ( even though God specifically condemns this sexual activity in Leviticus !!! )

 

1.) Leviticus 18:9  "Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere."   ( Abraham, guilty of marrying Sarah, the daughter of his father as recorded in Genesis 20:12 )

2.) Leviticus 18:18   "Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living." ( Jacob, the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, was guilty as is recorded in Genesis chapter 30 )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:Your first

spumoni wrote:

Your first statement highlights the failure of a naturalistic worldview to sustain a true view of justice.  From a naturalist perspective, there is nothing wrong with the behavior.  We intrinsically know that is not the case.  Can an atheist give a ratinoal moral reason for why it is so?

N.B. You just answered your own question. How do we know? Intrinsically.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
spumoni wrote:I appreciate

spumoni wrote:

I appreciate your candor but this type of statement reveals a lack of understanding in general of worldviews.  Each of them are very different with completely opposite conclusions for things such as the nature of reality, the problem of evil, origins etc.

Totally wrong. Most people in the world agree on most things, especially fundamental things like reality and basic morality. Certain principles of behaviour and laws of science have been independently rediscovered over and over again by different cultures down through the centuries. And basic human behaviour and family life is highly similar everywhere in the world and mostly unchanged from how it was in prehistory except for some details.

spumoni wrote:

I think your last statement is totally fallacious.  You are living on borrowed capital from a Christian worldview.

I love it when Christians criticize atheists for using Christian reasoning. You are basically saying that the worst thing you can think of to say about our argument is that it is too much like yours. What is wrong with the Christian worldview that we shouldn't steal from it?

spumoni wrote:

You can't sustain a logical argument for morality from a physicalist, naturalistic worldview.  Far from being "over" Christianity, society tries to live its premises without the content from which they are established.

No, society tries to attach itself to the rational positions that Christian philosophers have created while rejecting the supernatural garbage that many of those same philosophers rejected. And morality is much easier to defend from a naturalistic worldview than from a theistic one.

You are just wrong about everything today!

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown