Secular Student Alliance

[Paulie079]

*Shrugs* two extreme sides where a sane median exists. I'll choose the sane median.

If 'sane median' refers to an ability to be objective and relate to both sides, I'm all for it. But if it means fence-sitting and not taking a stand on issues then forget it. Life is about glorifying God, not appeasing people necessarily.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If 'sane median' refers to an ability to be objective and relate to both sides, I'm all for it. But if it means fence-sitting and not taking a stand on issues then forget it.

By definition that would not be a median.

 

[Shabby]

You would also lose basis for morality in general and that is a slippery, slippery slope.

I don't know very many atheists who believe in an absolute morality, but I also know very few atheists who believe in a completely subjective morality. For the most part, people tend to believe certain acts (killing, genocide, racism) are wrong, regardless of their belief in a deity.

We can come to these conclusions logically and accept them as a society without invoking the idea of a deity. I don't think losing an ABSOLUTE morality is a bad thing, but I agree that a loss of morality entirely would be mankind's undoing.

I think tomorrow I may post an idea I have been kicking around in my head for a few days about the merits of a reason-based morality versus a faith-based morality. I'd like to see some Christian's thoughts on it.

 

[Shabby]

If 'sane median' refers to an ability to be objective and relate to both sides, I'm all for it. But if it means fence-sitting and not taking a stand on issues then forget it. Life is about glorifying God, not appeasing people necessarily.

Can you be objective even after taking a stand?

 

[Paulie079]

I don't know very many atheists who believe in an absolute morality, but I also know very few atheists who believe in a completely subjective morality. For the most part, people tend to believe certain acts (killing, genocide, racism) are wrong, regardless of their belief in a deity.

We can come to these conclusions logically and accept them as a society without invoking the idea of a deity. I don't think losing an ABSOLUTE morality is a bad thing, but I agree that a loss of morality entirely would be mankind's undoing.

I think tomorrow I may post an idea I have been kicking around in my head for a few days about the merits of a reason-based morality versus a faith-based morality. I'd like to see some Christian's thoughts on it.

Yeah, I think I should clarify that I don't mean that we would just become a country without morals--I meant just what I said...that we would lose our basis for morality. I don't think atheists are bad people just because of what they believe just as I don't automatically think all Christians are good people.

And that would be really interesting to read if you do get a chance to post it.

 

[Paulie079]

Can you be objective even after taking a stand?

Well...I don't think that anyone has the ability to be totally objective but you can be objective even after having taken a stance in the sense that you can see and understand other points of view well without allowing your view to distort that.

 

[Isambard]

You would also lose basis for morality in general and that is a slippery, slippery slope.

People have found morality just fine for 2 million years without Christianity.

 

[Paulie079]

People have found morality just fine for 2 million years without Christianity.

I could give you several examples of how this has not always been the case.

 

[Isambard]

I could give you several examples of how this has not always been the case.

Societies without Christianity have, had, and continue to exist just fine. On the other hand, Christianity is no vanguard against atrocities as Christians commit them at the same level as everyone else. Ergo, Christianity is irrelevant to the moral fabric of a society.

 

[Shabby]

Societies without Christianity have, had, and continue to exist just fine. On the other hand, Christianity is no vanguard against atrocities as Christians commit them at the same level as everyone else. Ergo, Christianity is irrelevant to the moral fabric of a society.

I certainly agree with the sentiments, but the argument isn't that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society, but that God is. Christians are as faulty as anybody else, assuredly, but they believe that their God is not.

Therefore, we have to illustrate why their specific morality set is inferior to one governed by reason.

P.S. Nihilism is silly.

 

[Isambard]

I certainly agree with the sentiments, but the argument isn't that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society, but that God is. Christians are as faulty as anybody else, assuredly, but they believe that their God is not.

Therefore, we have to illustrate why their specific morality set is inferior to one governed by reason.

P.S. Nihilism is silly.

Yes but Christians believe the gods of other religions are make-believe, so they might as well be 'godless' societies. Following that reasoning, Christian-based societies should be morally superior to all non-Christian based societies, which simply isn't the case.

I know its silly, I have the title to be ironic given the number of times I've been de-facto branded a nihilist for being a non-Christian.

 

[Shabby]

Yes but Christians believe the gods of other religions are make-believe, so they might as well be 'godless' societies. Following that reasoning, Christian-based societies should be morally superior to all non-Christian based societies, which simply isn't the case.

Good point.

I know its silly, I have the title to be ironic given the number of times I've been de-facto branded a nihilist for being a Christian.

That's good. Yeah, I think most Christians believe nihilist and atheist are synonyms which is unfortunate.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I certainly agree with the sentiments, but the argument isn't that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society, but that God is. Christians are as faulty as anybody else, assuredly, but they believe that their God is not.

Therefore, we have to illustrate why their specific morality set is inferior to one governed by reason.

P.S. Nihilism is silly.

Well, in a way the argument IS that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society because we're discussing the Christian understanding of God provided by the Bible. The Bible is the only way you can know what the Christian God wants for society, and the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Well, in a way the argument IS that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society because we're discussing the Christian understanding of God provided by the Bible. The Bible is the only way you can know what the Christian God wants for society, and the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

A concept, I as a Christian can easily understand while simultaneously understanding that A. That there are non Christian societies world wide. B. That non Christian societies also have and have had in history something central to their moral fabric. Both theologically and non theologically. And C. That my own country, the United States, is a country with a secular country that has many types of people. Some Christian, some not.

 

[Shabby]

Well, in a way the argument IS that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society because we're discussing the Christian understanding of God provided by the Bible. The Bible is the only way you can know what the Christian God wants for society, and the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

The argument, however, isn't that Christians are integral to the moral fabric of society, but God is.

 

[laconicstudent]

and the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

No, God is the foundation of Christianity. God founded the Church, which established the Biblical canon. Historically your claim is incorrect, unless you posit that Christianity didn't exist until what you term as its "foundation", was canonized in 419 A.D.

 

[Paulie079]

Societies without Christianity have, had, and continue to exist just fine. On the other hand, Christianity is no vanguard against atrocities as Christians commit them at the same level as everyone else. Ergo, Christianity is irrelevant to the moral fabric of a society.

I think Shabby clarified it to a certain extent but the issue here is rejecting God as the basis for morality. Christians themselves are guilty of rejecting God and being responsible for terrible atrocities. But this doesn't mean that God should be rejected altogether.

I certainly agree with the sentiments, but the argument isn't that Christianity is central to the moral fabric of society, but that God is. Christians are as faulty as anybody else, assuredly, but they believe that their God is not.

Therefore, we have to illustrate why their specific morality set is inferior to one governed by reason.

P.S. Nihilism is silly.

And I would be intrigued by an assertion that morality that is based on God is inferior to morality governed by reason as I don't see how it's possible to develop an objective morality based on reason.

No, God is the foundation of Christianity. God founded the Church, which established the Biblical canon. Historically your claim is incorrect, unless you posit that Christianity didn't exist until what you term as its "foundation", was canonized in 419 A.D.

Scripture had to exist in order for it to be canonized, though. God is the foundation of Christianity, yes, but we wouldn't understand a whole lot about Him if we didn't have the Bible.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I think Shabby clarified it to a certain extent but the issue here is rejecting God as the basis for morality. Christians themselves are guilty of rejecting God and being responsible for terrible atrocities. But this doesn't mean that God should be rejected altogether.

At least as far as those societies are concerned. But I'm guessing that is what you meant.

And I would be intrigued by an assertion that morality that is based on God is inferior to morality governed by reason as I don't see how it's possible to develop an objective morality based on reason.

"Develop an objective morality." is a bit of a misnomer and one that tends to be rather easy to argue against if one is non Christian.

 

[Paulie079]

"Develop an objective morality." is a bit of a misnomer and one that tends to be rather easy to argue against if one is non Christian.

Of course. All you have to do is argue against the existence of God. But I'm not afraid to hold a position that others are easily capable of arguing against.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Of course. All you have to do is argue against the existence of God. But I'm not afraid to hold a position that others are easily capable of arguing against.

That and I am referring to the fact that constructing an "objective morality." isn't. It's constructing a subjective morality and calling it objective. Something the non theist can say the theist is doing. And non Christian theologies are just as capable of asserting an objective morality.