The morality of Biblical Christianity vs secular morality

[MewtwoX]

The reason I keep repeating, "atheists have no basis for morality" is because atheists refuse to acknowledge my point. If there was no law and no police officers, crime rates would explode.

This would happen, and this would occur not because nobody would care about ethics, but because society would be abandoning an important component in their social ethos. Society is built on personal and social ethics, wherin each person defines rules to guide their behaviour and accepts rules to remain (1) part of society and (2) to be considered a productive member of society. If laws and law enforcement were removed, fundamental rules important to the existence of a social gathering would be understated (the lack of attention and pomp would give the idea that "Killing and stealing is wrong, but... not that wrong, brah) and those whose personal ethos have strayed from the social ethos on a level that others cannot accept no longer have any checks and balances to bring them back in line (law enforcement aren't just there to arrest you, they can set people straight without sending them to jail).

The strong would subjugate the weak.

Actually I would disagree with this... I believe that the desperate and alienated would subjugate the masses with fear and the "strong" would safely ignore it. People want to maintain the social existence of their life and want to continue feeling good about themselves, they must enforce their own personal ethos and work together with others to maintain the social ethos for a harmonious society.

If they knew they could do what they wanted and get away with it, what would prevent them from mistreating the poor?

The loss of the ability to live in a functioning and harmonious society. The loss of their ability to consider themselves good people. Humans are social creatures and we are compelled to view our actions through the looking glass of others perception and experience. This serves as the basis of personal ethos development and the preservation of society serves as the basis of the social ethos development (the formation of a duty).

Throughout history, the strong have subjugated the weak and oppressed them. If you believe that you are under no commandment to love other people, then you can treat people however you like.

And this will likely continue to happen, as people will always make mistakes, be influenced by other, "quick-fix" desires such as anger, fear, depression, etc. Those on the top are not as compelled to maintain or be cehcked by the social ethos because they have been influenced by another desire that develops with their situation: Greed. The key in this situation is that this desire is completely contradictory to other desires they have and working to point this out to them is the duty of society, in maintaining the social ethos.

When I read the news and read comments on YouTube, there is so much evil and hatred and injustice. And guess what--the majority of people do not follow the teachings of Jesus. Secular morality just doesn't work.

The sad thing? You are wrong. The majority of people out there consider themselves one of the big three religions, and ascribe to the divine command theory of ethics. They believe that there is a commandment to love one another, and invent a million reasons to not listen to it. We live in a religious world, and we see every day that it burns with thousands of injustices.

But I will be generous. This is not because religious ethics are a failure. This is a far more complex problem involving an lack of understanding of how ethics work in our society (mainly their pitfalls) and some inherent defects in the practice of ethics today.

 

[Organic]

Wrong!

You don't understand how the human mind works from a psychological standpoint. Do some psych 101 reading and you may start to get it.

Stalin and Pol Pot disagree with you.

 

[Organic]

Can you choose whatever religion you want? Or do you choose your religion based on what you think is true?

I do not believe that I can choose whatever morality I want and have that mean something. I seek the best understanding of human good that I can manage, not to choose something according to taste.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And you still haven't comprehended my point

 

[Eudaimonist]

And you still haven't comprehended my point

I understand your point perfectly. I'm showing you why you aren't seeing the whole picture.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Organic]

This would happen, and this would occur not because nobody would care about ethics, but because society would be abandoning an important component in their social ethos. Society is built on personal and social ethics, wherin each person defines rules to guide their behaviour and accepts rules to remain (1) part of society and (2) to be considered a productive member of society. If laws and law enforcement were removed, fundamental rules important to the existence of a social gathering would be understated (the lack of attention and pomp would give the idea that "Killing and stealing is wrong, but... not that wrong, brah) and those whose personal ethos have strayed from the social ethos on a level that others cannot accept no longer have any checks and balances to bring them back in line (law enforcement aren't just there to arrest you, they can set people straight without sending them to jail).



Actually I would disagree with this... I believe that the desperate and alienated would subjugate the masses with fear and the "strong" would safely ignore it. People want to maintain the social existence of their life and want to continue feeling good about themselves, they must enforce their own personal ethos and work together with others to maintain the social ethos for a harmonious society.



The loss of the ability to live in a functioning and harmonious society. The loss of their ability to consider themselves good people. Humans are social creatures and we are compelled to view our actions through the looking glass of others perception and experience. This serves as the basis of personal ethos development and the preservation of society serves as the basis of the social ethos development (the formation of a duty).



And this will likely continue to happen, as people will always make mistakes, be influenced by other, "quick-fix" desires such as anger, fear, depression, etc. Those on the top are not as compelled to maintain or be cehcked by the social ethos because they have been influenced by another desire that develops with their situation: Greed. The key in this situation is that this desire is completely contradictory to other desires they have and working to point this out to them is the duty of society, in maintaining the social ethos.



The sad thing? You are wrong. The majority of people out there consider themselves one of the big three religions, and ascribe to the divine command theory of ethics. They believe that there is a commandment to love one another, and invent a million reasons to not listen to it. We live in a religious world, and we see every day that it burns with thousands of injustices.

But I will be generous. This is not because religious ethics are a failure. This is a far more complex problem involving an lack of understanding of how ethics work in our society (mainly their pitfalls) and some inherent defects in the practice of ethics today.

Just about everything you said is false

 

[Organic]

I understand your point perfectly. I'm showing you why you aren't seeing the whole picture.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You haven't understood my point at all.

 

[bhsmte]

Stalin and Pol Pot disagree with you.

Sociopaths of both the christian and atheist persuasion, would be what we call; outliers.

 

[Organic]

Sociopaths of both the christian and atheist persuasion, would be what we call; outliers.

Christians have never killed anyone. Atheists have killed millions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You haven't understood my point at all.

Okay, let's work with that assumption. But let me rework your point, and then tell me where I've got things wrong.

We need a secular ethic because once you reject that as the authority, you can choose whatever religious morality you want. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusaders also had no need of a secular morality, and look where that ended.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Christians have never killed anyone.

ROTFLOL!!!!!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

The fact that we have many police is evidence that there is a lot of crime and bad people. Obviously these bad people felt no obligation to love and care for others. But if everybody obeyed Jesus' commandment to love others, there would be no crime.

And don't you see that's where your argument falls apart. What good is a commandment if no one follows it? Biblical morality has zero advantage over any other moral system if it doesn't work in real life.

Secularism does not command people to love others,

Maybe not in those eaxct terms, but there are formal statements of secular ethical values. This is pasted from the Humanist Manifesto III:

"We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility...Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence."

If everyone obeyed those principles, then we'd also have a world with much less crime and brutality. So what if it's not phrased as a "Thou shalt?" Commandments don't work any better than anything else. And they never have.

 

[MewtwoX]

Just about everything you said is false

This is your response to my post? This is the amount of effort you wish to demonstrate to my propositions and arguments?

Your lack of desire speaks volumes on the quality of your apologetics.

 

[Organic]

Okay, let's work with that assumption. But let me rework your point, and then tell me where I've got things wrong.

We need a secular ethic because once you reject that as the authority, you can choose whatever religious morality you want. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusaders also had no need of a secular morality, and look where that ended.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Secular morality has been responsible for most deaths and immorality throughout history. Contrast that with "love one another," as Jesus commands.

 

[Organic]

This is your response to my post? This is the amount of effort you wish to demonstrate to my propositions and arguments?

Your lack of desire speaks volumes on the quality of your apologetics.

Make no mistake, I could easily tear down all of your objections, but I can't keep up with every response that gets posted. As soon as I saw dishonesty in your post I decided not to take it seriously.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Secular morality has been responsible for most deaths and immorality throughout history. Contrast that with "love one another," as Jesus commands.

Please tell me specifically what is wrong with my statement without evasion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Christians have never killed anyone.

Lieing for Jesus? Is that covered by your allegedly superiour morality?

 

[MewtwoX]

Make no mistake, I could easily tear down all of your objections, but I can't keep up with every response that gets posted. As soon as I saw dishonesty in your post I decided not to take it seriously.

Now you claim that I am being dishonest. These ad hominem attacks and excuses only further tarnish your reputation.

If you don't want to respond to the posts you recieve from such an emotionally charged topic, don't make these topics.

 

[bhsmte]

Christians have never killed anyone. Atheists have killed millions.

Really now?

I'm not even going to waste my time blowing this claim out of the water.

 

[Organic]

Lieing for Jesus? Is that covered by your allegedly superiour morality?

How am I lying? Christians have never killed anyone. But atheists have killed millions.

 

[Organic]

Really now?

I'm not even going to waste my time blowing this claim out of the water.

Yes, really.