Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[durangodawood]

A unrelated topic would not be a good example of making a point. Disbelief and belief go hand and hand, because both are a faith.

Interesting. But its not remotely the topic of this thread. For the sake of the fascinating on-topic discussions underway, can you start this up in a new thread please.
.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Interesting. But its not remotely the topic of this thread. For the sake of the fascinating on-topic discussions underway, can you start this up in a new thread please.
.

Fine, but not today.

 

[Isambard]

I'm reminded of "A Clockwork Orange". If the sole reason for being good is for the sake of society, I wonder who here would be in favor of a Ludovico Technique to effectively disable free will?

I see you missed the part where I specifically mentioned a conscious.

 

[SiderealExalt]

A unrelated topic would not be a good example of making a point. Disbelief and belief go hand and hand, because both are a faith.

Language disagrees with you. Words>you statement.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

For the most part I think theism and atheism are relatively immaterial to moral discipline. They can certain color your moral structure. But good people are pretty much going to be good religion or not, and bad people are going to be bad people religious or not.

The thing that is different about bad people is that of the hope issue. Jesus went to the bad who had no interest in good and had no hope at all. Jesus gave them hope with a nice future. Bad people (as they do each day in the nation of China, underground church) become good people by becoming believers in Jesus. That is the purpose of the Gospel: to turn bad people into good ones, only with the promise of a wonderful eternity.

You have missed the point of Christianity. Jesus brought it to the sick (especially sinners (yet not hypocrites)). Making bad people good is normal in Christianity.

I am sorry to barge in here. I am puzzled. This is a Christian Forums, yet Christians are not allowed to comment in a lot of its threads about the Gospel. This makes me think that the ChristianForums.com is prohibiting the Gospel's freedom and promoting non-Christian values (having such thread sanctuaries as this one! What gives? It will one day be illegal to evangelize in the USA. However, Christians will grow in strength and number in that day. To be persecuted for a faith of love, reconciliation and hope will only make many more martyrs and bold believers in Christ's beautiful peace loving message (the Gospel).

I will leave now, sorry to barge in.

 

[SiderealExalt]

The thing that is different about bad people is that of the hope issue

Hope goes beyond religion. I know this as a Marine, and as a human being.

Jesus went to the bad who had no interest in good and had no hope at all.

Stories can certainly inspire people. I'll just insert the Buddha and quite a few other names besides if you don't mind.

Jesus gave them hope with a nice future. Bad people (as they do each day in the nation of China, underground church) become good people by becoming believers in Jesus.

I'll stick to understanding A. people can become good people for MANY reasons. and B. Just being happy that they became good people, instead of jumping for joy that they took my particular path to do so. Like I'm part of some sort of sports team and I get points every time a bad person goes good because of the way my "team" does it.

That is the purpose of the Gospel: to turn bad people in to good ones, only with the promise of a wonderful eternity.

Oh..sorry..I was distracted by the billions of people down the centuries that had their own ideas about what the Christian Gospel's purpose was. Pardon.

You have missed the point of Christianity. Jesus brought it to the sick (especially sinners (yet not hypocrites)). Making bad people good normal in Christianity.

Nope. I just realize people can be good with religion, without religion and for a million other reasons.

If other people want to treat important moral changes in the lives of others as is it's the Pepsi challenge. Well I think that's a really stupid idea, but it's not my business.

 

[Chesterton]

You may place no value in long term satisfaction... but so what? Most people do hold those values, for reasons that are intrinsic to human nature. You are stuck with going along, or living outside society, or rotting in jail.

We're finally starting to see eye to eye. Your response to my position is "so what?", and I've been using a bunch of words to try and say "so what?" to your position. As I said to the OP, don't shove your morals down my throat.

Of course we are animals. But we are not "just animals" in that we have qualitatively different mental and spiritual capacites from all other animals, as best we can tell. But I dont see how this is relevant to our discussion.

My first response in this thread was directed to the OP made by an atheist. If you're going to bring in the idea of spirituality my response doesn't fully apply.

Major misunderstanding. All along I've been discussing the derivation of morals, where they come from... yet you are getting hung up on the transmission of morals.

There is no way the average person alone can derive all the correct morals that are contained in the worlds various wisdom traditions. Its absurd to expect that. Moral originate in the long term application of wisdom to the realities of human life. But they are transmitted via education, cultural products, parental example, and religion.

So, if you dont get the transmission, you are quite vulnerable unless you are exceptional, and jail becomes a distinct possibility.

Right, derivation is key. You're telling me how morals come from men. The trouble is, I'm also a man, so there's nothing stopping me from deriving my own morals from my own experience. Maybe I think the majority is wrong, or maybe the majority is right but has a different goal than I do. There's nothing stopping me from defining evil as good. And people do do that.

"Happy" is less subjective than you think. The particulars may vary considerably. But the basics do not. Again, they are: freedom, friendship, material security, health, knowledge, love, and spiritual satisfaction... and others I'm surely forgetting.

If you dont "get it" then we have other tools to make you play along until you do "get it": shame, guilt, honor, law, etc.

You can't appeal to shame or honor except with someone who already agrees with you on morality. And I'm sure there are plenty of people in jail who feel no shame or dishonor, but only sorrow that they got caught.

 

[durangodawood]

We're finally starting to see eye to eye. Your response to my position is "so what?", and I've been using a bunch of words to try and say "so what?" to your position. As I said to the OP, don't shove your morals down my throat.
.

That issue is exactly the same whether we think morals come from God, or from human wisdom. The application of force in favor of moral truth is a human enterprise. Someone will always shove their idea morality down your throat.
.

Right, derivation is key. You're telling me how morals come from men. The trouble is, I'm also a man, so there's nothing stopping me from deriving my own morals from my own experience. Maybe I think the majority is wrong, or maybe the majority is right but has a different goal than I do. There's nothing stopping me from defining evil as good. And people do do that.

Of course. If you are very wise, you might hit upon some moral truths. If not, you will probably make some common errors. If you act on those errors, you will probably suffer, either in your own heart, or physically, or socially. The examples set by these moral failures help keep the rest of us on track.
.
Thats why the wisdom traditions are so important: ages of observation, refinement, trial and error, trial and success. For one guy to successfully reinvent that wheel seems highly unlikely.
.

 

[Chesterton]

That issue is exactly the same whether we think morals come from God, or from human wisdom.

The Creator and the created are not equally authoritative.

 

[durangodawood]

The Creator and the created are not equally authoritative.

Again, the application of force in favor of moral truth is a human enterprise.
.
Regarding "shoving morals down someone else's throat": people do that, as acts of culture or law, whether they claim their morals are from God or from human wisdom.
.
The sometimes onerous fact that society enforces its morality sheds no light either way on the origin of moral truths.
.