The morality of Biblical Christianity vs secular morality

[quatona]

You didn't pay attention to what I said.

That´s not the problem. The problem is that you combined two different criteria as though they were linked:
1. (self-professing) "born again" Christians vs. the rest,
2. repenting vs. non-repenting.

If, for whatever reason, I were hard-pressed to share my time with criminals I would prefer the company of 1. repenting persons, and 2. persons who are not self-professed "born again" Christians.
I don´t trust people whose moral system is based on command and obedience.

 

[quatona]

Well like I said, there is no basis for morality in atheism, so it doesn't at all surprise me that you would have no problem sharing a cell with rapists, murderers, and thieves.

According to your scenario in both cases we will be in the company of rapists, murderers and thieves. So don´t hold us accountable for the premises of your hypothetical.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Morality in atheism comes down to a matter of opinion.

Only in the sense that morality in Christianity comes down to a matter of opinion about what God wants people to do.

My personality morality may be my opinion, but not by putting opinion up on a pedestal in some morally subjective or non-cognitive fashion. I'm an ethical naturalist.

If I follow the teachings of the New Testament, I am to love others, not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not murder, not mistreat the poor, help the widows, and be forgiving. Secular morality cannot and doesn't offer such a basis.

That's not a basis. You are simply describing the content of your morality.

If an atheist was sent to prison and he had a choice of cells: he could either share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murderers, or he could share a cell with a group of born again Christians who decided to repent and follow Jesus, I'm sure that most atheists would prefer to share a cell with the Christians.

Yes, it would be the lesser of two evils.

The atheist would know that unrepentant rapists and murderers have no basis for their morality.

And I would know that the Christians have no good basis for their morality. They are simply less dangerous. (Presumably.)

Or what about the prison guards? Would an atheist prefer to live in a prison where the prison guards were born again Christians who believed in caring for their inmates, or would atheists prefer to live in a prison where the guards did as they pleased?

I'd prefer to live in a cell with caring atheists as prison guards if they held to similar ethical views to myself, because I would know that they have a good basis for their morality.

This is why the commandments of Jesus are way superior to the morals of secular morality.

No, you've shown that the commandments of Jesus are way superior to the morals of unrepentant rapists and murderers. You've not shown that rapists and murderers adhere to any moral code.

If atheists disagree then I want them to tell me: would they prefer to share a prison cell with unrepentant criminals, or with born again Christians?

I'd prefer not to settle for the lesser of two evils.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

My next thread? I dunno. My threads have basically been an experiment. I wanted to see if an atheist could give me a basis for morality in atheism, and so far I haven't had one. I hear quite often in the media of how secular morality is good and that we don't need God to be good. But when you push atheists into a corner and ask them for a moral basis, it's like trying to get blood out of a stone.

Try using honey instead of vinegar. Atheists aren't likely to get into a long philosophical discussion with you about ethics if you ignore and distort what they say, throw around broad accusations, and generally act like a troll.

And you have been given a secular basis for morality from several individuals, including myself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Organic]

Are you a troll?

Also, what is a moral basis? What does that phrase mean?

Are you asking for a secular ethical system, or are you asking why atheists are moral?



And Christian morality is based on the opinion of the people that wrote the Bible, or the opinion that the Bible is inerrant and that your interpretation is correct.



You assume those things are immoral because if your interpretation of the Bible. That is circular.

Anyway, my morality would agree with pretty much all the things you said. You could say that if everyone followed my ethical system, then society would be better too.



It had better no be those darn amoral monkeys again.



Are we assuming that they are both murderers and rapists? Either way, definitely the Christians.



The decent guards of course.



Christian, of course. I don't know what that is meant to prove though. I'd rather be with people who are against murdering and raping, rather than people who have murdered and raped, and still think it is ok.

I'd rather be with repentant humanist atheist, rather than a self-righteous rapist murderer, who claims to be doing it in the name of God.

Personally, I don't judge the worth of a moral theory based on how well it coerces messed up people into being decent. I'd rather a true and reasoned moral system.

You seem to be be concerned about controlling action regardless of the truth, whereas I care about truth as well as people being decent to others.

Yawn

 

[Eudaimonist]

Organic, who would you rather share a cell with? Unrepentant murderers and rapists? Or the atheists posting in this thread?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Organic]

First of all Morality is about action not belief. I could care less what you say you believe, I care only how you act and why.

Your situation offers a false dilemma between either Christians or immoral people, where as, if given the choice I would live in a world of moral atheists.

That I would choose (and do choose) to associate with moral people over immoral ones is irrelevant to your question of if I prefer Christian style morality, I do not. I prefer morality rooted in reason, self awareness and empathy, not people who act a certain way because an invisible God told them to.

Such people tend to not only be rather thoughtless about their decisions, and often particularly bad at acting out their "morality".

Further, the prison you speak of is generally going to be full of "Christians" seeking redemption because the religion offers such, there is no redemption in atheism because no one can forgive your sins except the people you violate. I find having an invisible man forgive your sins while the victims are still in pain or even dead abhorrent and disgusting.

So where is your basis for morality? Does atheism teach to love others, as Jesus Christ taught. No it doesn't. Atheism has never been a moral system.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yawn

See? You aren't interested in any real discussion. You reap what you sow.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Organic]

Try using honey instead of vinegar. Atheists aren't likely to get into a long philosophical discussion with you about ethics if you ignore and distort what they say, throw around broad accusations, and generally act like a troll.

And you have been given a secular basis for morality from several individuals, including myself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There is no basis for morality in atheism. That's why atheists feel no empathy for aborted babies. When I come across atheists on Youtube, they are the most vile people I come across. I must still do my best to love them, even though they continue to show their hatred and sexual immorality. Atheism can't and never will be a moral system.

 

[Organic]

See? You aren't interested in any real discussion. You reap what you sow.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I yawn at Paradoxum because in another thread she thinks it's okay to kill an infant. As an atheist, she has no basis for her morality. Anybody who thinks it's okay to kill an innocent infant isn't worth my time, so I just yawn at them.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is no basis for morality in atheism.

You are mistaken. All I get from you here is that you disagree with some details of the ethics that you've heard from atheists.

That's why atheists feel no empathy for aborted babies.

There are pro-life atheists, you know. And even atheists who aren't strictly pro-life might be opposed to late-term abortions with the view that those are formed persons being aborted.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I yawn at Paradoxum because in another thread she thinks it's okay to kill an infant. As an atheist, she has no basis for her morality. Anybody who thinks it's okay to kill an innocent infant isn't worth my time, so I just yawn at them.

So, you are only here to speak with people who agree with you on matters of ethics? Why talk to atheists at all if you are convinced that they are all immoral? Are you just here to yawn? That's trollish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Organic]

You are mistaken. All I get from you here is that you disagree with some details of the ethics that you've heard from atheists.



There are pro-life atheists, you know. And even atheists who aren't strictly pro-life might be opposed to late-term abortions with the view that those are formed persons being aborted.


eudaimonia,

Mark

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

 

[Eudaimonist]

The reason I keep repeating, "atheists have no basis for morality" is because atheists refuse to acknowledge my point.

No, they disagree with you.

If you believe that you are under no commandment to love other people, then you can treat people however you like.

I don't believe that I'm under a commandment to love other people, however, I am not of the view that I may treat other people as I like.

In a lawless society, I would still treat other people with respect, as any reasonably virtuous and empathetic person would.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madaz]

As has been stated many times before, atheism has no basis for morality. Morality in atheism comes down to a matter of opinion. However, just because someone is a theist doesn't mean they follow the commandments of Jesus. A person can believe in God and still do immoral things. What I'm talking about is the commandments of the New Testament vs secular morality.

The majority of people in society, whether they are theists or atheists, don't follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. It should not surprise us then that a lot of crime, evil, and injustice happens in our society. To think secular morality is a good thing is a delusion. If I follow the teachings of the New Testament, I am to love others, not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not murder, not mistreat the poor, help the widows, and be forgiving. Secular morality cannot and doesn't offer such a basis. Let me give an example:

If an atheist was sent to prison and he had a choice of cells: he could either share a cell with a group of unrepentant rapists and murderers, or he could share a cell with a group of born again Christians who decided to repent and follow Jesus, I'm sure that most atheists would prefer to share a cell with the Christians. The atheist would know that unrepentant rapists and murderers have no basis for their morality. Or what about the prison guards? Would an atheist prefer to live in a prison where the prison guards were born again Christians who believed in caring for their inmates, or would atheists prefer to live in a prison where the guards did as they pleased? Some of the prison guards in American prisons are brutal. They have even tortured the inmates.

This is why the commandments of Jesus are way superior to the morals of secular morality. If atheists disagree then I want them to tell me: would they prefer to share a prison cell with unrepentant criminals, or with born again Christians?

I would be dubious of the born again Christian rapists and murderers, these types of criminal claim they have a relationship with the divine that forgives their crimes thus excluding them from ever fearing the wrath of hell, which is probably what motivated these rapists and murderers to make a claim of faith in the first place, that or early parole, anyway how are we to trust murderers and rapists when they tell us that their personal experience with Jesus is genuine?

 

[Organic]

No, they disagree with you.



I don't believe that I'm under a commandment to love other people, however, I am not of the view that I may treat other people as I like.

In a lawless society, I would still treat other people with respect, as any reasonably virtuous and empathetic person would.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You still don't get it. Let me explain again. I'm not saying an atheist can't do the right thing. I'm saying that atheists are under no obligation to do so. You said that "In a lawless society, I would still treat other people with respect." Well good for you. But there are millions of other people who wouldn't, because they are selfish. The reason we have law and order is because without it, crime rates would explode. But if everyone obeyed the teachings of Jesus, we wouldn't need any law, because everyone would love one another and do no harm. Atheism has no law that says, "You must love others and care for them," but Biblical Christianity does. I hope this time you get it

 

[quatona]

If you believe that you are under no commandment to love other people, then you can treat people however you like.

Speak for yourself.
It´s not like we all are sociopaths who need to be kept in check by commandments, threat of punishment and promise of reward. That´s just you projecting.

 

[Organic]

Speak for yourself.
It´s not like we all are sociopaths who need to be kept in check by commandments, threat of punishment and promise of reward. That´s just you projecting.

another atheist who missed the point.

 

[quatona]

You still don't get it. Let me explain again. I'm not saying an atheist can't do the right thing. I'm saying that atheists are under no obligation to do so.

Well, until now you have said something else. You said "atheists have no moral basis".
However, whether we are under divine obligation doesn´t depend on whether we are atheists or theists. It depends on whether a personal god exists or not.

Atheism has no law that says, "You must love others and care for them,"

Sure it doesn´t. It´s a statement concerning the existence of gods. Why would you expect such a statement to come with any laws, in the first place? Mathematics don´t have such laws, science doesn´t, theism doesn´t, engineering doesn´t have such laws, music doesn´t, plumbing doesn´t.
That doesn´t mean that plumbers, scientists, musicians, theists, atheists etc. can´t have a moral basis.

 

[Organic]

Well, until now you have said something else. You said "atheists have no moral basis".
However, whether we are under divine obligation doesn´t depend on whether we are atheists or theists. It depends on whether a personal god exists or not.

Sure it doesn´t. It´s a statement concerning the existence of gods. Why would you expect such a statement to come with any laws, in the first place? Mathematics don´t have such laws, science doesn´t, theism doesn´t, engineering doesn´t have such laws, music doesn´t, plumbing doesn´t.
That doesn´t mean that plumbers, scientists, musicians, theists, atheists etc. can´t have a moral basis.

Okay, so all the bad atheists who mistreat people and do bad things, what is their basis for doing good? And what basis does an atheist have to protect the life of unborn babies?