Needing justification for morality

[DogmaHunter]

Because I have the knowledge, So I can reject it. I can deal with any of your argument too. (don't try, this is not a thread for it)

Stuffing your fingers in your ears while screaming "LALALA" is not dealing with arguments.

 

[bhsmte]

Because I have the knowledge, So I can reject it. I can deal with any of your argument too. (don't try, this is not a thread for it)

Don't worry, I have already seen your arguments.

 

[bhsmte]

Stuffing your fingers in your ears while screaming "LALALA" is not dealing with arguments.

Very effective defense mechanism though, for those who have it.

 

[tacdon]

Everyone has a conscience to deal with, some have a seared conscience or a reprobate mind, but most atheist still have a conscience, so they still have a moral compass, that was installed in them by God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everyone has a conscience to deal with, so have a seared conscience or a reprobate mind, but most atheist still have(1) a conscience, so they still have a moral compass, that was installed in them by God(2).

1. "most"? As in "some don't"? Because they are atheist, I bet?

2. Couple of questions....

A. Evidence for this claim?

B. Why does this god install different moral compasses in almost all people? CLEARLY almost no 2 persons agree on any and all moral issues. Why does the moral compass of people up until not that long ago allow for slavery? Why are we today almost universally appaled by the practice?

C. And finally, what makes something morally ok? If I give you a hypothetical scenario and ask you what would be the moral course of action or similar... how would you go about it? What aspects would you highlight to inform your conclusion?

 

[tacdon]

1. "most"? As in "some don't"? Because they are atheist, I bet?

2. Couple of questions....

A. Evidence for this claim?

B. Why does this god install different moral compasses in almost all people? CLEARLY almost no 2 persons agree on any and all moral issues. Why does the moral compass of people up until not that long ago allow for slavery? Why are we today almost universally appaled by the practice?

C. And finally, what makes something morally ok? If I give you a hypothetical scenario and ask you what would be the moral course of action or similar... how would you go about it? What aspects would you highlight to inform your conclusion?

Everyone is born with a conscience, but people are also born with a free will. That means that can choose to believe their conscience or not. They might select certain things to believe and others not to believe.

They might still believe it is wrong to murder, but believe it is fine to steal.

 

[bhsmte]

Everyone is born with a conscience, but people are also born with a free will. That means that can choose to believe their conscience or not. They might select certain things to believe and others not to believe.

They might still believe it is wrong to murder, but believe it is fine to steal.

You need to read up on psychology a bit.

 

[tacdon]

You need to read up on psychology a bit.

You need to read up on the bible a bit.

 

[bhsmte]

You need to read up on the bible a bit.

I did that. One of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

 

[tacdon]

I did that. One of the reasons I am no longer a Christian.

How much of it did you read and how often.

Are you mad at God or just don't believe in God?

 

[bhsmte]

How much of it did you read and how often.

Are you mad at God or just don't believe in God?

I didn't just read it, I did a thorough investigation into the works of NT scholars and historians, to learn the historicity of the claims. When I did that, I was enlightened as to just how shaky the NT is from a historical perspective.

To me, looking at the background of the story, the claims of the story and then looking at the reality of the world, I could not longer believe the story was anything but made up by man.

 

[tacdon]

I didn't just read it, I did a thorough investigation into the works of NT scholars and historians, to learn the historicity of the claims. When I did that, I was enlightened as to just how shaky the NT is from a historical perspective.

To me, looking at the background of the story, the claims of the story and then looking at the reality of the world, I could not longer believe the story was anything but made up by man.

Sine you know so much about this, what are some shaky things in the NT from a historical perspective?

You do know if you are wrong the penalty will be great.

 

[bhsmte]

Sine you know so much about this, what are some shaky things in the NT from a historical perspective?

You do know if you are wrong the penalty will be great.

First of all, I don't choose to believe things because some people claim there will be a great penalty if I don't, doesn't seem like a good reason to grasp onto such a story that makes the claims it does.

The four gospels that describe Jesus, were all written by anonymous authors, not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as advertised. The church added those names about 200 years after the fact.

The four gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus died, which makes the claim of eye witness accounts, next to impossible, so the gospels are basically hearsay, written down from oral tradition. Ever play the game telephone?

The originals of the gospels are lost and we only have copies of copies starting 200 years after Jesus died. Numerous verses were added to the gospels over the years, sometimes centuries after the oldest copies. The story of the adulteress (he who is without sin should cast the first stone) in no where to be found in the oldest copies, the story just showed up hundreds of years later. The gospel of Mark, had numerous verses added to it so it would align with the other gospels. The gospels were written in Greek and Jesus followers spoke Aramaic, and were basically illiterate. There is plenty more in regards to credibility.

If you bother to read the works of a variety of NT historians (and not just the evangelical Christian type) you will find they only can verify these four issues as likely being historical in regards to the NT:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the NT is more a work of theology, as opposed to a work of history.

 

[tacdon]

First of all, I don't choose to believe things because some people claim there will be a great penalty if I don't, doesn't seem like a good reason to grasp onto such a story that makes the claims it does.

The four gospels that describe Jesus, were all written by anonymous authors, not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as advertised. The church added those names about 200 years after the fact.

The four gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus died, which makes the claim of eye witness accounts, next to impossible, so the gospels are basically hearsay, written down from oral tradition. Ever play the game telephone?

The originals of the gospels are lost and we only have copies of copies starting 200 years after Jesus died. Numerous verses were added to the gospels over the years, sometimes centuries after the oldest copies. The story of the adulteress (he who is without sin should cast the first stone) in no where to be found in the oldest copies, the story just showed up hundreds of years later. The gospel of Mark, had numerous verses added to it so it would align with the other gospels. The gospels were written in Greek and Jesus followers spoke Aramaic, and were basically illiterate. There is plenty more in regards to credibility.

If you bother to read the works of a variety of NT historians (and not just the evangelical Christian type) you will find they only can verify these four issues as likely being historical in regards to the NT:

-Jesus was a real person
-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the NT is more a work of theology, as opposed to a work of history.

Where is your evidence that the four gospels were written by anonymous authors and that the church added the names 200 years later?

You say the four gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus died. That means the writters could of seen Jesus in person, they would of been 60 or older when they wrote the books. How old was Peter when Jesus died?
Maybe he was only 20 years old. Maybe he was 40 years old, who knows.

 

[bhsmte]

Where is your evidence that the four gospels were written by anonymous authors and that the church added the names 200 years later?

You say the four gospels were written 40-70 years after Jesus died. That means the writters could of seen Jesus in person, they would of been 60 or older when they wrote the books. How old was Peter when Jesus died?
Maybe he was only 20 years old. Maybe he was 40 years old, who knows.

Well, the gospels don't even claim to be written by the authors that are on them. But, don't take my word for it, do some research on NT scholars etc, as the vast majority of them (even the Christian scholars) agree the four gospels are anonymous.

If the actual writers of the gospels saw Jesus in person, why would they wait 40-70 years to write their accounts of Jesus? Lastly, the average life expectancy back then, was a heck of a lot lower than it is now.

 

[tacdon]

Well, the gospels don't even claim to be written by the authors that are on them. But, don't take my word for it, do some research on NT scholars etc, as the vast majority of them (even the Christian scholars) agree the four gospels are anonymous.

If the actual writers of the gospels saw Jesus in person, why would they wait 40-70 years to write their accounts of Jesus? Lastly, the average life expectancy back then, was a heck of a lot lower than it is now.

What does it matter if they did wait 40-70 years to write? It is just speculation when they were written, know one knows for sure when they were written.

Even if the average life expectancy back then was lower than now it doesn't mean that some people didn't live long lives.

As far if the gospels were written anonymously or not, that it also a guess, no one knows for sure.

 

[bhsmte]

What does it matter if they did wait 40-70 years to write? It is just speculation when they were written, know one knows for sure when they were written.

Even if the average life expectancy back then was lower than now it doesn't mean that some people didn't live long lives.

As far if the gospels were written anonymously or not, that it also a guess, no one knows for sure.

NT Historians have a high degree of confidence when the gospels were written and that they were anonymous.

 

[Chany]

Sine you know so much about this, what are some shaky things in the NT from a historical perspective?

You do know if you are wrong the penalty will be great.

You're new here, so I let you in on a little secret:

Based on the fact that you asked if we were angry at Yahweh, I hypothesize you haven't talked to many serious atheists or actually researched the subject. You're literally making all of the textbook mistakes right out of the theist handbook.

We are not angry at any gods. Atheism is the rejection of god claims, so we don't believe in any and can't be angry at them. However, some of us are angry at religious beliefs and concepts of gods. Some of us are indifferent. It depends on the atheist.

Second, what if I'm wrong? What's God gonna do? I searched for God and was considering going to a seminary before I realized I could not rational hold my beliefs. They were incoherent. How is it my fault God decided not to help me?

What if your wrong? Allah really wouldn't like it if you treat someone other than him as a god. Heck, even within Christianity you can be wrong.

Try harder.

 

[tacdon]

NT Historians have a high degree of confidence when the gospels were written and that they were anonymous.

There are many different view points about when the gospels were written and if they were anonymous.

 

[tacdon]

You're new here, so I let you in on a little secret:

Based on the fact that you asked if we were angry at Yahweh, I hypothesize you haven't talked to many serious atheists or actually researched the subject. You're literally making all of the textbook mistakes right out of the theist handbook.

We are not angry at any gods. Atheism is the rejection of god claims, so we don't believe in any and can't be angry at them. However, some of us are angry at religious beliefs and concepts of gods. Some of us are indifferent. It depends on the atheist.

Second, what if I'm wrong? What's God gonna do? I searched for God and was considering going to a seminary before I realized I could not rational hold my beliefs. They were incoherent. How is it my fault God decided not to help me?

What if your wrong? Allah really wouldn't like it if you treat someone other than him as a god. Heck, even within Christianity you can be wrong.

Try harder.

I didn't know he was an atheist. Some people believe there is a God, but choose to not follow a God.

I've heard some people say they believe there is a God, but reject God because he lets bad things happen to good people.