Hey, Atheists...

[Ben Leevey]

Here I be.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But we still need a basis to evaluate those "whys and hows".

Well I think once we have the how's down, the why's become more obvious, the final picture of "what is morality?" becomes clear.

 

[Ben Leevey]

The concepts, as you refer to them, came from outside sources, not from Scripture nor from God. Those concepts were brought into the 'church' sort of like a test maybe ? To see who would stick with Scripture, and who would depart from Scripture - to see who they/we/whoever is trusting.

@Aaron112

Is the son distinct form the Father in scripture?

 

[Injeun]

Oh,......puh-lease. You're right that various Christians and communities have at times had some erroneous or negligent, not to mention less than scholarly, interpretations and applications of the Christian Tradition (which came before the New Testament), but this isn't to say that the Traditional Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous.

So, unless you think you can "take me" in an academic level debate, I'd back off. Your mormonism has nothing in it by which to crow about.

It doesn't really matter what you say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It won't fix bible based religion, which is clearly broken beyond repair by its own self contradictory existence and that of the bible on which its claims a foundation, but to which the religion is contradictory as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Atheism" has meant a lot of different things throughout history. One thing it has never meant is, "Lack of belief in gods." This "New Atheist" propaganda was a fad that has now largely died out.

1. That's all it's ever meant...lack of belief in Gods. You can try to assert otherwise but generally any similarities between the beliefs of atheists is typically more a result of the questions you might ask an atheist.

2. The "new atheist" phenomenon was more of a realization that othet atheists existed rather than any deliberately coordinated effort.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem here, though, is that "informed consent" is very difficult to fully come by [think of the figure of Eve here] and consent shouldn't be seen as the crème de la crème of ethical qualifications for human morality. If anything, it's merely the first step and anyone who thinks it stops there with that and only that is shortsighted and in need of lessons in critical thinking and ethics.

Indeed...informed consent can lead to all sorts of things which may largely be considered immoral for the time and place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I told you the truth. And you call it hubris. There is no apostolic authority from the pages of a book. It can only come from God. One can no more claim authority than elect oneself to Gods service and thereby dispossess God of his free agency, were that possible. Yet it is the way of bible based religion and the presumptuousness in the hearts of men. So what they make is apart from God, an image of God. Which is pretty much an anti God.

At least we know that Joseph Smith has no authority whatsoever. As in...................nada. Zilch. And anyone who listens to him is rather foolish.

 

[Injeun]

At least we know that Joseph Smith has no authority whatsoever. As in...................nada. Zilch. And anyone who listens to him is rather foolish.

Actually there's no proof he had no authority, not by way of reason or fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Criteria, guiding principles other than the Bible says so.

from OP
How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

I gave some non-biblical principles or goals. How does that not meet the intended request?

 

[Hans Blaster]

At least we know that Joseph Smith has no authority whatsoever. As in...................nada. Zilch. And anyone who listens to him is rather foolish.

He did have a divining rod and some seer stones. That ought to count for something.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually there's no proof he had no authority, not by way of reason or fact.

And there's proof that he did? What is that "proof"? Is it anything outside your own brain?

P.S. I hate to have to break this to you, but there's also no evidence that you're going to eventually get to be god over your own planet out there among the stars.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I gave some non-biblical principles or goals. How does that not meet the intended request?

Among other things I value "informed consent", "minimization of harm", and "personal autonomy". None of these is an absolute nor the overriding "foundation". Sometimes one principle clashes with the other and that's when the interesting things occur. The rest of it is all rather boring.

Yes. I think a good start.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Among other things I value "informed consent", "minimization of harm", and "personal autonomy". None of these is an absolute nor the overriding "foundation". Sometimes one principle clashes with the other and that's when the interesting things occur. The rest of it is all rather boring.

Yes. I think a good start.

I'm sure I could think of a few more valued principles, or agree to others proposed. There is no algorithm for evaluation of situations, I suspect most people work similarly unless their whole algorithm is (1. Prioritize what ever is in the moral system I have subscribed to.)

 

[Injeun]

And there's proof that he did? What is that "proof"? Is it anything outside your own brain?

P.S. I hate to have to break this to you, but there's also no evidence that you're going to eventually get to be god over your own planet out there among the stars.

Are the testimonies of God as found in Jewish scripture/bible, proof of God? If there is nothing to know beyond believing, then there is no God in whom to trust or speak. Jesus said to Peter, "blessed art thou for flesh hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which art in heaven. And upon this rock I will build my Church." So Peter knew. But what do you know? To believe Peter by the writing is to say it is well with his soul. But what of your own? Is the Almighty God a God of diminished returns? Personal revelation is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church. Without this, one has no foundation. To think that you can rely on Peters testimony, having none of your own, is to be like the five foolish virgins without oil of their own. The event will be closed, and the groom will say I know you not. One can't know that God lives unless he first knows you. Then you know him by his spirits interposition.

God sent his messenger, his spirit, to know me and awaken me to a remembrance of him, to know that he lives. He showed me in vision that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is his Church. In awakening me to a remembrance, I realized that my true life is in his spirit, rather than in myself or in my life alone. The bible is filled with references to Gods work of gathering Israel from the world in the last days.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are the testimonies of God as found in Jewish scripture/bible, proof of God? If there is nothing to know beyond believing, then there is no God in whom to trust or speak. Jesus said to Peter, "blessed art thou for flesh hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which art in heaven. And upon this rock I will build my Church." So Peter knew. But what do you know? To believe Peter by the writing is to say it is well with his soul. But what of your own? Is the Almighty God a God of diminished returns? Personal revelation is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church. Without this, one has no foundation. To think that you can rely on Peters testimony, having none of your own, is to be like the five foolish virgins without oil of their own. The event will be closed, and the groom will say I know you not. One can't know that God lives unless he first knows you. Then you know him by his spirits interposition.

God sent his messenger, his spirit, to know me and awaken me to a remembrance of him, to know that he lives. He showed me in vision that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is his Church. In awakening me to a remembrance, I realized that my true life is in his spirit, rather than in myself or in my life alone. The bible is filled with references to Gods work of gathering Israel from the world in the last days.

Oh, I see. You had a vision. Well then, that proves everything, doesn't it?

I'll have to admit you have me beat because the only way I can construe even the smallest smidgen of faith is to apply the Philosophy of History via critical thought (along with every other academic field which links to History and can be likewise referenced) in my attempts to "believe" in the contents of ancient, Biblical, Jewish writings.

You Mormons are special, indeed. You have visions and special callings and whatnot. Good for you!!!!!!! That means you have the authority to come onto a public Christian forum and command our respect because you're spiritually special.

 

[Injeun]

Oh, I see. You had a vision. Well then, that proves everything, doesn't it?

I'll have to admit you have me beat because the only way I can construe even the smallest smidgen of faith is to apply the Philosophy of History via critical thought (along with every other academic field which links to History and can be likewise referenced) in my attempts to "believe" in the contents of ancient, Biblical, Jewish writings.

You Mormons are special, indeed. You have visions and special callings and whatnot. Good for you!!!!!!! That means you have the authority to come onto a public Christian forum and command our respect because you're spiritually special.

Well, you asked. Should I lie? I didn't convert to the Church, its history, the doctrines, Joseph Smith, personalities, or anything that one might address academically, scientifically, archeologically, or by way of reason. It was strictly spiritual. That's why I also believe the biblical testimony, because the LDS Church teaches from it. Of myself I know nothing relative to God but what his spirit confirms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do wonder if the OPis a part of the "religious impulse" to form or find a set of values that by their own nature cause one who follows them to be considered "good" in th eyes of most or perhaps themselves. A set of values that affirm the judgement of others should they fall short of those values. I see a lot of people these days trying to fill that moral void with political beliefs and I imagine it's very disappointing very quickly.

 

[Monowhite]

Most times, I think morality is not how we decide to act, but rather how we justify our acts, post hoc.

Edit: spelling

Not sure I know what post hoc means as I was never a fan of Latin, but I must agree with you that how we justify our acts, hoc or not is how we can we be judged? Choose your basis.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I do wonder if the OPis a part of the "religious impulse" to form or find a set of values that by their own nature cause one who follows them to be considered "good" in th eyes of most or perhaps themselves.

Not my intention as OP poster. More a search for common ground.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not my intention as OP poster. More a search for common ground.

Fair enough.

I do think we generally have common ground, don't we?

When you consider the extremely immoral....or extremely taboo....we probably have very similar views. Likewise, I think we both recognize good deeds and great deeds in a very similar fashion...

I'm saying this without even knowing your moral views in particular...I'm confident because we both come from a society with the same moral norms which were derived from the same sources. That's why I can be confident that we probably agree a great deal when considering many basic and extreme examples of both good and evil.

Wouldn't you agree?