An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[Halbhh]

So, people who view Christianity as a "mere duty" would then be inclined to start a new denomination?

Good question. Perhaps so at times. Probably is some portion of those instances.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. People tend to pick and choose the one that they think makes them a “true Christian.”

This number gets used a lot, but it's grossly misleading. The 30,000 "denominations" number is reached by counting various rites, autocephelous communions, jurisdictions, and national level organizations all as separate "denominations". In other words, Russian, Greek, Serbian, Ukrainian, (etc) Orthodox are all treated as separate denominations, but they are all actually one Church, Eastern Orthodoxy. Latin Rite, Maronite, Byzantine, (etc) Catholics are all treated as separate denominations, but they are all actually one Church, [Roman] Catholic. The various autonomous provinces of the Anglican Communion (e.g. the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Australia (etc) are all still Anglican, and one ecclesiastical body. Likewise, many nation-level organizations are technically distinct denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, (etc) are national churches or nation-level church organizations that are all in full communion with one another as an international Lutheran fellowship; the same is true of other groups such as Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

This makes the definition of a "denomination" incredibly fuzzy.

But the idea that there are 30,000 groups all competing to call themselves "True Christians™" is simply not true. Even where there are legitimate differences, say between Catholics and Orthodox, with both Catholics and Orthodox laying claim to being the one true historic and catholic Church with the other having fallen out of communion, there is still a mutual recognition of the other as being Christian, their members as being faithful, believing Christians. For the most part relations between mainstream Christian bodies is friendly, fraternal, and warm--we recognize the fact that we are all baptized Christians, confessing the same Creed, we call one another brother and sister, and we don't doubt the faith and faithfulness of those who are not part of our group. Now step back a couple or few hundred years ago and things would have been quite different, but today the general move is increased cooperation and relationship.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HitchSlap]

Yeah, I get it.

This number gets used a lot, but it's grossly misleading. The 30,000 "denominations" number is reached by counting various rites, autocephelous communions, jurisdictions, and national level organizations all as separate "denominations". In other words, Russian, Greek, Serbian, Ukrainian, (etc) Orthodox are all treated as separate denominations, but they are all actually one Church, Eastern Orthodoxy. Latin Rite, Maronite, Byzantine, (etc) Catholics are all treated as separate denominations, but they are all actually one Church, [Roman] Catholic. The various autonomous provinces of the Anglican Communion (e.g. the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Australia (etc) are all still Anglican, and one ecclesiastical body. Likewise, many nation-level organizations are technically distinct denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, (etc) are national churches or nation-level church organizations that are all in full communion with one another as an international Lutheran fellowship; the same is true of other groups such as Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.

This makes the definition of a "denomination" incredibly fuzzy.

But the idea that there are 30,000 groups all competing to call themselves "True Christians™" is simply not true. Even where there are legitimate differences, say between Catholics and Orthodox, with both Catholics and Orthodox laying claim to being the one true historic and catholic Church with the other having fallen out of communion, there is still a mutual recognition of the other as being Christian, their members as being faithful, believing Christians. For the most part relations between mainstream Christian bodies is friendly, fraternal, and warm--we recognize the fact that we are all baptized Christians, confessing the same Creed, we call one another brother and sister, and we don't doubt the faith and faithfulness of those who are not part of our group. Now step back a couple or few hundred years ago and things would have been quite different, but today the general move is increased cooperation and relationship.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's start with what he started with, calling out Christians for unChristlike behaviour. Scripture may be unclear on some points, but it is quite clear on others. Just because there are shades of gray does not mean black and white do not exist. Kicking widows and orphans is not Christlike and calling out supposed Christians for that kind of action is totally on.

Even when Scripture is unclear or disputed one can make calls regarding hypocrisy much of the. One can look to what the denomination a Christian belongs to or even what that individual Christian says and see hypocrisy.

He also seems to espouse the idea that anything subjective is something where any answer is as good as any other. That is flat out false. I used to bicycle a lot. I became interested in the history of professional cycling. Who was the greatest cyclist of all time may be subjective, but the list of possible answers is pretty short. If one uses any definition of greatest of all time that centers on how they did against available competition then there actually is a right answer. That can happen with subjective things, the gaps can be big enough that the answer is clear. In the same vein who is second is far from clear. Second and third too close. But the gap between 3rd and 4th is again huge. (First is Eddy Merckx, the next 2 are Fausto Coppi and Bernard Hinault. Raw numbers favor Hinaut, but Coppi is close and lost the heart of his career to WW II).

So Christianity is subjective in part, it does not provide a clear ranking of exactly where things stand in order of importance. But is is crystal clear on what is first and what is second. It is not always clear on how to express those first 2 commandments, but I'd argue there are many acts that clearly are not an expression of them.

For the most part, I think I agree with your thoughts on this, Keith. But did you notice the point that he ended with? At the end, he essentially says that if Christianity is considered by atheists to be a 'complete fiction'--which I think GMS does--then it's basically superfluous to cite Christians for moral hypocrisy on an ontological level if most or none of the Bible, in his estimation, really equates to Reality or "Truth" with a capital T.

Good comments, Keith!

 

[razzelflabben]

For the most part, I think I agree with your thoughts on this, Keith. But did you notice the point that he ended with? At the end, he essentially says that if Christianity is considered by atheists to be a 'complete fiction'--which I think GMS does--then it's basically superfluous to cite Christians for moral hypocrisy on an ontological level if most or none of the Bible, in his estimation, really equates to Reality or "Truth" with a capital T.

Good comments, Keith!

but isn't that the rub as it were for atheists? Most (not all) want to show christians how wrong they are and so they don't really care how hypocritical they are or sound as long as they feel like they can justify their argument in a way that will belittle and ridicule what they don't really understand?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

but isn't that the rub as it were for atheists?

No.

Most (not all) want to show christians how wrong they are and so they don't really care how hypocritical they are or sound as long as they feel like they can justify their argument in a way that will belittle and ridicule what they don't really understand?

No.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

but isn't that the rub as it were for atheists? Most (not all) want to show christians how wrong they are and so they don't really care how hypocritical they are or sound as long as they feel like they can justify their argument in a way that will belittle and ridicule what they don't really understand?

That is the rub: but I think GMS is attempting to rub it in even a bit more deeply, despite what it may sound like to the contrary. Because as GMS sees it, atheists are needlessly pointing out how Christians may be "inconsistent" with some notion that there is a 'right way' to interpret the Bible; No, GMS is attempting to say (as far as I understand him) that atheists should refrain from spending time citing Christian moral failure if ... the Bible is a complete fiction. Because, if the Bible is a total or nearly total fiction, then neither its historical claims nor its moral claims are true and it is a waste of time for atheists, ontologically speaking, to speak to Christians as "if" there really is some objectively 'real' moral standard within the Bible that we could all agree resides there. Hence, any apparent Christian hypocrisy is merely an inconsistency with one's view of the Bible, not with real moral values that exist in the world.

Anyone care for a pretzel?

 

[razzelflabben]

That is the rub: but I think GMS is attempting to rub it in even a bit more deeply, despite what it may sound like to the contrary. Because as GMS sees it, atheists are needlessly pointing out how Christians may be "inconsistent" with some notion that there is a 'right way' to interpret the Bible; No, GMS is attempting to say (as far as I understand him) that atheists should refrain from spending time citing Christian moral failure if ... the Bible is a complete fiction. Because, if the Bible is a total or nearly total fiction, then neither its historical claims nor its moral claims are true and it is a waste of time for atheists, ontologically speaking, to speak to Christians as "if" there really is some objectively 'real' moral standard within the Bible we all can agree resides there. Hence, any apparent Christian hypocrisy is merely an inconsistency with one's view of the Bible, not with real moral values that exist in the world.

Anyone care for a pretzel?

View attachment 222686

funny side note on your post...many people equate morality with christianity the problem is that morality is not talked about in the bible. In fact, I have challenged many people to show me where morality is in case I missed it and no one can and/or has. Justice is in scripture. In fact, most people are trying to confuse morality and justice. the problem is that morality is a man made set of standards and varies from group to group whereas justice is an absolute.

All of which makes the OP perspective even more complicated.

 

[Tom 1]

funny side note on your post...many people equate morality with christianity the problem is that morality is not talked about in the bible. In fact, I have challenged many people to show me where morality is in case I missed it and no one can and/or has. Justice is in scripture. In fact, most people are trying to confuse morality and justice. the problem is that morality is a man made set of standards and varies from group to group whereas justice is an absolute.

All of which makes the OP perspective even more complicated.

Couldn’t the beatitudes be interpreted as guides for moral behaviour?

 

[razzelflabben]

Couldn’t the beatitudes be interpreted as guides for moral behaviour?

we could call all kinds of things moral but as I said, scripture talks about just behavior not moral behavior. Morality is a man made list of what is right not a "God given" one.

 

[Tom 1]

we could call all kinds of things moral but as I said, scripture talks about just behavior not moral behavior. Morality is a man made list of what is right not a "God given" one.

I’m not sure what you mean - do you mean just terminology, that the behaviours aren’t referred to as ‘moral behaviours’, or do you mean something else? Do you think the patterns of behaviour in the beatitudes and elsewhere are intended to be neutral behaviours or something like that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

funny side note on your post...many people equate morality with christianity the problem is that morality is not talked about in the bible. In fact, I have challenged many people to show me where morality is in case I missed it and no one can and/or has. Justice is in scripture. In fact, most people are trying to confuse morality and justice. the problem is that morality is a man made set of standards and varies from group to group whereas justice is an absolute.

All of which makes the OP perspective even more complicated.

If that's the case, then we have to wonder what Jesus "means" when He uses terms inferring a lack of morality or to actions that reflect "immorality," (as in sexual immorality, and so on and so forth).

However, as far as GMS's comments in the OP go, I think he is implying that whether there is or is not some clearly identifiable moral code and/or ethics in the Bible, if the Bible is fiction (false), then trying to point out inconsistencies of action with any apparent moral system within the Bible is a waste of time for atheists, or should be at any rate. [Interestingly enough, I'm getting whiffs in GMS's comments of something that smells like Richard Carrier's polyamory theory ... ]

 

[razzelflabben]

I’m not sure what you mean - do you mean just terminology, that the behaviours aren’t referred to as ‘moral behaviours’, or do you mean something else? Do you think the patterns of behaviour in the beatitudes and elsewhere are intended to be neutral behaviours or something like that?

webster's defines morality this way....
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

• admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality

Now, who determines what is moral? What is moral for say a terrorist? A Jew? An atheist? Morality is a subjective term as such there is nothing to base our morality on that is solid, unwavering. Justice on the other hand is about what the law demands...the law can very but justice cannot. You and I might view the beatitudes for example as moral but that would be based on our assumptions of what is moral someone else might deem them immoral. That being said, one cannot look at a law, carry out the law and say that it is unjust. If the law if upheld it is just. One can as we see in the definition believe the law to be unjust as is often argued with the OT law.

 

[razzelflabben]

If that's the case, then we have to wonder what Jesus "means" when He uses terms inferring a lack of morality or to actions that reflect "immorality," (as in sexual immorality, and so on and so forth).

present some for us to look into so that we understand the dilemma not to get us off track.

However, as far as GMS's comments in the OP go, I think he is implying that whether there is or is not some clearly identifiable moral code and/or ethics in the Bible, if the Bible is fiction (false), then trying to point out inconsistencies of action with any apparent moral system within the Bible is a waste of time for atheists, or should be at any rate. [Interestingly enough, I'm getting whiffs in GMS's comments of something that smells like Richard Carrier's polyamory theory ... ]

I agree but if there is nothing in the bible that speaks of morality only justice, then the point is an even bigger problem for the atheist who tries to argue something to be immoral for a christian to do. IOW's there are absolutes in scripture that is why it talks about justice but the atheist and honestly very few christians take the time to understand what the law requires to know if something is just or not. This complicates the GMS's pov even more than he seems to understand.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

webster's defines morality this way....
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

• admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality

Now, who determines what is moral? What is moral for say a terrorist? A Jew? An atheist? Morality is a subjective term as such there is nothing to base our morality on that is solid, unwavering. Justice on the other hand is about what the law demands...the law can very but justice cannot. You and I might view the beatitudes for example as moral but that would be based on our assumptions of what is moral someone else might deem them immoral. That being said, one cannot look at a law, carry out the law and say that it is unjust. If the law if upheld it is just. One can as we see in the definition believe the law to be unjust as is often argued with the OT law.

...actually, within the bounds of Ethical philosophy, there are varying versions of what constitutes "Justice." It's not universal. (However, this isn't where I want to further take this thread... but if you wish to carry on with this particular line of discussion with others here, that's fine by me.)

 

[Tom 1]

webster's defines morality this way....
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

• admitted the expediency of the law but questioned its morality

Now, who determines what is moral? What is moral for say a terrorist? A Jew? An atheist? Morality is a subjective term as such there is nothing to base our morality on that is solid, unwavering. Justice on the other hand is about what the law demands...the law can very but justice cannot. You and I might view the beatitudes for example as moral but that would be based on our assumptions of what is moral someone else might deem them immoral. That being said, one cannot look at a law, carry out the law and say that it is unjust. If the law if upheld it is just. One can as we see in the definition believe the law to be unjust as is often argued with the OT law.

I think it would be hard to argue that Jesus was not putting forward principles of moral behaviour in the beatitudes (and in much of the rest of Matthew 5). Whether or not they address every possible eventuality is another question, but they are still principles for moral behaviour.

 

[razzelflabben]

...actually, within the bounds of Ethical philosophy, there are varying versions of what constitutes "Justice." It's not universal. (However, this isn't where I want to further take this thread... but if you wish carry on with this discussion here with others, that's fine by me.)

It's fine to stop it here but let me clarify something before we end the discussion of morality and justice. From the standpoint of justice in scripture it is about God's law which opens up another can of worms about the Jewish (OT) law verses the 10 commandments vs. the NT law of Love...but the law is set we just have to know which law we are talking about which is one of the things that complicates the OP pov

 

[razzelflabben]

I think it would be hard to argue that Jesus was not putting forward principles of moral behaviour in the beatitudes (and in much of the rest of Matthew 5). Whether or not they address every possible eventuality is another question, but they are still principles for moral behaviour.

fair enough so whose morality? The terrorists morality? The Jewish morality? The Islamic morality? If you want to take that stand which is fine, we need to know whose morality we are talking about? The morality of the 20s or the morality of today? The morality of the liberals or the conservatives? etc. etc. etc. If you don't want to answer here in accordance with the OP's request you can PM your answer but for now I must be done for the evening.

 

[Tom 1]

fair enough so whose morality? The terrorists morality? The Jewish morality? The Islamic morality? If you want to take that stand which is fine, we need to know whose morality we are talking about? The morality of the 20s or the morality of today? The morality of the liberals or the conservatives? etc. etc. etc. If you don't want to answer here in accordance with the OP's request you can PM your answer but for now I must be done for the evening.

No worries.

The context given is these are the moral standards of the kingdom of Heaven, the moral standards by which citizens of the kingdom of heaven are to live. As such, they are applicable to all who choose to follow Christ, but are also put forward as representing ideals of human behaviour, and so in that sense are applicable to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

 

[keith99]

For the most part, I think I agree with your thoughts on this, Keith. But did you notice the point that he ended with? At the end, he essentially says that if Christianity is considered by atheists to be a 'complete fiction'--which I think GMS does--then it's basically superfluous to cite Christians for moral hypocrisy on an ontological level if most or none of the Bible, in his estimation, really equates to Reality or "Truth" with a capital T.

Good comments, Keith!

The story of 300 Spartans as usually told is grossly inaccurate. Yet what happened at Thermopylae shaped the course of Western History. It seems to me that radical Christians and radical Atheists are almost working together to force a false dichotomy, that Scripture is either 100% true or 100% false. I doubt either. No a state as fact neither is true.

An interesting aside. I first came to understand that those on opposite sides can in the end toward a common evil goal when reading Double Star by Heinlein. Fiction often expresses truths in a far clearer form than dry history.