Atheist ethics, atheist values

[Polycarp_fan]

Dr. Collins said:


I'm assuming you agree and you don't stick to literal interpretations of the Bible when compelling scientific evidence contradicts it then, right?

And where is that?

I mean, I'm just saying considering you alluded to him originally and then you quoted him.

Hugh Ross teaches a localized flood. And yet he's quite the fundamentalist.

Collins, he's a literalist on Christ Jesus.

The whole age of the earth and from nothing to mud to monkeys to man thing, I'd like to see his apolgetics on those issues. All I know is he is a scientist, and like me was once an atheist.

Not a bad starting place for the both of us.

You aren't still holding to 0 x 0 = the universe are you? Atheism is really the easy way out.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Is it too much to actually argue someones point? Is it really necessary to "call the teacher on them"?

I have 5300 posts and maybe used the button a half dozen times. And I'll bet it was never on an atheist. It has to do with someone saying I am advocating violence. I don't like that.

It's more fun playing with you guys on the school yard of contention rather than making you cry "no fair" or telling the principal on you.

 

[1TrueDisciple]

Is it too much to actually argue someones point? Is it really necessary to "call the teacher on them"?

When they're being deliberately rude and obnoxious, they deserve to be called on the carpet, not entertained as if they had a serious point.

 

[sandwiches]

And where is that?

So, well the age of the Earth for one and I take it you believe in evolutionary common descent of all living organisms on Earth, correct?

 

[LightHorseman]

"No true scientist could be a Bible-believing Christian," so the story goes, per guys like Dawknis.

Bible literalists seem to have difficulty grasping the idea that free thinkers don't swallow and follow a party line from some authority figure the way they blindly do.

Hence, Dawkin's opinion is not binding on the rest of us. Unlike literalists, just because we agree with some things someone says, doesn't mean we have to believe every word they ever uttered.

 

[Vale Tudo]

Christians (you are invited to answer only one of them or both):

1. Please tell me more about the values and ethics I have to hold in order to be a "true atheist", in your opinion. I just want to know them (and I won´t discuss them) - I mean I always appreciate it when people tell me what I think.

None. There is no moral criteria for being an atheist. The problem isn't making a label regarding what you morals should, but rather that your morals are inherently relativistic, and therefore have no method of defining an action in and of itself as being wrong. You have to define actions through various persons' eyes but cannot define the action itself as wrong because under your own view those eyes will see it in different ways.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm fairly sure it's against the rules to talk about being reported, especially about being reported oneself.

Play nice kids!

[/patronisation]

 

[Polycarp_fan]

So, well the age of the Earth for one

Where is the age of the earth written about in the Bible? I'm flipping through it now and would like that pointed out if you have the reference.

. . . and I take it you believe in evolutionary common descent of all living organisms on Earth, correct?

That seems the Biblical reality of it. God didn't transplant any living organisms from another planet did He? Ya got that scripture?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Anyone seen sandwhiches? A congenial atheist has got to be worthwhile to interact with.

So, well the age of the Earth for one

Where is the age of the earth written about in the Bible? I'm flipping through it now and would like that pointed out if you have the reference.

. . . and I take it you believe in evolutionary common descent of all living organisms on Earth, correct?

That seems the Biblical reality of it. God didn't transplant any living organisms from another planet did He? Ya got that scripture? Or evidence from the universe? Meteors or Alien spacecraft? I've heard that.

 

[rosenherman]

Play nice kids!

[/patronisation]

Huh - [deep in the throat, to demonstrate that I don't think that's gonna happen]

AND - YOU WISH!!!

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Huh - [deep in the throat, to demonstrate that I don't think that's gonna happen]

AND - YOU WISH!!!

Hey now, sandwhiches (a typical, common atheist) and I, (an atypical and non-standard Bible affirming Christian) are getting along quite well.

Ya just have to allow for a bit of frivolous shoving and sniping. But in the end, opinions and positions are not going to get all that nasty if presented as such.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Where's sandwhiches?

 

[Mobiosity]

Where's sandwhiches?

It's lunch time, got eaten.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

It's lunch time, got eaten.

If he ever comes back, tell him it's better in the other Atheist thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7344273/

This one is doomed to be a bash fest.

 

[rosenherman]

No, this is the side where the grass is always greener.

 

[redwards]

None. There is no moral criteria for being an atheist. The problem isn't making a label regarding what you morals should, but rather that your morals are inherently relativistic, and therefore have no method of defining an action in and of itself as being wrong. You have to define actions through various persons' eyes but cannot define the action itself as wrong because under your own view those eyes will see it in different ways.

I would disagree with this characterization on two counts:

First, it isn't the case that someone with no belief in a god need adopt a morally relativistic standpoint. One could hold fast to a given philosophy as a final arbiter of right and wrong - just not a deity. One could even cite a supernatural origin for morality - just not a deity.

Second, I don't see that a theist necessarily has a method of defining an action as absolutely right or wrong. There may be numerous declarations of right and wrong granted by any given scripture, but scriptures are almost universally interpreted in different ways by faith adherents utilizing the same texts. If two adherents point to the same text and come to different conclusions about the moral implications of it, or observe the same situation and come to two different conclusions based on different portions of a shared text, where does their morality come from? If you say it comes from a clear interpretation of the text, then how is it that they can disagree?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I would disagree with this characterization on two counts:

First, it isn't the case that someone with no belief in a god need adopt a morally relativistic standpoint. One could hold fast to a given philosophy as a final arbiter of right and wrong - just not a deity. One could even cite a supernatural origin for morality - just not a deity.

Second, I don't see that a theist necessarily has a method of defining an action as absolutely right or wrong. There may be numerous declarations of right and wrong granted by any given scripture, but scriptures are almost universally interpreted in different ways by faith adherents utilizing the same texts. If two adherents point to the same text and come to different conclusions about the moral implications of it, or observe the same situation and come to two different conclusions based on different portions of a shared text, where does their morality come from? If you say it comes from a clear interpretation of the text, then how is it that they can disagree?

Yet there is truth.

Five people see an accident at Fifth and Main, and you have four and a half different accounts of what happened.

And then you test the scene, go to the video, and discover that witness number two was right and the others were wrong.

His evidence pointed in the right direction.

 

[redwards]

Yet there is truth.

Five people see an accident at Fifth and Main, and you have four and a half different accounts of what happened.

And then you test the scene, go to the video, and discover that witness number two was right and the others were wrong.

His evidence pointed in the right direction.

And the videocamera is the arbiter of what is correct and incorrect, because it resolves the matter. Absent the videocamera, you still have 4 and a half opinions.

We have no videocamera of morality. I'm sure you'll happily postulate some ultimate judgment, but that does not help us establish that those who base their morality in texts do genuinely have an absolute source of making moral determinations. They're all just watching the accident.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

And the videocamera is the arbiter of what is correct and incorrect, because it resolves the matter. Absent the videocamera, you still have 4 and a half opinions.

Without it there is still absolute truth of what happened.

We have no videocamera of morality. I'm sure you'll happily postulate some ultimate judgment, but that does not help us establish that those who base their morality in texts do genuinely have an absolute source of making moral determinations. They're all just watching the accident.

Fair enough, but we have the evidence of nature that the weak should be weeded out, women treated as only females of the species for what females are for, and we have justice by tooth and claw, cunning and instinct.

There are no accidents in nature. Just outcomes.

A gazelle is jogging with some buddies, stumbles and sprains his ankle. He is now lunch.