Atheists are Dangerous!

[Ken-1122]

Priests are a catholic church practice. Holds services meetings or holds management positions is more a political issue than being sin. These are ceremonial and traditional differences some denominations have that have nothing to do with sin. But all denominations will have the same beliefs such as sexual immorality (sex before marriage, adultery, promiscuity) are sins whether it is homosexual or heterosexual and abortion is a sin. These are a couple of differences in the morals for all followers of Christ and non believers.

I was asking about morally right vs wrong, not sin. So it is more about church practices? What about the Gay thing; is that more of a church practice or is it morally wrong (not sin)

It is not outdated. It is still the same morality. It is just being fulfilled in Christ.

What does it mean to "fulfill" a law?

I can understand that from an atheists point of view Christianity is just one of many different beliefs. When a Christian talks about their version of belief and morality it would appear that this is just one view in among many similar to how a Christian may say atheists have subjective morality. I think there is good reason for this. Fundamentally we all have Gods laws of right and wrong written in our hearts. When we reject God we will still be searching for what is right and wrong including creating other religious beliefs

Why reject one religious belief only to create another?

but also be open to making morality relative because we have not got a clear anchor for our morals.

But as pointed out, we DO have a clear anchor for our morals; they just don’t include your God!

​

Of all the religions Christianity is the only one where Jesus says he is the only way to God and there is no other.

Is that supposed to make it better than the others?

 

[Albion]

I think we are kinda talking past each other here. You said Christians agree the standard of morality is based on the teaching of Jesus and that Atheists don’t agree on what a standard should be. While I don’t disagree with that statement, I do find it to be a false comparison; comparing apples to oranges (as they say). Just as there are many belief systems that fall under the category of Theism (Christianity being one of them), there are belief systems that fall under the category of Atheism.

To me, though, your point here only serves to verify what I was saying. Theists, by definition and with few exceptions, say that God's will determines human moral standards. But when we turn to Atheism, there is no inherent standard.

It isn't God, of course, so that leaves all sorts of alternative sources of guidance available and no particular leadership (such as a church body) to point Atheists in any particular direction, except that it wouldn't be towards a god.

So if you are going to compare something to atheism, you should compare it to theism, not Christianity. If you are going to compare something to Christianity, you should compare Buddhism, Humanism, or some other atheist type belief system.

Okay, but most religions have a belief in a higher power and it is the source of their beliefs. If it's not the God of the New Testament, it is Allah or Krishna or Odin or someone. Buddhism would of course be an exception because of its own particular thinking.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would anyone assume that the Creator's "morality" and the creatures' morality are identical?

I dont assume that.

But it seems to me that Christians do, when they claim "God is good". If "good" is just a floating term, meaning something different in every context, then its essentially meaningless. I think Christians have an intelligible morality in mind when they claim "God is good".

 

[Albion]

I dont assume that.

If you say so. Reading again what was posted, however, it looked as though you do.

 

[durangodawood]

If you say so. Reading again what was posted, however, it looked as though you do.

Sometimes when I explain an argument it looks like I agree with that argument or parts of it. For sure I could be clearer about what I actually believe.

 

[stevevw]

I was asking about morally right vs wrong, not sin. So it is more about church practices? What about the Gay thing; is that more of a church practice or is it morally wrong (not sin)

Sorry I get sin and moral mixed up. But in many ways sin is related to morality. I think being gay is not morally wrong and most churches take this view. It is the practicing of homosexuality where most churches say this is immoral. There are a couple of denominations mostly reformist ones who allow practicing gays. Its one of those contentious issues that can be politicized. But on other issues like premarital sex, adultery and abortion most churches are steadfast in sating these are morally wrong which is in conflict with mainstream societies morals and laws.

What does it mean to "fulfill" a law?

I'm not up on theology so I probably would not do justice with the explanation. I don't think a few words could explain properly. But basically Jesus fulfills the covenant between the great prophets and the people about a Savior coming and all the prophesies in the old testament (Matthew 1:22; 13:35; John 19:36; Luke 24:44) and creates a new one.

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law in at least two ways: as a teacher and as a doer. He taught people to obey the Law (Matthew 22:35–40; Mark 1:44), and He obeyed the Law Himself (John 8:46; 1 Peter 2:22). In living a perfect life, Jesus fulfilled the moral laws; in His sacrificial death, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws. Christ came not to destroy the old religious system but to build upon it; He came to finish the Old Covenant and establish the New and complete the requirement that the old testament law stipulated.
What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? | GotQuestions.org

The tabernacle and temple and the ritual sacrifices of animals to God for sins were symbols of the real thing which was coming in Christ. Christ is the temple and final sacrifice that forgave all sins which provides salvation and does away with the need for ceremonies and rituals that needed to be repeated to be worthy before God. That sin was brought in by Adam and everyone was then condemned and then it was paid for by Christs sacrifice on the cross. Paul says
“We were held in custody under the Law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the Law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian” (Galatians 3:23–25,

Christ also fulfilled the law by teaching the true meaning and purpose of what the Law was about.. This can be best seen in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus gave in Matthew chapters 5-7. There is more to it than that but I suggest you do some goggle searches.
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 5-7 - New International Version

Why reject one religious belief only to create another?

No the reason other beliefs are created is because people reject belief in God through Jesus. This is the consequence. If we say that there is only one diet that works and overweight people have this need to diet. If they reject the one that works they will still look for alternatives and try to come up with something they think is better or different that they think will fulfill their needs.

But as pointed out, we DO have a clear anchor for our morals; they just don’t include your God!

But it is not really a clear anchor. It is more like a ship lost at sea being tossed by the waves. By making morals subjective we open the door for morals to be changed all the time. To be rationalized, justified and compromised. In that sense there is no anchor and a persons moral compass is open to be swayed to whatever makes the best case for change which is not always about what is morally good. Humans can easily delude themselves into thinking that something is OK or be influenced by outside forces to change their views. But if we have an objective set of morals we can stand on these knowing that they are clear about what is right and wrong and don't change. That's the anchor.

​

Is that supposed to make it better than the others?

This in itself does not tell you whether Christianity is better. But one could argue that there cannot be many truth and that there can only be one truth so finding the one truth (the one true God) will be the best way to believe if there is a God. I only say that Jesus says he is the only way to God because this is a claim and challenge. He is either lying or telling the truth just like when he claims to be the son of God.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Christians only have one moral standard to follow and that is Gods through Christs example. The fact that non theists debate morals shows that the moral standard is open to interpretation and manipulation. Whoever makes the best argument wins not because it is morally right but because they can argue better or can influence others. That's why politicians always win the moral argument and tell us what is good for us. But then they are only puppets to the rich and powerful individuals and corporations.

So what about the many more people who believe the bible and God and do good works. Why blame the bible if it also produces good works. Why only look at the so called bad you think the bible produces. Isn't it the people and not the bible or God that are doing wrong.

But who determines what well-being is. Your view of well-being may be different to someone else’s. The bible is the only objective moral standard for Christians. Their personal view of the bible is irrelevant. The bible is clear about what is right through Christs teachings. That is why he came to us so that we had an example of God to follow.

But I should not have to show God exists to show that your reasoning for what is good and bad cannot guarantee the best outcome for a person’s well-being. That in fact human reasoning of what is best often ends up making things worse. Look at the wars, poverty and environment for example. We are continually destroying the planet and thousands of species are dying despite us knowing it is not good by reasoning that it is not so bad and we have to so we can have energy to support our comforts. We continually allow people to starve and die of hunger by reasoning that it is not our problem. Our reasoning is not too trustworthy. Humans are fallible and have a poor track record of doing the right thing.

I don't mind discussing the bible verses you mentioned but in a separate post on their own as it is a separate area and would confuse things within this post which is already getting long. My point was what is the use of doing this when we cannot decide on what is objectively moral.

And I tried to show that this is not a very good justification as it has not grounds. People who believe in the bible also produce good. So perhaps it is not the bible but people that need to be changed.

I only accept the parts of the bible that can be demonstrated to be true.

Which parts are those.

That’s not the point. I am not the one making claims. You stated that Gods morals are bad. I am just asking what standard you are using to determine Gods morals are bad. You say good and bad is determined by what is best for well-being, but you cannot give an objective measure of what is best for well-being.

As I have already pointed out reasoning and debate do not determine what is objectively good or bad. They just open the door for many views about what is good and bad. Like I mentioned earlier people can reason a lie into the truth. Look at the Iraqi war. Whoever can reason the loudest and best is right and morals have little to do with it.

Yes you said it was what is best for well-being. But this creates another problem as we don't know what is objectively best for well-being. What you consider best is not ultimately what is best as others will have a different view. Some may say it is OK to Kill in certain situations others will disagree. Who is objectively right.

I should not have to demonstrate Gods moral standard as I am not making you or anyone else conform to this. Nor am I saying that you cannot use your own moral views. But you are making a claim that Gods moral standards are wrong and therefore would need to show how you can determine this. You say it is what is best for well-being but then you have to show how you objectively determine well-being as well and not use your own view or reasoned views as these can also be compromised and wrong.

I will leave things here and get to the last couple of posts was they have to do with bible verses so I can address these better without confusing things.
Regards Steve.

So, I have been thinking about this conversation. In the end I can show you what my morals are and how I came to them. I can also change them as I am convinced by new information that I need to change them. You are claiming a moral standard from a god is what we should follow. You need to demonstrate that your god exists. Morals cannot come from something that does not exist. You may not like the fact that morals are what we reason them to be if no god exists, but does that does not mean a god exists.

 

[stevevw]

So, I have been thinking about this conversation. In the end I can show you what my morals are and how I came to them. I can also change them as I am convinced by new information that I need to change them. You are claiming a moral standard from a god is what we should follow. You need to demonstrate that your god exists. Morals cannot come from something that does not exist. You may not like the fact that morals are what we reason them to be if no god exists, but does that does not mean a god exists.

I cannot show that God exists but that does not mean he doesn't exist. I can show that most western societies have used Christianity as the basis for their morals for many years. The morals that you have are more than likely based on Christian values if you typically follow what mainstream society follows. Our court system uses the bible as a means to determine truth when giving evidence and the US still has in God we trust on their bank notes.

The point is with subjective morality is that they can change because they are not fixed by any objective standard. The problem in saying that you can change them by being convinced by new information is that there is no measure to tell if the new information is really morally good. You are taking a gamble that it is the best moral standard. As mentioned earlier humans have a poor history of getting things right morally with constant wars, famines, environmental destruction, crime, drugs, youth problems etc. Our politicians are constantly letting us down and the system is open to corruption.

What you assess is morally good may be morally bad when everything is taken into consideration. We use to think a lot of things were morally good like smacking children, locking up the mentally ill, taking indigenous children from their parents and culture etc. We are doing things now that we think are morally good that will turn out bad because that is the nature of humans. Humans are fallible and cannot know everything in the present and future to guarantee the right decision is made about what is morally good.

Like or dislike does not come into how we determine morals. But saying human reasoning is all we have and this is sufficient for determining morals is a cop out as it does not solve the problem that human reasoning has a bad track record for morals. In relation to you saying I cannot guarantee there is no God for objective morals I would use Pascal's wager. If there is no God but still use the morals that are attributed to Him I have lost nothing and also live by a good set of morals. But if God is true then I have a lot to lose because not living by his morals will be second best and lead to more problems.

There is research that shows that following Christianity has better results in life for things like physical and mental health, happiness, child upbringing and finances. In a modern western culture that places great importance on individualism which promotes the individual above others Christians are more likely to sacrifice for the good of others and do charity work. It stands to reason that people who follow Christianity by nature will practice the tenets and philosophy because it is something they are taught and hear just about everyday. It is in their DNA to help others and sacrifice their lives to do good. They are bound to keep Gods commandments and be good to make it into heaven.

The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Our comparative analysis of religion and marriage in the United States reveals remarkable similarities in the benefits that are associated with these two social institutions, and also in the pathways through which they operate. Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614329/

Without God there can be no good
In a society where the absolute code has been jettisoned, and we have all become adept at making excuses for shirking such duties, selflessness of this kind will become less common, nursing less dedicated, wives more inclined to leave their babbling husbands in care homes to be looked after impersonally by paid strangers and perhaps encouraged gently down the slope of death, soldiers readier to save themselves.

while it is perfectly possible for convinced atheists to do absolutely good deeds at great cost to themselves, not least because God so very much wishes them to, it is rather more likely that believing Christians will do such things. And when it comes to millions of small and tedious good deeds which are needed for a society to function with charity, honesty and kindness, a shortage of believing Christians will lead to that society's decay.
Without God there can be no good

 

[keith99]

This thread has drifted off topic so I have requested it be closed. Unlike the way some Christians here act I have the guts to say why I made the request have not asked anyone to be sanctioned. Quite unlike what happens when I make a post that some Christians do not like.

BTW it is Christians who are called to turn the other cheek, not us Godless dangerous atheists.

 

[Hammster]

ADVISOR HAT ON


Closed at OP request.


ADVISOR HAT OFF