Thank you for participating in this discussion. I think I'm beginning to understand a few things. But may I expound in order to confirm my understanding.
If you could
please use the quote better/properly/optimally, it would
really help. I have to dig through these paragraphs looking for who said what...
Let me explain why I ask you about an atheist's moral law then maybe you will understand why I'm asking . As a Christian my moral laws come from God's word. God's word defines a point of reference as to moral law. God deals in absolutes. Where there is no moral law there is no point of reference. I have been asking as to your point of reference.
Again, there is no "absolute atheist moral law(s)" or "absolute atheist point of reference". If I
had to speak for others, I would say mankind (empathy, Golden Rule, etc.) is its point of reference.
So as far as you understand atheism there really isn't any "built in set of moral laws"? Then its every man for himself?
Moral laws are made up by the society, so it's pretty much every man for himself.
Then that's moral relativism. Aristotle, who was politicized by Alexander the great came precisely close to the truth of value and virtue but in that society, because they did not have God, man became "God" Man became deified, cities became glorified,Man became the the measure of all things. And we all know how that turned out. We see this happening in our own country.
Saying "we all know how that turned out", doesn't make anything more right nor wrong; it's not the empirical evidence you've been looking for, to nail the coffin on a ("bad") ideology. I'm sure you'd agree with that if I picked something from Christianity and said that
If you agree that there is evil? then how do we measure evil? We need a moral law to differentiate between evil and good and if you assume a moral law you must assume there is a moral law giver.
I would agree that there is "evil", in the sense that it's a word that we use for things we strongly dislike/hate and/or disagree with. To speak of Souls and Magic and Truth gives the word "evil" too much credit.
If the entire universe was just populated by rocks, there would be no "good" or "evil".
"Good" and "evil" come into existence when people start interacting with each other, so people are their own moral law givers. It always puzzles me when Christians seem to find this as scary and crazy, as if people would go running around raping and murdering others if there was no supernatural authoritarian figure.
(It should be noted that the morality of the Christian god rather changes, as he sees fit, so "moral laws" are rather fluid.)
Dawkins once said "Religious thinking is an act of stupidity. Your not only stupid, your evil." Well, how does he know what evil is? What measure does he use to differentiate between evil and good?
Possibly by the same standards I listed above. You'd honestly have to ask him.
You are right about the golden rule being stated by many. But look at how it is stated by those other than Jesus. It is always stated in the negative. And all that is required is that you don't harm other people. Jesus took the golden rule and expounded on it requiring that you show kindness and goodness to others. He knew that the golden rule was stated by many before him thats why he said in Matthew 5:17 " Do not think I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." The golden rule was stated in Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31 and in Matthew 22:37-40 he incorporated the 1st and 2nd commandment with the golden rule and then said, "On these commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The golden rule was also stated in Leviticus 19:18, in the torah but also in a negative form. In philosophy a general rule called the "principle of Charity" this reflects the golden rule.
Ok...
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." - Confucius
"Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" - Jesus of Nazareth
He didn't "expound" on it, he just removed the words that specifically expressed prohibition, making the sentence a positive form, but still saying the exact same thing.
Rewriting or re-configuring sentences (the essence and almost verbatim) isn't impressive or anything akin to amazing.
Jesus was the only one who took that principle and tied it in with the other commandments and stood it on its head to fulfill the law of the prophets.
When you use colorful phrases ("stood it on its head" and "the law of the prophets"), it really doesn't carry any weight with me. They are merely adjectives, metaphors and phrases used to spice up a sentence.
And, at the time, the British military personnel were the first and only ones who took existing pants and tied them with a form of a patch pocket with accordion folds for increased capacity; cargo pants.
It's great that they did that, but I'm not going to build a religion around them for taking an existing good idea and adding to it.
Now if I may ask this. If God manifested himself into a physical form and appeared before you, would you then believe in him?
Doubt it. My first thought (if I was coherent) would be that I am delusional, possibly suffering from head/internal trauma, lack of sleep, lack of nutrients or being manipulated.
When you currently see magic tricks, is your first thought,
"They must have magical powers"?
Probably not.
Another issue would be,
if (that's a huge if) I were to accept what is occuring in front of me, as reality, now what? Which god is it? Is it a version of some religion's "devil", tricking me?
And could you explain to me what moral teachings of the bible are atrocious?
Of the top of my head:
- Lot offering his daughters to be gang raped.
- Slavery is regulated, not abolished or prohibited.
- "Thou shalt not kill", but killing by the tens of thousands.
- Testing someone testing to see if they would actually kill their own son, as a test of their loyalty. (Whether you allow them to follow through or not is irrelevant.)
I'm sure they can all be "explained", but I think any "explanations" offered are merely
justifications that
have to be made, in order to perpetuate and condone the bible as "Good" and "True".
PS in using your quotes, for some reason, I'm not yet allowed to send links so I have been forced to delete your link "borrowed it" from my reply. Just wanted you to know so you do not think I have done this out of disrespect.
No worries.
You should read the "Amazon Exclusive: Q & A Sam Harris" around the middle part of the page. He speaks more eloquently about morality, as a neuroscientist/neurobiologist, than I can or could.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine/dp/1439171211
