On Morality

[ToHoldNothing]

On the first note, I fail to see how virginity makes marriages more successful, when non virgins can be married and faithful to their partners. Not to mention it just seems sexist to say that women have to be virgins whereas it says nothing about men having sex with all the women they want as long as they're married to them, which is where polygamy gets a lot of its justification I would imagine, not that I genuinely have a problem with it, unless it hinges on something like this. If you think female non virgins getting married is what makes marriages fall apart, then maybe you could think about the problems of male non virgins getting married and then maybe make a study on who was committing infidelities first more often, the male or the female?

If they really wanted to advance reproduction, they'd disavow celibacy, even in small numbers. But the same technically applys to homosexuals, they are active sexually, but they are in virtually the same amount of numbers in some sense I imagine with celibate monks and nuns, so the harm hardly exists with either of them. What people would have a problem with are celibate or nonsexual laity.

 

[fschmidt]

On the first note, I fail to see how virginity makes marriages more successful, when non virgins can be married and faithful to their partners. Not to mention it just seems sexist to say that women have to be virgins whereas it says nothing about men having sex with all the women they want as long as they're married to them, which is where polygamy gets a lot of its justification I would imagine, not that I genuinely have a problem with it, unless it hinges on something like this. If you think female non virgins getting married is what makes marriages fall apart, then maybe you could think about the problems of male non virgins getting married and then maybe make a study on who was committing infidelities first more often, the male or the female?

Everything you have written here is standard modern liberal belief, and I disagree with all of it. I am sexist in the sense that I believe that men and women are different. I could give you the biochemical, sociological, or historical reason why women should ideally be virgins at marriage, and I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for such a discussion.

If they really wanted to advance reproduction, they'd disavow celibacy, even in small numbers. But the same technically applys to homosexuals, they are active sexually, but they are in virtually the same amount of numbers in some sense I imagine with celibate monks and nuns, so the harm hardly exists with either of them. What people would have a problem with are celibate or nonsexual laity.

I suspect the number of celibates is much smaller than the number homosexuals. Also, celibacy does serve some purpose in allowing for greater dedication to the promotion of the religion without the distraction of a family, while homosexuality has no obvious benefit.


I want to add a personal note here. A lot of what I have written is abstract. But like most people, my motives are personal. I am fairly settled and have a family, and I have been lucky enough to have the free time recently to reflect on things. Of the three most intelligent men that I have known, one went crazy, one killed himself, and one is in prison for life. So I asked myself how did this happen? What kind of a culture destroys the best men? And the answer is modern liberal culture. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of this forum, but I want to be honest about my motives. Philosophy is often just a mind game, the real motives are always personal. I don't want my children to be part of this culture.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Everything you have written here is standard modern liberal belief, and I disagree with all of it. I am sexist in the sense that I believe that men and women are different. I could give you the biochemical, sociological, or historical reason why women should ideally be virgins at marriage, and I don't think this forum is the appropriate place for such a discussion.

You are a complementarian by your own admittance, which is only a step up from blatant sexist discrimination. Women could ideally be virgins at marriage, but so could men. Ideally doesn't suggest anything more than your normative bias reflecting a fear of women which is why you'd insist that they take particular roles over others. No women priests, perhaps?

I suspect the number of celibates is much smaller than the number homosexuals. Also, celibacy does serve some purpose in allowing for greater dedication to the promotion of the religion without the distraction of a family, while homosexuality has no obvious benefit.

Homosexuality has many similar benefits that a heterosexual relationship would offer. Even Aquinas' understanding of the functions of sex allows homosexuals to cover at least one of them, if not more if you extend the idea of sex as more than just a matter of either procreation or unity. You can't seriously say that people who genuinely love each other that happen to be the same sex love each other less or don't truly love each other just because they only partially appropriate the function of sex in the unitive purpose? The intimacy and closeness sex gives to a couple is honestly of more primary importance as far as a relationship goes to maintain fidelity and romance than children, which are an incidental, if not also natural occurrence and desire of a couple, homosexual or heterosexual. The fact that homosexuals choose to adopt is hardly a bad thing, ESPECIALLY if you're pro life. More adoptions by homosexuals would mean less abortions, correct?

I want to add a personal note here. A lot of what I have written is abstract. But like most people, my motives are personal. I am fairly settled and have a family, and I have been lucky enough to have the free time recently to reflect on things. Of the three most intelligent men that I have known, one went crazy, one killed himself, and one is in prison for life. So I asked myself how did this happen? What kind of a culture destroys the best men? And the answer is modern liberal culture. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of this forum, but I want to be honest about my motives. Philosophy is often just a mind game, the real motives are always personal. I don't want my children to be part of this culture.

Intelligence doesn't always suggest one is content or even relatively so in terms of finding purpose in their life. I can sympathize with you in that sense in that there needs to be, as the Greeks put it, a combination of general knowledge and intelligene, sophia, and application and practical understanding of that knowledge and use of intelligence, phronesis.

Liberal as a term is hardly something that was always used in the sense you allegedly find it today. The older use was in line with many Christian ideas of the time and sstill persist today, that is, individual rights, freedom of religious practice, small government, free market economics, all things that a self professing Christian would have no problem with and in fact from my observation actually support more often than their opposites or inverses. So any problems you ahve with liberals are actually problems with statists or otherwise people who want to put more power in the state than in an individual. It's not as if conservativism is actually opposed to the idea of an individual having the right to determine their beliefs about many things, why do they suddenly stop short at the choice to have an abortion because of some absurd notion of ensoulment that not everyone shares? If you want people to genuinely be free, extend the freedom as far as people's self determination, not simply to the beliefs they may happen to hold that contradict what you think is a natural law.

 

[Key]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist.

The diffrence is in absloute.

A Christian morality is stoic, one might even say static, an absloute, independent of time, location, or any other factors.

An atheist morality is purely the product of their contemporary culture as they have no actual motive, nor should they have any inclination, to be otherwise.

My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person.

A truly intelligent atheist would show morality matching the morality of the controlling body of the culture, and then embrace the morality of the culture or social dynamic they wish to belong to.

As for it being harder, I doubt it, it is still a simple matter of fear of reprimand by the culture they wish to be a part of.

I would say it is harder for a Christian to be a Christian, as they need to cling to their morality, no matter what the contemporary culture pressures them to accept or not accept.

This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would. Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose. However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

Huh? Why should an Atheist study anything? You have overthink the snot out of this, and lost the entire scope of what an Atheist is.

A atheist just means they don't believe in god or religion. It does not make them some philanthropist or naturalist or something. They have no motive to look beyond their own nose or neighborhood for anything... and why should they? It will profit them nothing to do so, so it pointless.

What works in their town as far as morality goes, is, what works, if they want to be accepted in that town.

I suppose there are always a few rebels, or non-conformist, but that has nothing to do with if they are atheist or not.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die. So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have. Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis. Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself. Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

Again, a truly intelligent atheist would learn how to survive within the morality of their culture and make the best of it for their own ends and hope things don't go south till they are out of the game.

God Bless.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The diffrence is in absloute.

A Christian morality is stoic, one might even say static, an absloute, independent of time, location, or any other factors.

An atheist morality is purely the product of their contemporary culture as they have no actual motive, nor should they have any inclination, to be otherwise.

You typed this in an unexpectedly rushed way for someone who appeared to initially be somewhat thoughtful on this issue.

I wonder how you'd justify the notion of Christian ethics being stoic when you could easily isolate yourself among Christians when you even associate the term stoic in any sense with Christianity, esp. considering the Greek philosophical school of Stoicism, advocating ideas that honestly clash strongly with Christian doctrine as far as I understand it, especially the notion of loving God's creation, albeit very much in a secondary sense to loving God, whereas the Stoic is only one step away from being a nihilist, instead just advocating insensibility of sorts to either bliss or sorrow.

A truly intelligent atheist would show morality matching the morality of the controlling body of the culture, and then embrace the morality of the culture or social dynamic they wish to belong to.

Considering your atheism may very well have just been practical or rebellious and not anything significantly thought through, I seriously doubt you're in any position to speak about what a truly intelligent atheist would be. Your suggestion that atheists are all moral relativists is laughable and sophomoric at best. While there are self professed atheists that are moral relativists, I can safely tell you that I am not, and not just for rebellion's sake against some supposed atheist dogma, which honestly doesn't exist. You seem to consistently advocate this notion without supporting the argument beyond the fallacy of begging the question and affirming the conseqeuent it would appear. I don't embrace a morality for conformity's sake, I embrace it for practicality and the function it serves in everyday life, regardless of my state in society.

As for it being harder, I doubt it, it is still a simple matter of fear of reprimand by the culture they wish to be a part of.

This would exist for any person who believes in some form of objective morals in a culture that allegedly believes moreso in moral relativism, which I don't find to be conclusively the case. Moral pluralism, perhaps, but not absolute relativism.

I would say it is harder for a Christian to be a Christian, as they need to cling to their morality, no matter what the contemporary culture pressures them to accept or not accept.

Clinging to one's morality should be distinguished from holding fast in a figurative sense to one's convictions. Your morality is not an end in itself in the Christian tradition, it's a means to an end, purely incidental works that reflect a faith that is supposedly the only thing that saves you, albeit even that involves God's grace and not one's will alone, but that's another story.

This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

I don't believe you elaborate those in your posts after this at all.

Huh? Why should an Atheist study anything? You have overthink the snot out of this, and lost the entire scope of what an Atheist is.

A atheist just means they don't believe in god or religion. It does not make them some philanthropist or naturalist or something. They have no motive to look beyond their own nose or neighborhood for anything... and why should they? It will profit them nothing to do so, so it pointless.

You are honestly about the only person who capitalizes the term Atheist, as if there's a church or even formalized beliefs, which you have yet to susbtantiate that claim anyway.

I agree with the first statement and even with the logic that it doesn't make them automatically a philanthropist or naturalist. But I fail to see your specious connection/conflation of atheism with egotistic nihilism, because it doesn't follow that just because you don'tbelieve in God that you lack a religious impulse. Irreligious people don't believe in religion, atheists don't believe in God, the two are not mutually identical with each other, you can be irreligious and Christian in a particular understanding of the word I keep hearing thrown around.

What works in their town as far as morality goes, is, what works, if they want to be accepted in that town.


I suppose there are always a few rebels, or non-conformist, but that has nothing to do with if they are atheist or not.

Again, you assume a mistaken idea that atheists are somehow just as fearful to conform in all circumstances as you. The sheer courage that tends to be involved to self identify as an atheist today should be enough to indicate at least some significant willingness to part with socially accepted traditions like being part of a church community/fellowship.

Your second point just seems to have little purpose, since I could just as easily accuse you of being a contrarian and just being counter cultural for the sake of being a rebel, which, like you claim for my atheism, I can claim has nothing to do with your theism.

Again, a truly intelligent atheist would learn how to survive within the morality of their culture and make the best of it for their own ends and hope things don't go south till they are out of the game.

The morality of any culture I step into, assuming I travel a lot, doesn't have a completely binding effect on me, but at the same time,even a Christian is in some sense obligated to behave by social/cultural norms and mores, particularly in contexts where doing the opposite would get you arrested or worse, suffer capital punishment. It's not as if following a kingdom or culture's general rules suggests you have forsaken your internal morality and ethics as a Christian, for example. It simply means you're accepting the fact that in order to survive and spread your Gospel message, you have to conform at least in the apparent physical sense, to the laws of the land, whatever they may be.

Don't misunderstand me, though, it works similarly with an atheist. There are certain things that I know are essential to what is still a Christian culture in some sense, such as infrequent prayers before meals, and family reunions where I'm essentially forced into a chapel where my only solace would be to flip through the bible and find random stories to amuse myself with for some time, not interested in the singing or pastoral rubbish that I almost stop my ears to.

 

[fschmidt]

You are a complementarian by your own admittance, which is only a step up from blatant sexist discrimination. Women could ideally be virgins at marriage, but so could men. Ideally doesn't suggest anything more than your normative bias reflecting a fear of women which is why you'd insist that they take particular roles over others. No women priests, perhaps?

Yes, no women priests is preferable, at least as priests who deal with men. If you call me a sexist or a reactionary, I will take that as a complement based on my own values which include that men and women differ and that the present is morally inferior to the past.

Homosexuality has many similar benefits that a heterosexual relationship would offer. Even Aquinas' understanding of the functions of sex allows homosexuals to cover at least one of them, if not more if you extend the idea of sex as more than just a matter of either procreation or unity. You can't seriously say that people who genuinely love each other that happen to be the same sex love each other less or don't truly love each other just because they only partially appropriate the function of sex in the unitive purpose? The intimacy and closeness sex gives to a couple is honestly of more primary importance as far as a relationship goes to maintain fidelity and romance than children, which are an incidental, if not also natural occurrence and desire of a couple, homosexual or heterosexual. The fact that homosexuals choose to adopt is hardly a bad thing, ESPECIALLY if you're pro life. More adoptions by homosexuals would mean less abortions, correct?

Who are you debating with? I said I have nothing against homosexuals and in fact I voted for gay marriage (since I am pro-marriage, after all). My only point was that homosexuality doesn't contribute to the spread of the group.

Intelligence doesn't always suggest one is content or even relatively so in terms of finding purpose in their life. I can sympathize with you in that sense in that there needs to be, as the Greeks put it, a combination of general knowledge and intelligene, sophia, and application and practical understanding of that knowledge and use of intelligence, phronesis.

People are basically tribal. People need acceptance by their tribe. American society is anti-intellectual, quite literally anti-intelligence. The words "geek" and "nerd" reflect this. There are no such words, words mocking intelligence, in most other languages. The primary cause of anti-intelligence culture is female promiscuity, but the explanation of this is again beyond the scope of this forum.

Liberal as a term is hardly something that was always used in the sense you allegedly find it today. The older use was in line with many Christian ideas of the time and sstill persist today, that is, individual rights, freedom of religious practice, small government, free market economics, all things that a self professing Christian would have no problem with and in fact from my observation actually support more often than their opposites or inverses. So any problems you ahve with liberals are actually problems with statists or otherwise people who want to put more power in the state than in an individual. It's not as if conservativism is actually opposed to the idea of an individual having the right to determine their beliefs about many things, why do they suddenly stop short at the choice to have an abortion because of some absurd notion of ensoulment that not everyone shares? If you want people to genuinely be free, extend the freedom as far as people's self determination, not simply to the beliefs they may happen to hold that contradict what you think is a natural law.

Yes I am using "liberal" in the modern American sense. ("Liberal" still has its old meaning in some other countries.) I could use other words if you prefer like progressive, modern culture, leftist, etc. But I think you know what I mean. I am not a big fan of modern conservatives either. As for freedom, "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin" as a supreme court justice once wrote.

If you believe, as Christians do, in the soul, then it makes sense to oppose abortion. Since I don't believe in the soul, I don't oppose abortion. But your statement about abortion above reflects an unwillingness to consider the Christian point of view. Most laws are not supported by everyone, so that is no argument against laws against abortion.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Yes, no women priests is preferable, at least as priests who deal with men. If you call me a sexist or a reactionary, I will take that as a complement based on my own values which include that men and women differ and that the present is morally inferior to the past.

The problem persists with male priests that deal with women. If that's the problem, why doesn't celibacy among both male and female priests solve the problem of your objection that appears to hinge upon temptation of sorts? Wouldn't celibacy on both sides work to the advantage of advancing the priesthood's numbers with qualified people?

Who are you debating with? I said I have nothing against homosexuals and in fact I voted for gay marriage (since I am pro-marriage, after all). My only point was that homosexuality doesn't contribute to the spread of the group.

The spread of the group doesn't require that every member propagate itself. If the majority does, then your problem is moot. There are more heterosexuals and bisexuals than exclusive homosexuals, many of which who thought they were exclusively homosexual and then said they were exclusively heterosexual, but in reality may very well have just been bisexual to begin with. The functionality and usefulness of a person should not even begin to hinge upon whether they can procreate or not. That would make sterile men and barren women just as, if not more, useless than homosexuals who at least have the capacity just as much as a heterosexual couple to raise children and provide for them as a family.

People are basically tribal. People need acceptance by their tribe. American society is anti-intellectual, quite literally anti-intelligence. The words "geek" and "nerd" reflect this. There are no such words, words mocking intelligence, in most other languages. The primary cause of anti-intelligence culture is female promiscuity, but the explanation of this is again beyond the scope of this forum.

The words geek and nerd are not necessarily always negative. The appeal of nerds to even very attractive women is there, albeit one could counter that the appeal is purely fiscal in nature and not necessarily in their personality appeal.

Yes I am using "liberal" in the modern American sense. ("Liberal" still has its old meaning in some other countries.) I could use other words if you prefer like progressive, modern culture, leftist, etc. But I think you know what I mean. I am not a big fan of modern conservatives either. As for freedom, "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin" as a supreme court justice once wrote.

If there are negative freedoms, positive freedoms also exist in a similar degree. To overemphasize either is to go into either totalitarianism or anomie.

If you believe, as Christians do, in the soul, then it makes sense to oppose abortion. Since I don't believe in the soul, I don't oppose abortion. But your statement about abortion above reflects an unwillingness to consider the Christian point of view. Most laws are not supported by everyone, so that is no argument against laws against abortion.

Belief in the soul doesn't necessitate a Christian to oppose abortion, especially if they have a more modern or reasoned understanding of ensoulment, which I would imagine would be more reasonably associated with what was called the "quickening" (not the Highlander kind) as opposed to what was honestly back then a primitive notion that had little to no imagination as to the woman's role beyond being a carrier and not actually a contributor to the child's development in utero on a cellular level.

Laws don't have to be supported by everyone, but they ought to be enforced equally among everyone, judges, policeman, everyone. That's certainly an ideal I hold to, as much classless society as possible.

Laws criminalizing abortion would practically have the same effect as what happened in criminalizing alcohol. Except with abortion you'd lose people quicker I imagine or it would just become black market insanity.

 

[razeontherock]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist. My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person.

This would only be the case of there is such a thing as objective morality, which would point to our Creator, regardless of an atheist's professed lack of belief in same. But I would point out that the Holy Spirit makes other differences, and those might be greater.

First the religious perspective. If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking.

CORRECTION: the world as He made it, before sin ... continue

An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would.

Not really. You're forgetting to account for bias of world view. What we wind up with instead is checks and balances of a two-party system, w/ various perspectives having merit.

Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people,

Only if people's selfish benefit is what this is all about. It's NOT!

I do think you have an interesting line of thought here, but you need to address at least these points before you try to proceed.

 

[razeontherock]

But there must be degrees of morality, right? If not, then why not just rape and pillage and seek redemption when you are done?

Rape and pillage is in my blood. And plunder; please not to be forgetting the plunder. what's this "seek redemption" you speak of?

Kidding aside, I'm not sure how that might fit into Valhalla, but just guessing, I'd say it doesn't. Anybody that sails the North Atlantic in winter is ... pretty durn self-reliant, and not so much looking for somebody else to "redeem" them or anything. You don't even know the meaning of the word "cold" until you've sailed the North Atlantic in winter! And I live in WI, where if it's - 20 for a cub scouts winter survival camping trip, they postpone it until it gets cold.

 

[Key]

We are talking about Intelligent Atheist, not some run on the mill message board intellectual that thinks being an Atheist makes them more logical or science minded.

Ergo, an Intelligent Atheist, like an Intelligent Anybody, would conform to the social dynamic they wished to belong to, to enhance their own position within that dynamic. That is what intelligent people do to ensure their own advancement, it is not exclusive to Atheist. We sometimes call this "Playing the Game"

And an Intelligent Atheist would, as opposed to studying nature, or any of that trivial trivia, would turn their attentions to their own little backyard, what works where they are, regardless of what it was that worked.

For example: A Christian would follow hockey if that is what the majority of the people in their small town followed to fit in, and think nothing of it. These be Hockey people, such is life. If they moved away to town where everyone was into Baseball, they would move on to baseball, and accept this is part of the "Transition" of life.

The only dividing difference is that an Atheist would have no inhibitions as their moral code is entirely subjective, where a Christian has chosen to serve something other then themselves and if the case arises forsake their own advancement for their beliefs in God.

Now, when you look at humanity, think of how much people in general are so self serving that will try to distort the bible to serve their own ends, it is a small, infinitesimal matter to think of what would progress if they did not have to twist anything to justify their own actions to gratify their desires. What Pandora's box gets opened.

Just look at these forums, and realize that our culture is mostly Christian, ergo, Atheist are driven to play the same games that Christians play, IE: Claiming that they are being persecuted, telling people what the best thing to do for themselves sit, pushing their beliefs on others, etc, in many instances the worst (and equally so the most visible) actions they see touted by the majority or people in positions of influence and power, but this does not make them moral, or right, or even good in their actions, it makes them products of their environment.

When the environment changes, so to do their ideals of morality of what is good and evil, that is assuming the said culture even embraces those ideas.

For example: If we swapped out the moral teaching of Jesus for Huitzilopochtli in our current culture, it would make no difference to an Atheist.

Such is not the case with a Christian.

And I capitalize Atheist, as it is a worldview,since it is a belief devoid of divinity, anyone that wishes to identify themselves among that charter of people needs to either passively or actively accept a slew of dogma.

God Bless

 

[razeontherock]

I doubt Christ gave a lot of thought to the Pro-Life question, for example, since abortion wasn't a big issue in his time.

There is a lot of Scripture on this very thing!

The rules regarding sex, in particular, have greatly changed over time. I prefer the older view on this to the modern one.

What do you perceive to be the change?

 

[razeontherock]

American society is anti-intellectual, quite literally anti-intelligence. The words "geek" and "nerd" reflect this. There are no such words, words mocking intelligence, in most other languages. The primary cause of anti-intelligence culture is female promiscuity

Ya lost me at the corner there chief. I mean, it's not that uncommon for a young guy to go through a phase where he thinks being a "dumb jock" will get him some leg, like my oldest son did. But a smart athlete who wins tend to be, ah ... "selected for."

 

[ToHoldNothing]

We are talking about Intelligent Atheist, not some run on the mill message board intellectual that thinks being an Atheist makes them more logical or science minded.

I don't think I stated anything about atheism or theism reflecting anything about intelligence

Ergo, an Intelligent Atheist, like an Intelligent Anybody, would conform to the social dynamic they wished to belong to, to enhance their own position within that dynamic. That is what intelligent people do to ensure their own advancement, it is not exclusive to Atheist. We sometimes call this "Playing the Game"

Honestly, I don't find advancement to be a meaningful end in itself. My advancement in any social dynamic is temporary and transient, therefore, even apart from my atheism, it's more logical for me not to be attached. Not to mention you can't suggest that every person is somehow innately egotistical. Honestly, it's never so simple that one lacking belief in God suddenly loses their humanity or empathy.

And an Intelligent Atheist would, as opposed to studying nature, or any of that trivial trivia, would turn their attentions to their own little backyard, what works where they are, regardless of what it was that worked.

Again, hardly so simple as just the relativist tripe you're presenting as somehow common to atheists, when it isn't. You've not brought any substantiation for these claims apart from your own experience, it appears

For example: A Christian would follow hockey if that is what the majority of the people in their small town followed to fit in, and think nothing of it. These be Hockey people, such is life. If they moved away to town where everyone was into Baseball, they would move on to baseball, and accept this is part of the "Transition" of life.

I live in a football state, and yet I care very little, if at all, about football. I am not ostracized because I don't care about sports, it's never that simple. Don't turn this into a caricature.

The only dividing difference is that an Atheist would have no inhibitions as their moral code is entirely subjective, where a Christian has chosen to serve something other then themselves and if the case arises forsake their own advancement for their beliefs in God.

I have inhibitions and I'd have them regardless of if I was raised in a Christian church or in no church at all. I serve others along with serving myself. They're not mutually exclusive.

Now, when you look at humanity, think of how much people in general are so self serving that will try to distort the bible to serve their own ends, it is a small, infinitesimal matter to think of what would progress if they did not have to twist anything to justify their own actions to gratify their desires. What Pandora's box gets opened.

The misuse of things does not preclude the proper use of them by people, theist or atheist. People misusing their reason doesn't suggest that reason itself is bad, similar to faith in a nominal sense.

Just look at these forums, and realize that our culture is mostly Christian, ergo, Atheist are driven to play the same games that Christians play, IE: Claiming that they are being persecuted, telling people what the best thing to do for themselves sit, pushing their beliefs on others, etc, in many instances the worst (and equally so the most visible) actions they see touted by the majority or people in positions of influence and power, but this does not make them moral, or right, or even good in their actions, it makes them products of their environment.

I don't claim persecution, at best I claim to be a minority and alienated in a sense, though ironically people have reflected that we are fast becoming a post Christian culture anyway.

We are not purely products of our environment, nor are we absolutely bound by chemical and natural laws that work upon our physiology and neurology, clearly.

When the environment changes, so to do their ideals of morality of what is good and evil, that is assuming the said culture even embraces those ideas.

Again, you assume all atheists are relativists, which you have not justified beyond your petty experiences with what you have already admitted are atheists beyond your interest

For example: If we swapped out the moral teaching of Jesus for Huitzilopochtli in our current culture, it would make no difference to an Atheist.

Assuming myself as an atheist, I'd imagine that you're just bringing this up as a red herring or just a non sequitur to distract from the supposed dependence our culture has on Christianity in one sense or another. I don't deny our culture's contingency on development through principles that exist in Christianity, though not necessarily exclusively across the world. Don't misunderstand me, please

And I capitalize Atheist, as it is a worldview,since it is a belief devoid of divinity, anyone that wishes to identify themselves among that charter of people needs to either passively or actively accept a slew of dogma.

It is a single belief and I challenge you to defend this ludicrous claim that there are any dogmas associated with the single belief that there is no God (to whatever degree that may be).

I don't passively or actively accept whatever dogma you no doubt will associate with "Atheism". I accept them because they are sensible and practical, and apart from my atheism or Buddhism as I understand it. There are Christians that accept such a thing as evolutionary theory, so honestly, you seem to just be doing the very thing you criticize "Atheists" about, that you are persecuted and that you are being treated unfairly because you are sticking to your convictions. Well, you're not. You're the majority on this forum and practically in the world, so don't act more entitled than you already are.

 

[Key]

Again, you assume all atheists are relativists

I assume nothing of the sort, there is no assumption involved, it is a fact that they have to be, if they plan to call themselves Atheist. It's part of that dogma they have to accept, either passively or activity. the Smart one's do so activity, the less then informed don't realize what they passively need to concede to, and hence these exchanges.

Much like failing to read the fine print. And yes, O hold them in contempt, not for what they believe, but for not knowing what is involved in believing it.

Assuming myself as an atheist, I'd imagine that you're just bringing this up as a red herring or just a non sequitur to distract from the supposed dependence our culture has on Christianity in one sense or another.

What I said was not a red herring at all, it was a fact of our life and the reality of the situation. Not liking it, or refusing to accept it, does not change it.

It is a single belief and I challenge you to defend this ludicrous claim that there are any dogmas associated with the single belief that there is no God (to whatever degree that may be).

Asked and then you answered them yourself.

I don't passively or actively accept whatever dogma you no doubt will associate with "Atheism". I accept them because they are sensible and practical, and apart from my atheism or Buddhism as I understand it. There are Christians that accept such a thing as evolutionary theory, so honestly, you seem to just be doing the very thing you criticize "Atheists" about, that you are persecuted and that you are being treated unfairly because you are sticking to your convictions. Well, you're not. You're the majority on this forum and practically in the world, so don't act more entitled than you already are.

God Bless

Now you are just being argumentative.

God Bless

 

[singpeace]

Respectfully, I am convinced morality was perpetually and divinely ordered, but that societal, spiritual, and religious influences created slight variations from one society to the next.

The concept of right and wrong cannot simply be the product of societal pressures nor the instrument of human evolution. Small example; lying is in our nature (2-year olds lie) and if left unchecked, destroys trust, and ultimately has the potential to destroy relationships of all kinds and fortunes, careers, etc. Thus, nature contradicts nature if we must resist our natural tendencies in order to be honest. Morality cannot then be the instrument for the 'survival of the species through evolution of the human psyche'.

Obviously morality isn't tangible but it is still essential to us as much as any foundation for a solid structure. Without it, nature would take over and society would crumble.

Morality, when practiced, is the visible evidence of man's true identity; his spirit. Man only knows right from wrong because he has a soul which was created by God.

The spiritual part of man is his most compelling and accurate gauge for discerning things not within the physical realm. It is that "...something told me/compelled me..." statement we've all made. It's the 'gut feeling' which never seems to be wrong and that tells us when someone is lying. Finally, that brings me back to my point that if morality is nature's way of securing our existence, it contradicts itself. Morality actually works against man's natural tendencies toward deceit and corruption which are tools used for survival of the fittest in a cut-throat world. Morality's origin is in a divine Creator.


Webster's

Morality
conformity to ideals of right human conduct

Synonyms:
character, decency, goodness, honesty, integrity, probity, rectitude, righteousness, rightness, uprightness, virtue, virtuousness

Antonyms:
badness, evil, evildoing, immorality, iniquity, sin, villainy, wickedness

Related Words:
high-mindedness, honor, incorruptibility, irreproachability, irreproachableness, right-mindedness, scrupulosity, scrupulousness; appropriateness, correctness, decorousness, decorum, etiquette, fitness, propriety, seemliness; ethics, morals

 

[fschmidt]

What do you perceive to be the change?

The seventh commandment was originally about sex with another man's wife. The Old Testament is quite sexist, and I approve. The New Testament seems less clear and more open to interpretation.

I believe the quote from the New Testament that is now interpreted to ban sex outside of marriage says something like if you look at a woman with lust then you have sinned. But I have looked often at my wife with lust. Is that a sin? The point is that this quote clearly can't mean any woman. I assume it is referring to married women (other than your wife). But this certainly isn't the modern interpretation.

I know that historically the Catholic Church did little in the early days to restrict single men from going to prostitutes and even approved of it as a sensible outlet for lust (which it is).

I am no Bible expert but if I do join a Christian Church, I will spend time studying it. I enjoy history.

Ya lost me at the corner there chief. I mean, it's not that uncommon for a young guy to go through a phase where he thinks being a "dumb jock" will get him some leg, like my oldest son did. But a smart athlete who wins tend to be, ah ... "selected for."

No intelligent man that I know of was successful with American women at all. I mean nothing, no dating, nothing. My wife is Mexican. I advise all intelligent American men to look abroad for wives. Of course it isn't just women, most American men don't care much for intelligence. But American women are worse in this regard. The movie "Idiocracy" is an accurate portrayal of America's future.

 

[fschmidt]

This would only be the case of there is such a thing as objective morality, which would point to our Creator, regardless of an atheist's professed lack of belief in same. But I would point out that the Holy Spirit makes other differences, and those might be greater.

Objective morality isn't needed unless you demand an exact match. If morality is somewhat relative, meaning that it is based on how humans are designed and differs slightly based on genetic and environmental differences, then there can be a big overlap. The average atheist is simply misguided and modern morality is based on faulty assumptions. In other words he has the same moral instincts as someone of sound morality, but his confusion prevents him from reaching sound moral conclusions.

Not really. You're forgetting to account for bias of world view. What we wind up with instead is checks and balances of a two-party system, w/ various perspectives having merit.

Some people can change their world view based on thought. I have. But yes, an atheist needs the mental ability to consider things from world views other than his own in order to reach sound conclusions.

Only if people's selfish benefit is what this is all about. It's NOT!

Are you saying that God's morality doesn't benefit people? I didn't say that this was God's only motive, but I had assumed Christians believe that God does have people's best interest at heart.

 

[salida]

As an atheist, I would like to ask the question whether there should be any great difference in the morality of a religious person and an atheist. My answer is that it is harder for an atheist to be moral, but an intelligent atheist with integrity should have a similar morality to a religious person. This conclusion requires two sets of arguments, one from a religious perspective and one from an atheist perspective.

First the religious perspective. If God created the world, then the laws of nature should reflect his thinking. An atheist focuses on the laws of nature rather than on God, but since nature is a creation of God, a deep analysis of nature should yield the same conclusions as the study of God would. Furthermore, if God is good, then his morality should ultimately benefit people, so an analysis of what morality benefits people in the long run should produce the same morality that God would choose. However, all of this is indirect, from a religious perspective, and so is a harder path.

Now the atheist perspective. Religions evolve, those that are functional survive and those that aren't die. So old religions must have a good morality in order to survive as long as they have. Because religions are effective carriers of memes, they allow for the successful evolution of morality without requiring analysis. Members of religions simply accept the moral principles that have withstood the test of time, which is a much easier approach than having to derive morality for oneself. Since atheists have no such moral guidance, the morality of most atheists becomes something like fashion and degenerates until the culture of the atheists self destructs. So only intelligent atheists with a firm understanding of history have any chance of having a sensible morality.

Yes, many people have their own standards and morality. I would say a civil culture has better morality than a barbaric culture. But since no one can keep the 10 commandments which is God's standard-I became a christian who is forgiven by grace. Good works is a byproduct of saving faith.


God is concerned about our best interests more than anyone you know:
Visit: www.TheBibleProofBook.com, (you will need acrobat reader for this), read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell a former agnostic- (its overwhelming circumstantial evidence of bible) and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster a former athiest/The Case for Christ and The Real Jesus by Lee Strobel a former athiest. www.equip.org (articles), http://www.gotquestions.org/

 

[aiki]

Yes, it could. It could also be said that it is not. So what?
You're pulling red herrings here.

How is my statement above a "red herring"? My response above was to your rather off-point remark about empathy/sympathy being one possible source for an atheist's morality. This may be a source for an atheist's morality, but this doesn't change or challenge my observation that the source for an atheist's morality creates serious problems in asserting that morality in the public sphere. Whether it is empathy or some other source, an atheist's morality has no objective, universally-authoritative grounding.

An atheist or theist could conclude radically different things than either of us as an atheist and theist respectively would conclude about ethics. That proves in some sense that ethics is subjective, even if there are also objective principles that exist by logic apart from those subjective environmental considerations.

Morality may be applied in a subjective way, but for a Christian at least, his morality is obtained from an objective, universally-authoritative Source (God). Actually, this is true for all the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity). An atheist cannot anchor his morality to any such source.

A person who lacks the high degree of sympathy that certain people may be born with to a great extent, however rare that is, are not inferior in their morality, but simply different by comparison.

And this is the problem with not being able to ground one's morality in anything objective and universally-authoritative: When different moralities clash, it is not possible to assert that one is better than another, only that they are different from each other.

I didn't have the same amount of sympathy as say one of my best friends who's just very aware of the feelings of others, but that doesn't make me a person who has less moral worth or less moral capacity.

I should hope not!

The capacity of a person to be moral in this depends on their willingness to pursue and practice virtue and attempt to get along reasonably with other people.

This is your understanding of morality. It rests upon the practice of virtue (whatever you mean by that) and "getting along reasonably with other people." Other people, however, take different views on what constitutes morality. Who is to say yours is better? On what basis can you assert that your morality is binding upon others? You have no greater authority as a human being than the next person.

bringing the examples of sociopaths is again, a red herring that only reflects that some people are just mentally damaged to an extent that it may not be possible for this ethic to apply or make sense in any way.

I didn't mention sociopaths...

On what basis do you decide what "more harm than good" is, exactly? Why is raping, or stealing, or lying wrong? Because they are not sympathetic or empathetic acts? Why should this be the basis for assessing whether or not a thing is moral or immoral? Someone might come up with a different basis for morality; how do you assert yours is better?
Because mine doesn't end up with people suffering more than they would by natural fortune and chance causing us to lose things we love, like people or valuable heirlooms or the like.

So what? Why is the reduction of suffering something to be valued? Why shouldn't personal gratification take precedence over avoiding causing unnecessary suffering for another? One can, from an atheistic standpoint, make a good argument that personal gratification should be the prime directive of a person's life.

And rape is innately bad because it reinforces the dangerous perspective that might makes right and overrides any sense of a person's choice and consent being valuable in human relationships.

You explain why rape is bad by explaining what rape entails. This is like explaining how a murder was done by explaining what murder is. This is a kind of circular reasoning, which fails to justify why rape is, in fact, bad or immoral. You are asserting that rape is bad by asserting that "might makes right" and "over-riding a person's choice and consent" are bad. What you have yet to do, however, is establish why the things you are asserting here are, in fact, bad. You appear to assume a priori that they are.

You could say that all the examples of bad things in the world are a matter of in some sense, violation of a person's consent and/or choice. Even something as far reaching as genocide is basically saying that this one group of people doesn't deserve to exist for little reason other than hatred or fear. And likewise with stealing, or murder, you think that people don't deserve what you deserve to have and so you just take it without even considering their feelings. Is it right? No. Does it make sense to anyone but the person who does it? No.

Again, you're taking it as a given that genocide, stealing, murder, etc are bad. What gives you the right to do so? How can you as an atheist who believes that everything has come into being through mindless, impersonal mechanical, and amoral natural processes assert some basic, over-arching morality? Please show me how such impersonal, amoral processes can manufacture morality.

This is silly. First of all, whose to say what constitutes an overcomplication of ethics? Second, who says ethics don't have an absolute end in mind? Third, why shouldn't we consider the end goal of ethics? Why travel down the road of ethics if you don't have a destination in mind? Only a fool would establish a code of ethics without considering where such a code might lead.

Any telos an ethics has in mind is necessarily limited in how far the person can understand what their actions will accomplish.

But this doesn't mean that there are no potential outcomes of a particular ethic that can be anticipated. Not being able to see all possible consequences of adopting a particular ethical code does not mean one cannnot see any possible consequences.

I establish this code as you call it because it benefits people, past, present or future. The destination shouldn't be so important, because it's so future centric you fail to consider people as they are in the process and just think of some ideal that you can only speculate about, you can't realize it without time.

Nonsense. Keeping an eye on the future doesn't lessen one's participation in the present. Not at all. For example, the anticipation of heaven, for a Christian, heightens their involvement in the here-and-now because their present righteous living has a direct bearing on the future rewards they can expect in heaven. And this is more or less the case with all moral actions. They are inevitably performed, consciously or unconsciously, with a view to future results.

You're confusing functionality in the sense of the survival of the believers with functionality in the sense of the religion's survival as a belief system.

There is no religion if its believers are all dead! LOL! There is no more "functional" a consideration than whether or not one's beliefs are fatal! LOL!

Martyrs died willingly most of the time and those that died unwillingly do not necessarily negatively affect the survival of the faith itself through the other survivors and those who happen upon teh faith.

How does a faith that at its inception often resulted in one's death gain any traction with people? It is obvious that a horrible death is not a selling point for a religion. So, why were people flocking to the Christian faith even though they ran the very serious risk of being eaten by lions or burned at the stake? Clearly, their prime concern wasn't the religion's "functionality."

This is what you think constitutes a "good morality" but on what basis can you assert that it is good for anyone else? What if someone else has a very different kind of morality from your own? Who says which is better?

It is good for everyone else in the same way it's good for me. People would die less by terrible circumstances and events, they would be able to have civil dialogue and not kill each other because they think its justified when it's primarily them lashing out in anger and fear, and they would be able to still affect change and new ideas would come about without people behaving in such paranoid fashion because they think the end of the world is always on their heels.

This is why you think your morality is good, but it doesn't explain why others who have a different view of morality should abandon their morality in favor of yours. They can offer a rationale for their view, too.

I think this is a very over-simplified assessment of the matter. The morality of various religions has varied widely and in some instances has been contradictory one religion to another. Time is not the utlimate arbiter of what constitutes true morality.

But time can give us a chance for reflection about how morality functions over time and how it evolves and adapts as something that people utilize as a pattern to mold their behavior on.

So? This doesn't alter my point at all.
Maybe I'm just naive or "stupid", but you didn't seem to make a point. Maybe you could communicate it a second time.

See above.

Disagreeing in practice is not the same as disagreeing in principle.

Oh no? How are the two practically distinct? If I think murder in principle is wrong, I'm obviously going to think murder in practice is wrong! LOL!

If someone says that destroying a zygote is murder, that would be in contradiction to someone who says it isn't.

Uh huh. And what does this have to do with the difference between disagreeing in principle and practice?

These examples are the ones I was referring to,not your red herring example of calling something murder or not based on the time of day, which no one would ever take you seriously on.

My point wasn't concerned with the example, but with the principle underlying it.

Atheism isn't a system on its own, it's always necessarily fused and integrated into a variety of systems, just like what theism did with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

Please show me how the Abrahamic religions were "fused in" to theism like atheism is fused to naturalism and materialism, or Buddhism and humanism.

You can't separate the two as if they're both formalized systems.

Why not? We understand that they are "formalized systems" distinct from one another by the difference in terms we use to identify and describe them. Atheism is atheism and humanism is humanism.

This isn't the teaching of the Christian faith. This is your caricature of it.
Then by all means enlighten me as to my mistaken understandings if you're such a great representative of your own faith.

Read the Gospel of John.

Children don't always know better, they just believe because their parents would punish them otherwise when that punishment isn't always justified.

What does this have to do with being a child of God?

To compare God to a parent is ridiculous and insulting. Ridiculous because the analogy hardly reflects anything in terms of the relationship except as by specious connections between a parent loving a child and God loving creation, however that works.

God calls Himself my Heavenly Father. He doesn't seem to find the title "ridiculous." I think the idea of God being my Heavenly Father carries tremendous meaning. If anything, my understanding of my God is made more concrete and sensible by placing my relationship to Him within a parent-child framework.

Insulting because you basically lower God to reflect what could also be abused and misunderstood. However much there are good parents, the very existence of bad parents negates the point of even making an analogy to God as a parent if God is supposed to be perfect and excellent.

This is silly. Why does this work in only one direction? Why can't calling God my Heavenly Father elevate the human relationship we have with our earthly parents? Why can't I use the perfect example of my Heavenly Father to counteract the bad examples of parenting that exist?

So what? Other people have other views on morality. Yours is merely one view among many.
Being a contextual and perspective derived view doesn't negate that one can defend and elaborate on their position. You can't claim your morality is somehow superior to mine because you invoke transcendence or any deity that somehow has a monopoly on proclamations of good and evil.

Yes, I can. Unlike you, I can anchor my morality to an objective, universally-authoritative Source. All you can ultimately argue for in relation to your morality is your personal preference.

Selah.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I assume nothing of the sort, there is no assumption involved, it is a fact that they have to be, if they plan to call themselves Atheist. It's part of that dogma they have to accept, either passively or activity. the Smart one's do so activity, the less then informed don't realize what they passively need to concede to, and hence these exchanges.

You have failed to argue this point besides begging the question and conclusion of your argument. How is this a natural consequence of being an atheist when clearly this seems to hinge on your presumptuous definition of what an "Atheist" is?

Much like failing to read the fine print. And yes, O hold them in contempt, not for what they believe, but for not knowing what is involved in believing it.

That's not a reason to hold someone in contempt, but to pity them or be disappointed in them. Contempt is too strong a word, since that would imply they are willingly accepting they are wrong. Being wrong by ignorance does not warrant contempt. It warrants education and discipline at least.

What I said was not a red herring at all, it was a fact of our life and the reality of the situation. Not liking it, or refusing to accept it, does not change it.

Prove that it is a fact of life that I have to conform with such a ridiculous thing as people's preferences for politics, sports or entertainment.

Asked and then you answered them yourself.

I answered that it was a single belief. A religion or worldview involves more than a single belief. Therefore you contradict yourself