Support NeoGAF

[Joel Was Right]

Something I posted in the FBI thread which rather belonged here:



What you said just now yourself, that the norms back then were different from today, argues for my point that religions should be let to evolve and change if we want them to stay relevant today, so that they will not be judged according to our modern and more developed norms and culture. That a significant person in a major religion might have been a pedophile when judged by our modern standards is an example of why it's just a bad idea to let religions and the norms contained within stay the same no matter what happens.

Because religions simply aren't applicable everywhere, regardless of era or conditions. That's why they evolve if they wanna survive as the world in which it exist and try to spread in changes as well.

To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible or the Quran changes; just that the particular role and meaning we derive from these texts change which is reflected in the meaning religion have for many people in civilized countries.

I don't know about that

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

You are being naive here padawan.

 

[Dabookerman]

And drugs.

Groovy.

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

I probably wouldn't care. I am stuck on an island.

 

[Slightly Live]

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

If someone is smart enough to read a book, they must surely be smart enough to know what acceptable behaviour is. Although the blame does partially lie with the owner of the book for not agreeing with the other guy and not fully establishing rules of co-habitation on the island.

Why would a Chirstian oppose charity of any kinda that would not contribute to the suffering of others but instead take care of those that need help?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

You are being naive here padawan.

You're gonna have to do better than that, Jedi master.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

If someone is smart enough to read a book, they must surely be smart enough to know what acceptable behaviour is. Although the blame does partially lie with the owner of the book for not agreeing with the other guy and not fully establishing rules of co-habitation on the island.

Why would a Chirstian oppose charity of any kinda that would not contribute to the suffering of others but instead take care of those that need help?

No, there is no acceptable behavior. You, as an atheist, do not believe God exists and on the deserted island, you are no longer constrained by what society has defined as acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior.

So, no God, no rules. Now do you have a problem with the individual's behavior? Why or why not?

 

[Joel Was Right]

You're gonna have to do better than that, Jedi master.

Sorry, just to avoid me making further assumptions can you clarify by what you meant in saying "if God is not the basis of morality?"

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Sorry, just to avoid me making further assumptions can you clarify by what you meant in saying "if God is not the basis of morality?"

If you are an atheist, then you cannot believe that God is the basis of morality.

 

[Dabookerman]

If you are an atheist, then you cannot believe that God is the basis of morality.

I've answered your question.

If I had to elaborate on my reason. You said it's my favourite book, means I've read it. So he took it, big deal. I'm sure he's thinking the same. Maybe he should have asked permission, but we're stuck on an island.

What would you do?

 

[Joel Was Right]

If you are an atheist, then you cannot believe that God is the basis of morality.

What I'd like to know is if you are basing your opinion on the belief that we as a society have our ethics directly produced from religion or whether that we as creations of God inherit his understanding of right and wrong irrespective of our environment?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

What I'd like to know is if you are basing your opinion on the belief that we as a society have our ethics directly produced from religion or whether that we as creations of God inherit his understanding of right and wrong irrespective of our environment?

I'm not talking about a society that produces ethics from religion. Throw that out the window. I'm saying that if you are an atheist, you cannot truly believe that God is the basis of morality.

My opinion, if it matters, is that yes, we inherit God's understanding of right and wrong.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I've answered your question.

If I had to elaborate on my reason. You said it's my favourite book, means I've read it. So he took it, big deal. I'm sure he's thinking the same. Maybe he should have asked permission, but we're stuck on an island.

What would you do?

What would I do? Well, I'm not an atheist.

But change the example to something more valuable, maybe a photo of your significant other, which is the last thing you have to remember him or her by.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I'm a Naturalistic-Panentheist with some slight (neo-)Platonist tendencies who for whatever reason believes in a semi-'metaphysical' interpretation of the extended mind theory.

edit: Born to Catholic/Lutheran parents who never really cared about religion. Went to a Catholic school (primarily because they were the only one close by that had a good French Immersion program), which seemingly made me Catholic by default by an early age, became a hard-atheist at around twelve but then softened my position, trying on a few different cosmological paradigms (Brahmanism, etc) before settling on my current position.

 

[Dabookerman]

What would I do? Well, I'm not an atheist.

But change the example to something more valuable, maybe a photo of your significant other, which is the last thing you have to remember him or her by.

Well you don't need to be an atheist to answer the question.

And to answer your second question, I wouldn't be leaving around a photo of my significant other lying around..

Furthermore who the hell goes around stealing pictures of someone's significant other?

I've got a feeling that my answer wasn't the one you were hoping for, I bet ;p

 

[spunibard]

Stealing can be determined wrong easily by an individual using empathy, yes?

edit: replace 'wrong' with unacceptable, distasteful, or undesirable.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Stealing can be determined wrong easily by an individual using empathy, yes?

If there is no God, there is no "right" or "wrong."

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Well you don't need to be an atheist to answer the question.

And to answer your second question, I wouldn't be leaving around a photo of my significant other lying around..

Furthermore who the hell goes around stealing pictures of someone's significant other?

I've got a feeling that my answer wasn't the one you were hoping for, I bet ;p

If I were an honest atheist, I would admit that I have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my book, just as I would have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my food, attempting to steal anything else, or even attempting to murder me. Why?

Because we are living on a deserted island with no standard of morality whatsoever. Moreover, God does not exist, so there can be no appeal to some external standard of morality by which I expect the other individual to abide.

I may not like the fact that the individual is trying to kill me, but I certainly cannot say to him, "You trying to kill me is wrong! Stop that!" since there is no moral standard.

 

[spunibard]

I may not like the fact that the individual is trying to kill me, but I certainly cannot say to him, "You trying to kill me is wrong! Stop that!" since there is no moral standard.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior?

Your original question had to do with personal morality, not some kind of morality shared between everyone.

 

[Dabookerman]

If I were an honest atheist, I would admit that I have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my book, just as I would have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my food, attempting to steal anything else, or even attempting to murder me. Why?

Because we are living on a deserted island with no standard of morality whatsoever. Moreover, God does not exist, so there can be no appeal to some external standard of morality by which I expect the other individual to abide.

I may not like the fact that the individual is trying to kill me, but I certainly cannot say to him, "You trying to kill me is wrong! Stop that!" since there is no moral standard.

Uh. But you're not an atheist. So I ask you again, what would you do?

Also, are you trying to say that an atheist does not go stealing or killing because there are rules and laws in place to stop that?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Your original question had to do with personal morality, not some kind of morality shared between everyone.

Personal morality is based on an external standard of morality.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Uh. But you're not an atheist. So I ask you again, what would you do?

Also, are you trying to say that an atheist does not go stealing or killing because there are rules and laws in place to stop that?

Absolutely. The only true atheist is the atheist Nietzsche describes in "The Will to Power." If there is no God, then he cannot be the standard of morality. Hence, the true atheist exerts his will to power and any "atheist" who does not is merely a false atheist who abides by a moral standard by which he need not abide. A true atheist abides by no laws and no morality. Why? Because there aren't any laws or morality if there is no God.

Now, tell me, how many atheists do you know like that?

As for what I would do (as a Christian) in the example, I would tell the individual that stealing is wrong and he should not attempt to steal things from me. Then I would tell him that he is welcome to borrow the book if he likes.

 

[Dude Abides]

If there is no God, there is no "right" or "wrong."

Are you aware that this claim has been made, and ably rebutted, for centuries?

 

[spunibard]

Personal morality is based on an external standard of morality.

It can also be based on internal empathy.

 

[Slightly Live]

If there is no God, there is no "right" or "wrong."

:lol

So you ask a question and forget to state that you've loaded it with made up rules and your own definition of atheist's moral standards?

Bullshit dude.

Stealing and any other crimes are unjust regardless of a make believe god or gods.

I stated in my answer that it would be partially my fault for not agreeing with the other person a set of co-habitation rules on this imaginary island. It would be my partial fault, but the fault would mostly fall on him for committing an unjust act of stealing.

To be on the island, both of us would have had to come from a society and no one disregards their society's standards without good cause.

Stealing, murdering and whatever else, they are common moralistic standards that exists in almost every society, regardless of the presence of religion.

Try being intellectually honest next time.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Are you aware that this claim has been made, and ably rebutted, for centuries?

Are you aware that your claim can only hold true if you are referring to individual, man-made philosophical and moral structures rather than an objective philosophical or moral standard by which every human being is expected to abide?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

:lol

So you ask a question and forget to state that you've loaded it with made up rules and your own definition of atheist's moral standards?

Bullshit dude.

Stealing and any other crimes are unjust regardless of a make believe god or gods.

I stated in my answer that it would be partially my fault for not agreeing with the other person a set of co-habitation rules on this imaginary island. It would be my partial fault, but the fault would mostly fall on him for committing an unjust act of stealing.

To be on the island, both of us would have had to come from a society and no one disregards their society's standards without good cause.

Stealing, murdering and whatever else, they are common moralistic standards that exists in almost every society, regardless of the presence of religion.

Try being intellectually honest next time.

I'm not at all being intellectually dishonest. You are, however, by claiming that stealing and other crimes are unjust and not offering any reason as to why.

And would you like to defend how "no one disregards their society's standards without good cause"? Being an atheist is as good a cause as any, because the true atheist refuses to abide by petty morality, no matter who its supposed originator was.

 

[ckohler]

If I were an honest atheist, I would admit that I have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my book, just as I would have no reason at all to find fault with the man for attempting to steal my food, attempting to steal anything else, or even attempting to murder me. Why?

Because we are living on a deserted island with no standard of morality whatsoever. Moreover, God does not exist, so there can be no appeal to some external standard of morality by which I expect the other individual to abide.

I may not like the fact that the individual is trying to kill me, but I certainly cannot say to him, "You trying to kill me is wrong! Stop that!" since there is no moral standard.

Morality does not flow exclusively from religion. In fact, I (and others more scholarly than myself) would argue that morality does not come from religion at all. Religions throughout history have compiled lists of the most basic morality rules and then sprinkled in their own silly rules and passed the entire list off as ideas of divine inspiration.

In reality, we are all born with the precepts of basic morality within us. Even some higher-intelligence animals have been shown to share our basic moral precepts. I'm certain that all of the most base forms of morality (don't murder indiscriminately, don't steal from others, do not lie, etc.) have pre-existed all religions currently in practice.

There are many explanations for why we inherently share these moral values some of the most popular being that they are genetic and/or memetic in nature and have to do with basic reciprocity group behavior and how it benefits our survival. Morality may come as naturally to us as breathing.

You seem like a smart, educated person so I'm actually taken aback that you would even suggest that without religion, morality can't be justified. When posed with such an example like yours, I find the easiest way to respond is to turn the question around and ask the faithful, "Can you honestly say you would be immoral without religion?" To anyone who answers with an honest "Yes" I can only have the deepest pitty.

 

[BocoDragon]

Absolutely. The only true atheist is the atheist Nietzsche describes in "The Will to Power." If there is no God, then he cannot be the standard of morality. Hence, the true atheist exerts his will to power and any "atheist" who does not is merely a false atheist who abides by a moral standard by which he need not abide. A true atheist abides by no laws and no morality. Why? Because there aren't any laws or morality if there is no God.

Now, tell me, how many atheists do you know like that?

As for what I would do (as a Christian) in the example, I would tell the individual that stealing is wrong and he should not attempt to steal things from me. Then I would tell him that he is welcome to borrow the book if he likes.

I almost thought you were talking naively until you made this post. Very interesting theory!.. Atheists should not dismiss this possibility: If there is no God, then potentially the consequence of such a reality is that one should adopt an amoral viewpoint for their own gain. Perhaps an atheist who appeals to morality is actually appealing to the remnants of Christian "slave morality" which has no tangible benefit in a Godless world.

But I would debate Nietzsche: It is actually in one's selfish benefit to co-operate with other humans for the rewards this brings. It's egoistic altruism.

Here's why it's wrong to steal in an atheist framework: Because you'll be punished for doing so. Not just in terms of the obvious retribution from authorities, but also in terms of social consequences.. In stealing we sacrifice people's trust in the system and in ourselves. It's not just that you gain from stealing... you also lose in a diverse set of ways. We can get much more from a shopkeeper if we pay him money than if we steal!

An evolutionary biologist would say: We once lived in small tribes, so we evolved a sense of compassion/shame/justice in order to behave in ways that were beneficial in the long term. A simple animal might think that stealing is a good strategy.. but it's actually a self-destructive one. A more complex animal will have evolved social feelings in order to help him co-operate with other animals for his long term gain. These social feelings are where the basis of morality comes in. There's no super-athiest need to cast off these moral sentiments: they still benefit us even today. You'd be much better off co-operating with the system.. become a doctor or something, than to become a criminal.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Morality does not flow exclusively from religion. In fact, I (and others more scholarly than myself) would argue that morality does not come from religion at all. Religions throughout history have compiled lists of the most basic morality rules and then sprinkled in their own silly rules and passed the entire list off as ideas of divine inspiration.

In reality, we are all born with the precepts of basic morality within us. Even some higher-intelligence animals have been shown to share our basic moral precepts. I'm certain that all of the most base forms of morality (don't murder indiscriminately, don't steal from others, do not lie, etc.) have pre-existed all religions currently in practice.

There are many explanations for why we inherently share these moral values some of the most popular being that they are genetic and/or memetic in nature and have to do with basic reciprocity group behavior and how it benefits our survival. Morality may come as naturally to us as breathing.

You seem like a smart, educated person so I'm actually taken aback that you would even suggest that without religion, morality can't be justified. When posed with such an example like yours, I find the easiest way to respond is to turn the question around and ask the faithful, "Can you honestly say you would be immoral without religion?" To anyone who answers with an honest "Yes" I can only have the deepest pitty.

"...basic reciprocity group behavior and how it benefits our survival." So you are essentially arguing for a form of utilitarianism, then?

Morality cannot be justified without religion any other way than to say that morality was invented so that certain individuals could exert their will to power over other individuals. That is the only way for an atheist to justify morality, just as Nietzsche says it is. Every GAFfer who claims to be an atheist would do well to read Nietzsche and see what true atheism is like.

As for your question, the answer is "yes," because I would be following my natural instinct to exert my will to power over others. Hence, my behavior would reflect that.

 

[Dude Abides]

Are you aware that your claim can only hold true if you are referring to individual, man-made philosophical and moral structures rather than an objective philosophical or moral standard by which every human being is expected to abide?

No, because you are erring by assuming that man-made and objective are mutually exclusive.

 

[Dabookerman]

Now, tell me, how many atheists do you know like that?

Sure, for one. I'm an Agnostic Atheist (not discounting the possibility of a higher being, but I most certainly do not believe in any of the gods religion has made up). I have my own morals. I know that whatever I do, I won't go to heaven or hell because I don't believe in them. All my friends have pretty much the same view. Most of us humans find happiness through being good to one another, and the disbelief in God does not change that.

Furthermore, believing in a god certainly does not mean you have morals. How many murders and killings have their been throughout history in the name of God?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I almost thought you were talking naively until you made this post. Very interesting theory!.. Atheists should not dismiss this possibility: If there is no God, then potentially the consequence of such a reality is that one should adopt an amoral viewpoint for their own gain. Perhaps an atheist who appeals to morality is actually appealing to the remnants of Christian "slave morality" which has no tangible benefit in a Godless world.

But I would debate Nietzsche: It is actually in one's selfish benefit to co-operate with other humans for the rewards this brings. It's egoistic altruism.

Here's why it's wrong to steal in an atheist framework: Because you'll be punished for doing so. Not just in terms of the obvious retribution from authorities, but also in terms of social consequences.. In stealing we sacrifice people's trust in the system and in ourselves. It's not just that you gain from stealing... you also lose in a diverse set of ways. We can get much more from a shopkeeper if we pay him money than if we steal!

An evolutionary biologist would say: We once lived in small tribes, so we evolved a sense of compassion/shame/justice in order to behave in ways that were beneficial in the long term. A simple animal might think that stealing is a good strategy.. but it's actually a self-destructive one. A more complex animal will have evolved social feelings in order to help him co-operate with other animals for his long term gain. These social feelings are where the basis of morality comes in. There's no super-athiest need to cast off these moral sentiments: they still benefit us even today. You'd be much better off co-operating with the system.. become a doctor or something, than to become a criminal.

Ah, but you see, Nietzsche has an answer for this. He would say that the only reason there is punishment is because punishment is an attempt to suppress the revolt of individuals who are exerting their wills to power. Thus, the fear of punishment should not be motivation for not doing something you want to do on the basis of your will to power. And as far as the negative stigma attached to those individuals by society, Nietzsche disapproves. He would say that such people should be lauded for living the way they truly should: free of any moral constraint.

 

[Slightly Live]

"...basic reciprocity group behavior and how it benefits our survival." So you are essentially arguing for a form of utilitarianism, then?

Morality cannot be justified without religion any other way than to say that morality was invented so that certain individuals could exert their will to power over other individuals. That is the only way for an atheist to justify morality, just as Nietzsche says it is. Every GAFfer who claims to be an atheist would do well to read Nietzsche and see what true atheism is like.

As for your question, the answer is "yes," because I would be following my natural instinct to exert my will to power over others. Hence, my behaviour would reflect that.

So what about societies that have no deity based religion? Are they all exerting their will power over each other for the past few thousand generations? :lol

Seriously, your views on morality are both limited and laughable. I feel as if any attempt to rationalise this point of view to you would be a waste, you are obviously dismissing anything you don't agree with.

Obviously a large amount of people and societies derive morality from religion and whatever gods they revere, but to assume morality is exclusive to the god club is beyond stupid.

Keep falling back on Nietzsche when it's convenient to use him as a crutch though.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

Sure, for one. I'm an Agnostic Atheist (not discounting the possibility of a higher being, but I most certainly do not believe in any of the gods religion has made up). I have my own morals. I know that whatever I do, I won't go to heaven or hell because I don't believe in them. All my friends have pretty much the same view. Most of us humans find happiness through being good to one another, and the disbelief in God does not change that.

Furthermore, believing in a god certainly does not mean you have morals. How many murders and killings have their been throughout history in the name of God?

There have been plenty of murders and killings in the name of God, but that seems beside the point. Are you claiming that your "own morals" were not at all influenced by any societal moral code, that they are free from any influence whatsoever and you simply came up with them on your own and decided to live by them?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So what about societies that have no deity based religion? Are they all exerting their will power over each other for the past few thousand generations? :lol

Seriously, your views on morality are both limited and laughable. I feel as if any attempt to rationalise this point of view to you would be a waste, you are obviously dismissing anything you don't agree with.

Obviously a large amount of people and societies derive morality from religion and whatever gods they revere, but to assume morality is exclusive to the god club is beyond stupid.

Keep falling back on Nietzsche when it's convenient to use him as a crutch though.

Name one society present today for which you can honestly declare that no individual within that society has ever come into contact with a deity-based religion. The only thing that's laughable is that you are naive enough to think there is such a case. As soon as one individual comes into contact with a deity-based religion, there is influence.

Tell you what: I'll fall back on Nietzsche as a crutch. You, read him.

 

[Slightly Live]

Name one society present today for which you can honestly declare that no individual within that society has ever come into contact with a deity-based religion. The only thing that's laughable is that you are naive enough to think there is such a case. As soon as one individual comes into contact with a deity-based religion, there is influence.

So god based morals spread like some kind of infection to godless societies now? :lol You cannot seriously believe this?

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So god based morals spread like some kind of infection to godless societies now? :lol You cannot seriously believe this?

I'm still waiting on you to name a purely godless society. Go ahead. Anytime you're ready.

 

[Slightly Live]

I'm still waiting on you to name a purely godless society. Go ahead. Anytime you're ready.

I'll name one when you name the one correct religion.

 

[ckohler]

Name one society present today for which you can honestly declare that no individual within that society has ever come into contact with a deity-based religion. The only thing that's laughable is that you are naive enough to think there is such a case. As soon as one individual comes into contact with a deity-based religion, there is influence.

Tell you what: I'll fall back on Nietzsche as a crutch. You, read him.

Say hello to the peaceful Pirahã people of the Amazon. In fact, the previously Christian linguist Daniel Everett spent years breaking the language barrier with the Pirahã and having learned their ways ultimately became an atheist when he tried to explain religion to them and they ultimately made him question everything he thought he knew about it and morality.

I recommend you listen to his astonishing story. Just start at chapter 6 at the following video:

http://fora.tv/2009/03/20/Daniel_Everett_Endangered_Languages_and_Lost_Knowledge#fullprogram

 

[Dabookerman]

There have been plenty of murders and killings in the name of God, but that seems beside the point. Are you claiming that your "own morals" were not at all influenced by any societal moral code, that they are free from any influence whatsoever and you simply came up with them on your own and decided to live by them?

Sure. I can say I was raised very well by my mother. She is a catholic. She certainly did not raise me as one. My religious history only goes as far as being christened when I was a baby (beyond my control), and going to church twice a year (christmas and easter). I still do it, certainly, but I do it because it makes my mum happy. My mum however has tried to put a lot a couple of catholic beliefs into my upbringing. Mainly the no sex before marriage thing (which failed miserably, oh yeah), but I suppose this makes sence because she was raised by nuns.. so.

She knows I don't believe in God. She also has become a lot less religious. What was the influence? My muslim father. He is a devout Muslim.

My mum essentially said, be good to everyone regardless of who they are. That is pretty much what stuck with me. It most certainly isn't a moral view that originated with Christianity or the belief in God.

I went to a catholic school, and that was pretty much when I started to become a lot less of a God believer. Seeing how some of the more religious church goers at my school were complete cunts. Ironically enough, my school was named after St Thomas More, who burnt people at the stake for translating the bible from Latin to English. What a saint.

Anyway, realizing that the bible was full of lies, I was pretty much done with religion. Outside of the basic "No killing, no stealing, no raping etc" all my other morals have been attributed by my last 6 or so years of existence. This includes the elimination of my homophobia completely (thanks catholic school -_-), and certainly more respect and equality to nature and environment. Oh and the best one is realizing that we're a tiny rock in the universe, so the idea that God is giving us special treatment is one of the most arrogant things humans could possibly come up with.

 

[Dude Abides]

She knows I don't believe in God. She also has become a lot less religious. What was the influence? My muslim father. He is a devout Islamist.

Do you mean to say devout Muslim? I ask because "Islamist" has come to mean an adherent of political Islam, rather than just a believer in Islam.

 

[Dabookerman]

Do you mean to say devout Muslim? I ask because "Islamist" has come to mean an adherent of political Islam, rather than just a believer in Islam.

To be honest, I don't even know. I hardly talk to him these days. He stopped talking to me when I told him I had an English girlfriend. But for all intents and purposes, let's just change Islamist to muslim.

 

[jdogmoney]

Let's play the "I'll answer your question if you answer mine" game!

Why do atheists live by moral codes if God is not the basis of morality? Let me give an example to illustrate my question:

Let's say you are an atheist who crash lands on a deserted island. You think you are the lone survivor of the crash, but lo and behold, another gentleman has also survived. You both agree that for safety's sake and ease of living that you should live in same general vicinity, yet you build a shelter for yourself and he builds a shelter for himself. You never establish any sort of rules, laws, etc. Among your belongings that you were able to recover from the crash is your favorite book, Nietzsche's "The Will to Power." Much to your chagrin, one night you are awakened to find that your fellow survivor is attempting to sneak out of your shelter with your book. You ask what he is doing and he is honest and admits to you that he was attempting to steal your book and keep it for himself rather borrowing it.

Do you have a problem with this individual's behavior? Why or why not?

Of course I do. It's my book. He should have asked; I'd've let him borrow it. And there are a million different reasons atheists have for their actions, none of which have to do with faith in a higher power. Utilitarianism, for one. Epicureansim. Buddhism. Etc. Myself, I live by treating others civilly, and doing things I would want other people to do. The Golden Rule, as it's sometimes called. So, in your example on the island, I'd say, "Listen, homeboy. Dude. You gotta open up some communication. We're on an island, all we got is each other. Let's keep it civil, yeah?"

And how precisely would you explain morality before Christianity (or Judaism, depending on how you look at it)? Or, for that matter, the morality of Eastern schools of thought that were around for centuries before the Jesus was a twinkle in God's eye?

Do you really only behave morally because of your view of God? If you knew for a fact he didn't exist, would you go out and murder and rape and kick little old ladies?

I would hope not.

In fact, I'd say Christianity is based on the idea that what you do in this life doesn't matter. The entry to heaven is not based on good deeds; the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as the Savior and God incarnate. Since this life is so fleeting and meaningless compared to the afterlife, why bother being a good person (since it's harder to do a lot of the time)?

What is the point of morality in Christianity?

Spoiler

Never read The Will To God. Haven't delved into Nietzsche yet, honestly, but I will someday. Seems like an interesting read, at the very least.

 

[JGS]

There are of course parables in the bible. But there are of course elements of the bible (namely its creation story) where it is very obviously untrue, but not stated as a metaphor of some sort. When it was written, it was taken as literal. It still is taken literal by many today; by those that follow the word of the bible at a literal level.

I can't comment on a statement like this without examples of the obviously untrue sort. Not that I want to hear them, but still. Without context, I have no real way to respond.

Oh wait...

So I ask you now; are you a biblical fundamentalists? If you are, there is no point to this discussion. Your delusion is greater than can be helped with.

If you are not on the other hand, then I ask you; if you make concessions for parts of the bible like genesis, which now in hindsight appear to be obvious metaphors (if they are interpreted literally, they are incongruent with the truth of our observations), but have not been marked as such...

This statement is incorrect. There is nothing regarding creation that is incongruent with observations. Further what that creation leads to (life begetting other life) is scientifically proven. I could get into the whole abiogenesis is silly argument, but I've moved on. Now if you are saying that the creation days are not 24 hours each, I'll agree wth that.

I've always been under the impression that a fundamentalist is a literalist, correct? If so, then my previous statements - the ones you're responding to clearly make me not one. If not, then I don't know enough about what a fundamentalist is to know if I'm one.

at what point do you stop making these concessions when those parts of the bible are proven to be incorrect, wrong, or again, 'metaphorical'?

Can't answer. Based on what examples you've provided, it hasn't happened yet.

It is indeed the fault of the bible for been so open to interpretation, so wishy washy. If you cannot take its words and contents literally, if you must compensate for sections of it in order to properly make sense of it in a world that has long surpassed its usefulness, then you are doing only what you simply must, in order to square it with the reality at hand; interpreting the bible.

I swear that posts like this make me want to go on an atheist rant which I don't want to do. I actually agree moreso with atheists' opinion on some wrong teachings about the Bible than with other religious people.

The problem is you already think you know what I believe so why bother asking especially when your question is rhetorical?

Having the nerve to accuse the Bible of being wishy-washy when the only thing you have is doubting Genesis, being vague about obvious untruths, concessions, & and incongruencies of truth. It's a sign of arrogance that makes you think that your thoughts are so superior you don't even have to give examples. My opinion is you don't know how until you check the right skeptic blogs.

If you don't ask for something specifically, why do you think I need to explain things specifically, as if I have time to address the whole Bible in a forum biased against religion? It's clear that many people here have not even remotely looked for any answer from the Bible, thus feeling it to be worthless. Case in point...

Men will continue to be flawed for as long as we stay as we are on a genetic level. Our cycle of birth and death means that lessons learnt will be forgotten and must be relearnt repeatedly.

Hey! We agree on something...

Recognizing this, even thousands of years ago does not make you, or your words accurate and fully applicable thousands of years later.

Oh wait, no we don't.

It does nothing to address the burgeoning issues of economy, of global warming, etc. It says nothing of that, because it cannot say anything of it; it is a book written 2000 thousand and more years ago, dealing with issues of the time. If we try to use the bible to deal with those issues of now, we need to interpret the vague instructions of morality as best we can in the context of our circumstances now.

Why would the Bible address something it said mankind would mess up? Oh wait a minute that means it did address it. Stop ruining the Earth and the Earth will be here. Economies always run fine when people deal with each other fairly and decently. This was proven even further than 2,000 years ago. Further, it tells what happens when people deal unfairly with each other.

It is a book written 2,000 years ago that already had the answers you're griping about. Now that man has proven to be stupid for all those years it's time to blame God & the Bible for it? I don't think so. This proves you have not read the Bible or have forgotten what you've read

If you're having trouble understanding all that... then basically what I'm saying is that; if the bible were the perfect document, then it wouldn't require intepretation to begin with and reintepretation thousands of years from now. It would do what it purported to do; which is provide clear moral guidance from a clearly higher power, without the chance for man to misinterpret and muddy up the information learned.

All this is atheist/agnostic 101 so it's nothing new or deep.

People muddy up the moral guidance. There's not too much complicated about, don't steal, don't murder, don't screw like jackrabbits, & try to treat people like you like to be treated. However, people in their infinite self-wisdom think they can do all of those things with no issues. They are wrong and abook from thousands of years ago gave them the advice. instead they look for an idiot from the 21st century to say otherwise or repeat what was already said. But I'm delusional? OK.

Because the bible isn't such a document, it is incredibly unlikely that it would've been written (or even inspired by) something that could be considered perfect, given the severely imperfect nature of the bible.

And it's not like a perfect document is impossible. Basic maths texts are as true and applicable now as they were thousands of years ago when written. Similarly, well written textbooks of calculus will be as true, applicable, and literal in hundreds, thousands, millions of years as they are now.

Well, I agree that the Bible does not equal a math book. Hopefully, consulting them will solve all of mankind's woes.

You wade into this with the absolutely fixed assumption that the bible is the word of god, perfect in every way. This is the point from which you argue, and this is the nature of your delusion.

My assumption is not fixed. It can be changed like everyone else's. I was one religion, agnostic, and then another religion during my lifetime so believe me, I can change but I prefer to look at it as refinement. Don't blame your inability of convincing me on stubborness. You are fixed on me being fundamental, anti-science, and delusional even while you've give no proof why you say those things EXCEPT that I follow the Bible rather than you.

I have not responded in kind. I have not been trying to convince you of my beliefs, & I have not threatened you so why I am such a threat to you?

In short why do you care why I believe the Bible is the word of God written by men of his choosing? Do you think I was part of the Crusades? Did I baptize your dog? Did I condemn you, your kids, and your kids' kids to eternal torment? I assure you I am harmeless in my delusions. :lol

 

[jdogmoney]

According to the Bible, murder is wrong.

In the Bible, murder is killing without cause.

Killing with cause is a-ok.

Cause includes disrespecting elders, homosexuality, and shellfish.

 

[RustyNails]

This thread is so much better after certain someone being banned. I'm really enjoying the discussion folks. Keep it up GAF!

 

[RustyNails]

To be honest, I don't even know. I hardly talk to him these days. He stopped talking to me when I told him I had an English girlfriend. But for all intents and purposes, let's just change Islamist to muslim.

Wtf. Didn't he have an English girlfriend at one point (your mom), who was not a Muslim but a devout Catholic?

I'm still waiting on you to name a purely godless society. Go ahead. Anytime you're ready.

I think Communist China and Soviet Union classified as "Godless societies", since the government based their beliefs on Communist charters and literature. Present day China and Russia definitely don't though.

 

[BocoDragon]

Ah, but you see, Nietzsche has an answer for this. He would say that the only reason there is punishment is because punishment is an attempt to suppress the revolt of individuals who are exerting their wills to power. Thus, the fear of punishment should not be motivation for not doing something you want to do on the basis of your will to power. And as far as the negative stigma attached to those individuals by society, Nietzsche disapproves. He would say that such people should be lauded for living the way they truly should: free of any moral constraint.

I've read Nietzsche and I agree with his underlying theory about "will to power"... but he comes from a period in time, immediately post-Darwin, when "survival of the fittest" was taken too simplistically. Obviously the fittest was the most strong and the most sneaky! Co-operation was regarded as some sort of "glitch" in social programming.. a remnant of religion... an anti-survival meme passed on because of stupidity!

Now that we've had 1.5 centuries to actually reason out what "the fittest" in nature looks like, only a fool would believe co-operation (and thus: morality) is some sort of error in evolutionary terms. The ones who co-operate are the most fit to survive! It's plainly obvious. We can take a computer program and fill it with all sorts of AIs who require an exchange with other AIs to survive. If you fill this sim with mostly selfish agents who take help but never offer it, the AIs "eat each other" and the society collapses quickly. If you fill the sim with all altruistic AIs, the few selfish AIs take advantage of their naive co-operation, don't help them in return, and again the society collapses... However, If you seed the sim with AIs which have a "reciprocity" behavior of "tit for tat" (where the AI trusts others and helps them immediately, until they are deceived, in which case they punishes the deceiver with no further assistance), then the society thrives into perpetuity. The most selfishly beneficial strategy for a creature to choose is one that assumes co-operation, but having a capacity for punishment for those who do not co-operate. This is why evolution favors sentiments such as "caring about others" or "justice". Believe me, if it was most beneficial to be directly selfish, evolution would favor sociopaths. Morality is intensely favored by evolution because it gets us to act in ways that are beneficial to our own long term gain.

I actually agree with Nietzsche that humanist philosophy is probably a remnant of Christian thinking. I don't hold up concepts like "justice" and "morality" to be real Platonic concepts, as many so called atheist philosophers had before his time, and this is who Nietzsche was mostly criticizing. But I do see clearly that "moral sentiments" which roughly accord to these concepts that people label as "justice" etc are actually sentiments which very clearly benefit the individual.

So you see, the true extension of atheism in the modern age can and should include an appreciation of moral behavior. You probably shouldn't place moral concepts on some intellectual pedestal as the humanists do, but when you feel emotions of caring for another, you'd know that this sentiment is a very beneficial form of behavior to eventually survive and reproduce.

 

[JGS]

I did read everything you said, and I'm sorry if I turned it into a competition to win.

You said, repeatedly, that abiogenesis doesn't make sense, and that it's not viable. I am merely trying to figure out why. You can believe that it didn't happen, and I think you're wrong but whatever it's your belief, but to say that the theory is unsound...I don't understand why you feel this way. What part of it is not a reasonably educated guess?

There were certain chemicals in early Earth environments that reacted, as chemicals do. The reaction produced by these chemicals arranged them in such a way that they formed RNA, which was the first step along the life process that led to more complex, complicated beings.

Even if you think God did it, why wouldn't this be the method by which He worked? It's still extraordinarily unlikely that this would happen, so you can choose to believe the divine is at work. It also looks like this is what occurred, to the best of our knowledge, so I honestly don't understand where the disconnect is. It's like what you said about microorganisms not being in the Bible. One possible interpretation is that they just didn't feel like going into the specifics of the process.

If you don't want to keep talking about it, that's cool. Sorry to have put you off.

I promise you, it wasn't just you! You were just the one caught with the hot potato!:lol

I'm doing it for everybody's benefit, not just mine. A little of me goes a long way & a person can get carpel tunnel talking about that stuff.

But I am done talking about it for now. It will inevitably come up again.

New question: What is the point of morality in a Christian worldview?

Are you saying that Christians aren't moral when looking at people outside their religion? Biblically speaking this would be incorrect, but I'm sure many practice that.

 

[jdogmoney]

Are you saying that Christians aren't moral when looking at people outside their religion? Biblically speaking this would be incorrect, but I'm sure many practice that.

They are, I'm just wondering why they feel they should be.

 

[JGS]

According to the Bible, murder is wrong.

In the Bible, murder is killing without cause.
Killing with cause is a-ok.

Murder can be killing with cause too. Its called motive.

Cause includes disrespecting elders, homosexuality, and shellfish.

Killing with cause would also include:

late term abortions
war
self defense

Are these Biblical in nature too? Did the Bible really invent war? Who knew?:lol
I was not aware that Christians were known to be killers of shrimp eating, young gay people.:lol