Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8942 total)
35 online now:
dwise1, Hyroglyphx, jar, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (5 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,836 Year: 18,872/19,786 Month: 1,292/1,705 Week: 98/446 Day: 98/64 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism, a dangerous idea?
happy_atheist
Member (Idle past 3203 days)
Posts: 326
Joined: 08-21-2004


Message 211 of 241 (332197)
07-16-2006 12:17 PM


Debating morals
I've seen it mentioned several times that a Christians morals can be debated based on what is written in the bible. Personally I'd much prefer (and feel much safer) if a persons morals were debated based on the effects they have on the people around them rather than what is written in a book. Morals should never be divorced from people, they should be based on them. They're not something to be leared like a times table, they're meant to be learned by living them and understanding the consequences of different actions (and I'd imagine that's how most peoples morals are formed). But then that's just my personal opinion :D

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 212 of 241 (332371)
07-16-2006 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by riVeRraT
07-15-2006 10:05 AM


Re: Implication of superiority
riVeRrat writes:

Congradulations, you get the "statement taken out of context award" for this thread.

Try re-reading the complete paragraph, and try to get out of it, that I meant that one was better than the other. Or that a lack of moral standards IS dangerous.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Atheists dangerous? Hardly. But with no moral standard to go on, it can be anything goes. Who knows what could happen, or what kind of society we could become? Are all atheists good? no. Are all christians good? no. Do we become a Godless soceity? Are we governed by the "greater good"? Just what is the greater good anyway? Anything science deems to be good? I am only partially ok with that, because I believe science can discover a lot of what is good, and why. However love is good, and yet science cannot fully define it. I think love needs to be a part of who and what we are on this earth, and if God is love, then God is part of it. Atheist don't believe in God so where does that leave us, that is my point. The morals of an atheist are not defined at all. Somehow most people in here seemed to think, that I meant that automatically makes an atheist a bad person. That couldn't be further from the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The entire statement is a mini-soliloquy on the lack of standards for athiest morality.

You state a number of questions that point to the relative nature of "the greater good" and the athiest set of morals. Although you write that you don't automatically claim that athiests are bad, you certainly imply that the morals athiests follow are a problem. Right here you imply that without God the morals cannot be standardized.

quote:
...if God is love, then God is part of it. Atheist don't believe in God so where does that leave us, that is my point. The morals of an atheist are not defined at all.

RR writes:

There is no moral standard. Please show it to me if I am wrong.


How about the moral standard of the society in which they grew up and live?

The moral standards of their parents?

The moral standards they obtained from their journey through life?

That's pretty complicated. Some are not really knowing the truth, or the Spirit, some are decieved, some are still growing, and some are just flat out liars......cough..green miracle rag..cough...

And the method by which we tell who is deceived or liars is...?

But we can look at them(people claiming to be Christian), and debate their stance, where as on the other hand, an atheist is free to have any moral standard he chooses, whether it is the greater good, or whatever, without debate. (That is my original statement reworded)

Here you are claiming that there is a Christian standard when you have refused provide Biblical quotes to substantiate this claim.
Besides, athiests are still part of society and must follow that society's standard or risk removal from it.

Additionally, you provide a Bible example of Christians working in unison but don't address the problems that Paul and Peter had in working together because each had a different stance on what laws applied to believers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by riVeRraT, posted 07-15-2006 10:05 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 9:40 AM LinearAq has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 213 of 241 (332486)
07-17-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by LinearAq
07-16-2006 9:50 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
Right here you imply that without God the morals cannot be standardized.

That is not what I implied. I am saying, not implying, that the morals within the bible, are debatable, because they are WRITTEN OUT.

Stop trying to figure out what I am implying, it is as if you have a guilty conscience.

How about the moral standard of the society in which they grew up and live?

The moral standards of their parents?

The moral standards they obtained from their journey through life?

These 3 statements back up what I am saying, not implying. None of those examples you provided are written down, or debatable.

So the moral standard of the children of Brad Pitt, and David Berkowitz are the same then?

And the method by which we tell who is deceived or liars is...?

That is not for me to tell you how. I can only share how I do it, and that is by praying. Before God revealed the Holy Spirit to me, I was much more gullable, and easily decieved.

Besides, athiests are still part of society and must follow that society's standard or risk removal from it.

I thought it was made clear that laws are not morals.

Additionally, you provide a Bible example of Christians working in unison but don't address the problems that Paul and Peter had in working together because each had a different stance on what laws applied to believers.

There will always be problems between people no matter their moral system. You are now implying, again, that I am claiming one to be better than the other, I wish you would stop. Please separate those issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by LinearAq, posted 07-16-2006 9:50 PM LinearAq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by LinearAq, posted 07-17-2006 11:15 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 214 of 241 (332519)
07-17-2006 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 9:40 AM


Re: Implication of superiority
riVeRrat writes:

That is not what I implied. I am saying, not implying, that the morals within the bible, are debatable, because they are WRITTEN OUT. Stop trying to figure out what I am implying, it is as if you have a guilty conscience.

I am reasonably sure everyone has a bit of a guilty conscience about something.

Regardless...

So, you are saying that because the morals within the Bible are written, they can be discussed. However, the morals of athiests cannot be discussed because they are not written down? I think I am getting an inkling of what you are saying. A few questions though to round out my understanding...

1. Because they are not written down, do you feel that the morals that guide different athiests are more widely varying that those morals presented in the Bible that guide different Christians?

2. Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the morals of athiests vary more from person to person than the morals of Christians?

3. Do you feel this widely varying set of morals is a danger to society or the human race? Why?

RR writes:

I thought it was made clear that laws are not morals.


Agreed.
However, the laws of a society typically reflect the morals of that society and tend to shape the morals of those who are born into that society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 9:40 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 3:14 PM LinearAq has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 215 of 241 (332583)
07-17-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by LinearAq
07-17-2006 11:15 AM


Re: Implication of superiority

So, you are saying that because the morals within the Bible are written, they can be discussed. However, the morals of athiests cannot be discussed because they are not written down?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

At least read what I write.

ok, for the last time. They can be discussed, but they cannot be debated, because they are not written down, they are not absolute. I have said that already. Stop twisting the words around to make them appear wrong.

1. Because they are not written down, do you feel that the morals that guide different athiests are more widely varying that those morals presented in the Bible that guide different Christians?

I have no way of knowing that.

2. Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the morals of athiests vary more from person to person than the morals of Christians?

I never said that either.

3. Do you feel this widely varying set of morals is a danger to society or the human race? Why?

I have never said they were dangerous, about 4 or 5 times already.
We just don't know yet.

However, the laws of a society typically reflect the morals of that society and tend to shape the morals of those who are born into that society.

That's how I feel, but I am not sure others agree with you.

Edited by AdminJar, : fix missing code


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by LinearAq, posted 07-17-2006 11:15 AM LinearAq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 3:48 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 222 by LinearAq, posted 07-17-2006 9:11 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 216 of 241 (332594)
07-17-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 3:14 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
ok, for the last time. They can be discussed, but they cannot be debated, because they are not written down, they are not absolute.

But what is there to make the Christian or Biblical morals absolute?

And what makes you think that secular morals are not written down? What about all of the works of the thousands of Philosophers down through the ages?

Further, saying that an atheist has not read them carries little weight. Many Christians have not actually read the Bible.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 3:14 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 6:10 PM jar has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 217 of 241 (332643)
07-17-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
07-17-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
But what is there to make the Christian or Biblical morals absolute?

We have kind of gone over that already, and the answer is that there are some that are absolute, and some that are gray areas, and some that people just make up. However, we could sit down drink a beer, study the bible, and debate it.

Surely the morals Jesus was trying to teach us aren't floating morals. It is our interpretation that is floating. That is what gives the ability to debate it.

And what makes you think that secular morals are not written down? What about all of the works of the thousands of Philosophers down through the ages?

Sure, but what does that have to do with what I said. An atheist can pick and choose what he wants, there is no standard.

Further, saying that an atheist has not read them carries little weight.

Never said that.

Many Christians have not actually read the Bible.

You got that right.
But at least they are familiar with the commandments. I would at least think those are pretty absolute. Whether we follow them or not, is another story.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 3:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 6:21 PM riVeRraT has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 218 of 241 (332649)
07-17-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 6:10 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
Surely the morals Jesus was trying to teach us aren't floating morals.

Really? It seems to me that all the morals jesus taught were very subjective.

Sure, but what does that have to do with what I said. An atheist can pick and choose what he wants, there is no standard.

And so can Christians. Look at the wars, oppression and other great evils done under the guise of following Christ.

But at least they are familiar with the commandments. I would at least think those are pretty absolute. Whether we follow them or not, is another story.

Really? Which commandments. What are the absolute ones?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 6:10 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 PM jar has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 219 of 241 (332662)
07-17-2006 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jar
07-17-2006 6:21 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
Really? It seems to me that all the morals jesus taught were very subjective.

But only to us.

And so can Christians. Look at the wars, oppression and other great evils done under the guise of following Christ.

Right, we can look at it, examine it, compare it to scripture, and have a debate over whether it really was a "Christian war" or had the backing of God. Try to do that with an atheist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 6:21 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 6:48 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 221 by DominionSeraph, posted 07-17-2006 8:30 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 220 of 241 (332664)
07-17-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 6:43 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
Right, we can look at it, examine it, compare it to scripture, and have a debate over whether it really was a "Christian war" or had the backing of God. Try to do that with an atheist.

Of course I can have the same discussion with an Atheist. In fact there is far more "scripture" in the Atheist world than for the Christian.

And, as you admit the morals of Christianity are all subjective.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 07-18-2006 6:12 AM jar has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 3043 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 221 of 241 (332686)
07-17-2006 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 6:43 PM


jar writes:

Really? It seems to me that all the morals jesus taught were very subjective.

riVeRraT writes:

But only to us.

... in my peception of your opinion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 PM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2965 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 222 of 241 (332694)
07-17-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by riVeRraT
07-17-2006 3:14 PM


One thing at a time.
LinearAq writes:

the morals of athiests cannot be discussed because they are not written down?

riVeRrat writes:

They can be discussed, but they cannot be debated, because they are not written down, they are not absolute.

You have said before that Christian morals can be debated....I assume you are saying that it is because they ARE written down and ARE absolute.

Please provide an example of an absolute morality stated in the Bible and your reasoning for catagorizing it as absolute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by riVeRraT, posted 07-17-2006 3:14 PM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 07-18-2006 6:15 AM LinearAq has responded

    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 223 of 241 (332766)
07-18-2006 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
07-17-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Implication of superiority
Of course I can have the same discussion with an Atheist. In fact there is far more "scripture" in the Atheist world than for the Christian.

Ok then, I have been asking for this scripture throughout this entire thread. A few atheists have shared their own moral ideas. So aside from "not believing in God" just what is this scripture you speak of? And how does it apply to all atheists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 07-17-2006 6:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jar, posted 07-18-2006 8:56 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 224 of 241 (332767)
07-18-2006 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by LinearAq
07-17-2006 9:11 PM


Re: One thing at a time.
Please provide an example of an absolute morality stated in the Bible and your reasoning for catagorizing it as absolute.

This is not a thread about Christian morality, it is about whether atheism is a dangerous idea or not.

If I provide an example, we will no doubt debate it, hence proving my point.

Please provide an example of absolute morality of an atheist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by LinearAq, posted 07-17-2006 9:11 PM LinearAq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by jar, posted 07-18-2006 8:58 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 227 by LinearAq, posted 07-18-2006 10:40 AM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 230 by ikabod, posted 07-19-2006 6:37 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 225 of 241 (332807)
07-18-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by riVeRraT
07-18-2006 6:12 AM


Re: Implication of superiority
Ok then, I have been asking for this scripture throughout this entire thread. A few atheists have shared their own moral ideas. So aside from "not believing in God" just what is this scripture you speak of? And how does it apply to all atheists?

And on several posts I supplied some examples Rat. The Scritpture is the vast body of work from Philosophers that have dealt with the issue of right behavior down through the ages. Hell, riVeRraT, every fairy tale, most nusery rhymes, the works of the Greek Philosophers on down to those of Kafka and Twain are included. Even the Bible (which many atheists have not only read, but know better than many Christians) is included. It includes the works of Confucius, of Mencius and Lao Tzu as well as the Qur'an and all other scripture.

"Not believing in god" is not part of Atheists scripture, it is their position. GOD and the question of which God is GOD just doesn't come up in the Atheists worldview, they waste no time on that issue. Instead, they are concerned about morality, ethics, society in a way that few theists can even comprehend.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 07-18-2006 6:12 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by riVeRraT, posted 07-19-2006 6:13 AM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019