Morality Without God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2014, 08:08 PM
Morality Without God
Morality without God! Pretty powerful stuff!

I do note you take all references from the Old Testament, hmm.......? Is The Thinking Atheist thinking about why that is? Is the TA aware that Christianity rejected the Old Testament law in it's acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and used the OT only as a witness to Him and His coming? Does the thinking atheist find moral horror proscribed in the other than the Pentateuch , Judges, Joshua and Samuel (probably you can) or is he on a tear with Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and the Prophets as well?

If the TA is correct that the Bible's God is such a monster, why is it that Christianity has been considered the pinnacle of moral achievement by the Western world until recently with the rise of militant atheism in the late 19th and the 20th centuries? If Christianity's God is a monster why have His followers been the ones who established hospitals, formed societies for the education and care of children, adopted the infants exposed by the Romans in their form of abortion, put an end to the murderous Gladiator games, engaged in prison reform, established Universities, provided for worldwide care of the poor for millenia, lead "crusades" against the excesses of alcohol and drugs, established countless orphanages and put an end to the slave trade? It seems to me that Christians have the reputation for fierce opposition to rape, child sacrifice, slavery, kidnapping, animal abuse, baby killing and the rest. It has been reserved for atheists to have achieved the greatest horrors of the 20th century in the murderous regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the East German Stasi, The most repressive regimes in the world continue to be atheistic communist regimes such as Cuba and North Korea. Is the Thinking Atheist thinking about these things?

What really surprises me is that atheism assumes the role of universal moral defender but on what grounds??? on the grounds of co-opting the morality of a Western society steeped in two millenia of Christian faith. The Thinking Atheist seems to think there is some MORAL LAW floating "out there" to which God and Man are subservient. Please tell me more about this, especially its origin and enforcement. When famous atheist Bertrand Russell was asked what ethical system he would use when Christian belief was eradicated, he responded that Christian ethics, at least, would be just fine. Was the Thinking Atheist thinking about this?? It seems to me that atheism assumes there is a moral underpinning for morality in ....... Matter, I guess, because there is no Spirit in the universe, only matter. If the universe consists of matter and matter alone, what gives rise to the ethical spirit especially in the sense that it is BINDING on all men at all times and in all places? With the "tools" provided by atheism, by what standard do you say one activity is moral and the immoral? Is it merely one's (or a group's) opinion? If it is mere opinion, then who adjudicates between one man's opinion or another? At what point in the evolutionary chain (no objection to the scientific theory of evolution implied) does morality inject itself? Once the general population apprehends the depth of radical atheism's basic tenets and believes them deeply for a few centuries, the basis of law disappears and with it the society which adopted these beliefs. Was the Thinking Atheist thinking of this? I don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Onlinewatcher's post
07-02-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: Morality Without God
This, ahem, "interesting" Gish-Gallop does not appear to be a topic or "argument" suitable for the "Introductions" forum. Dodgy

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 11:12 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2014 11:31 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Morality Without God
One example of an atheist's moral system:



Here, ... [one] reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. Since I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die; who desires happiness and is averse to suffering; if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another -- of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering--that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to commit adultery with my wives, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to commit adultery with the wives of another, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from sexual misconduct, exhorts others to abstain from sexual misconduct, and speaks in praise of abstinence from sexual misconduct. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to damage my welfare with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to damage the welfare of another with false speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from false speech, exhorts others to abstain from false speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from false speech. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to divide me from my friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to divide another from his friends by divisive speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from divisive speech, exhorts others to abstain from divisive speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from divisive speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with harsh speech, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from harsh speech, exhorts others to abstain from harsh speech, and speaks in praise of abstinence from harsh speech. ' Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects.

"Furthermore, ... [one] reflects thus: 'If someone were to address me with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to address another with frivolous speech and idle chatter, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from idle chatter, exhorts others to abstain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of abstinence from idle chatter. Thus this verbal conduct of his is purified in three respects."



Another:


"What do you think...? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes...."

"Now, what do you think...? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes..."

"Now, what do you think...? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For harm..."

"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

"Yes..."

"So what do you think...?: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"

"Unskillful..."

"Blameworthy or blameless?"

"Blameworthy..."

"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"

"Criticized by the wise..."

"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?"

"When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us."

...

"What do you think...? When lack of greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this ungreedy person, not overcome by greed, his mind not possessed by greed, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"What do you think...? When lack of aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this unaversive person, not overcome by aversion, his mind not possessed by aversion, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"What do you think...? When lack of delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?"

"For welfare..."

"And this undeluded person, not overcome by delusion, his mind not possessed by delusion, doesn't kill living beings, take what is not given, go after another person's wife, tell lies, or induce others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term welfare & happiness."

"Yes..."

"So what do you think... Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?"

"Skillful..."

"Blameworthy or blameless?"

"Blameless..."

"Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?"

"Praised by the wise..."

"When adopted & carried out, do they lead to welfare & to happiness, or not?"

"When adopted & carried out, they lead to welfare & to happiness. That is how it appears to us."

....



"Now..one who [practices as above] — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.


It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
07-02-2014, 11:35 PM
RE: Morality Without God
Morality = try not to be a fucking prick for fucksake.- Stark's First Commandment. Thumbsup

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-02-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: Morality Without God
(07-02-2014 08:08 PM)Onlinewatcher Wrote:  Morality without God! Pretty powerful stuff!

I do note you take all references from the Old Testament, hmm.......? Is The Thinking Atheist thinking about why that is? Is the TA aware that Christianity rejected the Old Testament law in it's acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and used the OT only as a witness to Him and His coming? Does the thinking atheist find moral horror proscribed in the other than the Pentateuch , Judges, Joshua and Samuel (probably you can) or is he on a tear with Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and the Prophets as well?

If the TA is correct that the Bible's God is such a monster, why is it that Christianity has been considered the pinnacle of moral achievement by the Western world until recently with the rise of militant atheism in the late 19th and the 20th centuries? If Christianity's God is a monster why have His followers been the ones who established hospitals, formed societies for the education and care of children, adopted the infants exposed by the Romans in their form of abortion, put an end to the murderous Gladiator games, engaged in prison reform, established Universities, provided for worldwide care of the poor for millenia, lead "crusades" against the excesses of alcohol and drugs, established countless orphanages and put an end to the slave trade? It seems to me that Christians have the reputation for fierce opposition to rape, child sacrifice, slavery, kidnapping, animal abuse, baby killing and the rest. It has been reserved for atheists to have achieved the greatest horrors of the 20th century in the murderous regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the East German Stasi, The most repressive regimes in the world continue to be atheistic communist regimes such as Cuba and North Korea. Is the Thinking Atheist thinking about these things?

What really surprises me is that atheism assumes the role of universal moral defender but on what grounds??? on the grounds of co-opting the morality of a Western society steeped in two millenia of Christian faith. The Thinking Atheist seems to think there is some MORAL LAW floating "out there" to which God and Man are subservient. Please tell me more about this, especially its origin and enforcement. When famous atheist Bertrand Russell was asked what ethical system he would use when Christian belief was eradicated, he responded that Christian ethics, at least, would be just fine. Was the Thinking Atheist thinking about this?? It seems to me that atheism assumes there is a moral underpinning for morality in ....... Matter, I guess, because there is no Spirit in the universe, only matter. If the universe consists of matter and matter alone, what gives rise to the ethical spirit especially in the sense that it is BINDING on all men at all times and in all places? With the "tools" provided by atheism, by what standard do you say one activity is moral and the immoral? Is it merely one's (or a group's) opinion? If it is mere opinion, then who adjudicates between one man's opinion or another? At what point in the evolutionary chain (no objection to the scientific theory of evolution implied) does morality inject itself? Once the general population apprehends the depth of radical atheism's basic tenets and believes them deeply for a few centuries, the basis of law disappears and with it the society which adopted these beliefs. Was the Thinking Atheist thinking of this? I don't know.

So much error.

Look here for corrections to your assumptions.

Get back to me when you are done.

Rolleyes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
08-02-2014, 08:41 AM
RE: Morality Without God
BTW, your thread title and concept, "Morality without My Fairy Tale Monster", assumes that your fairy tale monster actually exists, which you have not demonstrated. This is called a "Question-Begging" fallacy.

And you might want to look this over - though it seems doubtful that you will take heed of it:

[Image: i-451f5356ad30f214361cd29fda6a4963-debatingrules.jpeg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
08-02-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Morality Without God
Just leaving this here... I think it sums up nicely why atheists don't have a track record for all those nice things you talked about religious folks doing. Hard to do... You know... When you're dead.
[Image: 3b2aa50f1c48f06607f043c4ddfe483b_zpscfe75871.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Smercury44's post
08-02-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Morality Without God
I dislike how Christians try to lay claim to all the 'great' things humans have done and claim that it's because of god. Maybe for some, they were inspired by god to do kind things, but more often than not humans do whatever humans do because they're human and have human wants and needs. God's just a good cover story, imho.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Morality Without God
Hey OP, you got any more daft comments to make or are you one of those post and run away types ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: Morality Without God
And we're off again ... OK, go and learn about the enlightenment, late 17th and early 18th century. The reason Catholics can no longer torture or burn people at the stake for disagreement anymore is because of pressure from the secular world. Nowadays, christians in general no longer go on rampages in the name of god because the secular world doesn't allow it. Christian organisations across the world no longer control the distribution of land or the collection of taxes because the secular world won't allow it. Even in very recent times, racist issues have decreased, women have more rights and homosexuals are able to marry. ALL of this is through secular pressure. You would still be stoning people to death and drowning witches, or draughting laws about what linens you can wear and banning shellfish. The religious have slowly but surely had their superstitious and irrational input beaten out of society by secular progressive thoughts. Not only are you our moral inferior, we are your moral guides and teachers. Sit down son. Smile

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: