Morals, Christianity, Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 05:59 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 05:46 PM)SunnyD1 Wrote:  Breaking obligation does not mean that you were never bound by it in the first place.

Of course breaking an obligation doesn't mean you were never bound by it, but the fact that you were never bound by it means the obligation doesn't exist, or in other words it's not an obligation if you are not bound by it.

His binding to himself is merely a fiction, and all it takes for him to unbind himself, is a realization that he was never bound in the first place.

That's very circular.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 01:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  To answer (some of) your questions:

To be holy and righteous in the biblical sense/definition includes:

*A separation from some worldly things to cleave unto Jesus Christ

*Worshipping Jesus Christ

*Being cleansed by the Holy Spirit and forgiven of sin

*Etc.

Some atheists can be as ethical or moral as some Christians. I would debate that as a class, atheists are more moral than Bible-believing Christians but per the Bible, atheists, secularists and adherents of other religions are not as holy as Christians.

A cleaving to Jesus can be seen as an intellectual turning off of the brain.
How does one intellectually follow Jesus' alleged contradictory claims?
A blind adherence to muddled promises and threats seems pretty paranoid.
What acquired sin are you referring to?
Is yahweh included in your trifecta?
* Etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
18-11-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 06:24 PM)Deidre32 Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 06:21 PM)Rik Wrote:  The Q guy is a disingenuous fuck. Cool

Talking about ''Tomasia.'' But...maybe Jeremy has a twin. Unsure

Oh. Tomasia is just tedious. Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rik's post
18-11-2014, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 18-11-2014 07:33 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 06:21 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You can't be bound by a moral obligation that you do not accept. If you accept a moral obligation then you are bound by it. If you later find reason why you should not be bound by it then the obligation no longer exists.

The problem is the person offering and accepting are the same.

You're both the borrower and the lender. The prisoner, the prison, the guard, and judge, and lets throw in the lawyers, and jury as well. You put handcuffs on yourself, and yet hold the keys to unlock them at anytime.

The point being made is you're not obligated. You've been free the whole time. You owe no one, because it came out of your own pocket.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 07:34 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 07:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 06:21 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You can't be bound by a moral obligation that you do not accept. If you accept a moral obligation then you are bound by it. If you later find reason why you should not be bound by it then the obligation no longer exists.

The problem is the person offering and accepting are the same.

You're both the borrower and the lender. The prisoner, the prison, the guard, and judge, and lets throw in the lawyers, and jury as well. You put handcuffs on yourself, and yet hold the keys to unlock them at anytime.

The point being made is you're not obligated. You've been free the whole time. You owe no one, because it came out of your own pocket.

So? Okay.. why would being obligated matter?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
18-11-2014, 07:53 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 07:18 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The problem is the person offering and accepting are the same.

I guess we are done here. Your view of moral obligation is completely unintelligible to me. If you believe something is a moral obligation because it is imposed on you from outside then all I have to say is that I consider that to make the whole concept of morality meaningless.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 08:05 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 07:53 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Your view of moral obligation is completely unintelligible to me.

My own personal views regarding moral obligations don't even matter here. For all intended purpose we can assume that I don't think they exist.

And if you can't see why they don't at this point, then you'd have to question whose views of these supposed obligations are unintelligible.

Play back my previous post in your head several times, and you just might get it then.

Quote:I guess we are done here.

I think my work here is finished.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 08:24 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 04:13 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  A couple of pages back a demographic breakdown of the American prison population as a way of demonstrating that athiests are more moral than christians. I do disagree with the position and I do take issue with the importance of the stated figure; 0.02% of the prison population are athiests.

I don't think thats demonstrative of a moral highground or being moral on a person to person basis.
Athiesim corelates with how well informed somebody is about our scientific understanding of the world. That understanding is directly proportional to how well educated somebody is. Education correlates with how much money people have. Poorer people make up the vast majority of the prison population.

I don't buy that athiests trend to being more moral for the same reason. Athiesim correlates with education, education correlates with oppertunities and by extention the ability to be more moral.

I would bet that of the people on this site, the overwhelming majority have never had to steal to live, never had to defend all their worldly goods with violence and have never been homeless, destitute and without support or valueable skill at the same time. Affluence creates space to be more moral.

I do, however, believe people when they say their morality stems from their religious beliefs but not because they're religious. Even if a religion was entirely factually true; the story is an accurate telling of events, the deity does exist as described and the various spells and rituals had a specific, palpable result, it would still be a fable:

A story for the purpose of communicating morality.

So it's in turn a story used to make a shared understanding of moral behaviour. That's why most christian parents don't teach their kids the entire biblical text: They don't teach the parts they don't concider moral because that would be counter productive.

That'd also be why people discard some tenents of their religion as they grow and still concider themselves to be a member of that religion. They gained a new understanding of what is moral behaviour and that informed their choices. (Like the example of a higher divorce rate between fundamentalist christians a page or so ago. It's a good example I just don't know if it's true. It has truthyness though.)

Well done. I was too lazy to type that all up today because i was itching to play my new game. Very astute of you, it would seem looking at prison statistics, that there is a direct correlation with religion and crime, or even a causation there, but actually you nailed it...most prisoners are of the....lower education, lower IQ, lower income, lower socio-economic opportunities, and yes, normally religious folks fall into a large portion of the lower education group...not all of course, by a large number of good ol boys do. etc...in reality, the prison statistics don't prove that religious folks do more crime, but what it DOES prove is that Atheism doesn't lead to more deviant behavior...as indicated by the .02 or .07% (depends on which study you look at) non religious category upon entering prison. No, that number isnt from fox news, I never went to fox news for anything in my life, that was from FBI prison statistics and bureau of justice statistics and other major statistical data studies...I have tis crap in my text books, just got to go dig through the book case to find it. Here are a few thought provoking links thought in the meantime..

http://natskep.com/only-0-07-of-prisoner...ns-report/

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/...s-atheists

http://visual.ly/religion-and-crime-there-correlation

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-...d-religion

http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm

So in closing, while I agree with you that at face value, it is easy to correlate religious affiliation and high crime statistics, but there is a lot more to it......what I normally use this data for is to disprove that atheism leads to high levels of criminal and deviant behavior....not to prove believers are criminals, it is a fun stick in which to poke them with when they inevitably throw the moral card on the table.....shuts them right up.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2014, 08:25 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(17-11-2014 01:57 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's been claimed recently by some on this thread that atheists may be as moral as Christians or anyone else. I would debate that proposition but would mention that the Bible nowhere commands any person to be moral or ethical, but rather, to be holy or righteous, which is different.

Your comments?

I am offended by your statement. You certainly have a lot of sack to not even place everyone on a level playing field when it comes to morality, rather you place Atheists below even "anyone else". It is not possible to you that they "may be" moral? Built directly into your question is a profound insult.

I don't care what small distinctions you interpret from the bible between "moral or ethical" and "holy and righteous". The bottom line is that within the text of the bible are, not a rare few, but a great many commands and endorsements of the worst possible behavior. It seems to me that a Jew alive in the time of The Old Testament could participate fully in the genocide of the Amalekites and the theft of their products and family members, who by the way were considered as products with divine permission, and he would be in perfect "righteousness" in the eyes of his god for having followed god's commands. To call this ethics or morality is a joke, yet it is pious and holy all the same.

Not only is it possible to notice that human conceptions of moral laws are independent from deities, and are used as a standard with which to judge them, but it is necessary to live a decent twenty first century life. We are all more moral than god is written to be and we don't need him to be even half decent. It is necessary and good to leave such childishness behind us.

To actually base morality in the bible, or attempt to defend it, is a fucking joke with no punch line and no taste. It's just not possible to do with self respect.

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

-Karl Marx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Phoenix's post
18-11-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: Morals, Christianity, Atheism
(18-11-2014 08:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 07:53 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Your view of moral obligation is completely unintelligible to me.

My own personal views regarding moral obligations don't even matter here. For all intended purpose we can assume that I don't think they exist.

And if you can't see why they don't at this point, then you'd have to question whose views of these supposed obligations are unintelligible.

Play back my previous post in your head several times, and you just might get it then.

Quote:I guess we are done here.

I think my work here is finished.

Are you implying the tired old disproven card of "without a god, we dont have morals" or the new one of "atheists just want to be their own god" or are you implying "without fear of a god, the world will fall apart into anarchy"....sadly the facts disprove all of that BS. Truly.

The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is absurd as all one has to do is look at Denamrk or Sweden to see that these largely atheist areas enjoy being at the top tier of civilization. This is broken down in great detail in a book by Phil Zuckerman, "Society without god".

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.

Works cited


Zuckerman, Phil. Society without god: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008. Print.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: