Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would have to disagree. I've gone through deconversion over the last couple of years after more than 3 decades of Christianity. I actually have just as much compassion for others, if not more. I see the "evil" people in society as a product of their environment and more than ever want to see positive changes NOW. When I believed some celestial being was in charge, even though I felt bothered by things that bother me now, I assumed in the end that god would magically make everything right, which means that if we don't get right now, it will be made right later, which removes the sense of urgency for doing whats right now.
Morality has changed drastically throughout history. There will never be a fixed morality. Even in the Bible, the old testament "God" went from an angry, jealous being that regularly "told his people" to go wipe out entire towns and civilizations including killing all women and children (except keep the virgins for yourselves in some cases) for not worshipping him, to the Jesus of the new testament who did nothing violent at all when people rejected him and mocked him. For most believers, they have accepted the new testament teachings because they are morally acceptable in our society most of the time, while the old testament has to be cherry picked for relevant morals because no one in their right mind would agree with carrying out the horrendous acts commanded in the old testament.
According to the religion that you have chosen to assign to me, the sacrifice of Christ is said to atone for the sins of the Old Testament.
Nice post Txt. I would argue with the Frog that a flexible morality is not as good as a (supposedly) absolute morality. In fact,the supposedly God -given morality is as flexible as the relative one. In fact one could almost say it was wilful, since what it comes down to is 'What God says is good, is good, even if we think it's bad'.
So we not only have a relative and wilful morality but a dual morality - what our innate nature tells us is good (which is how a 'relative' morality operates) and a 'God says' morality which is good even if it goes against what we instinctively think of a 'good'. It is justified' as part of God's intentions for us. The argument about Biblical tolerance (not to say endorsement) of slavery is a case in point.
(1) either slavery is justified
(2) it was ok,but times have changed and now it is wrong
(3) it was always wrong but God sorta had to go along with it because it's what people did.
(1) evil
(2) relative and then some
(3) despicable.
The Bible is no place to find morality and give me relative morality every time.
1) Slavery was not justified.
2) It was not okay
3) What reason do you have to believe that God would intervene on a moral infraction after creation based on free will?
If the answer is "no", then it is conceded that morality exists independent of any deity.
If the answer is "yes"... well, that says a lot about the individual answering.
Of course, we can test this in the real world. There are societies, generally primitive and isolated, that have no concept of deities. Yet they have morality. We can look at regions of the United States and expect, if the thesis that morality comes from God is true, that -- for example -- regions with higher belief should have lower rates of crime. Yet the states of the American Bible Belt have amongst the highest violent crime rates. And around the world, belief in God (or the local superman-in-the-sky variation) does not tend to correlate with lower crime rates.
I'm sure the "Morality comes from God" idea is firmly held by those who espouse it, but the real-world evidence simply does not back it up.
You responded to that like it was a good idea?
Could there be another possible explanation for crime rates in religious areas other than God? I'll have to think about that.
I've never understood why peopole have this drive to assign "value" to human existence. It has what value we give it, as you say. But there is no reason whatsoever to assume that we humans are any more cosmically significant than a mound of ants, or that our existence has any overarching "meaning" or "purpose." That's silly.
Pfft. More baseless nonsense. Morality, even from a biblical standpoint, has always been subjective and subject to human whims, just as in the Old Testament, Yahweh on several occasions exhorts his followers to slaughter whole villages and enslave and rape women and children. This is simply more evidence that religions are merely the construct of the human imagination. As for a 'god-centered" or "god-based" objective morality (which, of course, doesn't exist) you should take four minutes to view this:
(Admittedly, Hitchens always struck me as seeming like an arrogant a$$hat, ,but that doesn't detract from the very valid points he makes here.)
What's silly is to actually posit that we have no more significance than a mound of ants. Pffft. What did Hitchens strike you as again?
All that is required for morality to come into being is a desire for civilization, no celestial authority is needed. Here's my tribe, there is your tribe. Competing for the same food supply brings us into serial conflict which produces great inefficiencies and waste. Therefore we agree to cooperate, we agree that the members of my tribe will no longer attack the members of your tribe. Presto...morality is born and no god of any sort was mandatory to the process.
Of course morality is a human invention rather than something which exists on its own as an absolute. Remove humans from the equation and where is morality? It no longer exists, does it? Or do you find morality in the behavior of insects or the nature of a rock?
And what is your notion of absolute morality? Which set of rules are the absolutes? Can you identify a single moral rule which does not have a human origin?
Far from being a celestial absolute, all morality is contractual, agreements we reach with others regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
Under your presupposition, genocide may become a moral right under a situation of overpopulation. Have fun defending that position. Or how about rape in a situation of underpopulation? If morality is subjective, all you can say is that murder is wrong "right now". Given an overpopulation scenario, in your view Sandy Hook could be considered a moral triumph.
Why wouldn't society adapt accordingly to the pre-eminent ideology?
Many societies throughout history were heavily influenced by religion. In Christianity and Islam, there is a Creator that makes every soul accountable for their actions on earth.
If you remove the Creator, where is the accountability?
Additionally, why would people be willing to support others when it both directly and indirectly lowers their standard of living? If you only live once, why would you voluntarily suffer?
If the majority of the world actually believes that there is nothing before them and nothing after them, why would they be content with working in a cubicle for the rest of their lives or digging ditches?
If anything, the ruling party would have to increase security, especially as population continues to grow and the availability of resources dwindles.
I don't understand why nobody thinks that the world would make significant adaptations to conform to atheist ideology.
This world of McMansions and lattes is a facade. Everyone is not holding hands and dancing in a circle in real life.
That's a fantasy.
The accountability is in people, as it always has been... hence we have law systems. The accountability is that Egotistical people will not survive, hence they had to adopt religions to color and mask their anti-selection personalities. I'm sure there might be a great deal who can bend the system for their self, they do it today and they did it in the ancient days.
Under your presupposition, genocide may become a moral right under a situation of overpopulation. Have fun defending that position. Or how about rape in a situation of underpopulation? If morality is subjective, all you can say is that murder is wrong "right now". Given an overpopulation scenario, in your view Sandy Hook could be considered a moral triumph.
That would depend on if the goal was maintaining a population. It's a simple calculus. Would you rather allow 2 rapists to live and rape and murder 1000000000000 little girls. Or kill the broken-men and save the girls? quite a double standard, if "murder" was "wrong always". For the population problems, Asking for volunteers would be the first moral thing to do. Then reassessing the goal. Then trying education. Then thinking about other more moral methods to achieve the goal. Then doing what needs to be done, even if it means "killing two rapists is bad right now, but not when they are out to rape one-trillion little girls."
So there is nothing really inherently wrong with, say, catching babies on bayonets for sport? It just depends upon the society that you happen to belong to?
The bible says to bash the babies on rocks...Do you approve of that?
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both
male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as
sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do
you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while
she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know
it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The
problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should
I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2.
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of
God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I
wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a
dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting
two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends
to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus
enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am
confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us
that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Under your presupposition, genocide may become a moral right under a situation of overpopulation. Have fun defending that position. Or how about rape in a situation of underpopulation? If morality is subjective, all you can say is that murder is wrong "right now". Given an overpopulation scenario, in your view Sandy Hook could be considered a moral triumph.
Certainly, the above describes how things have always been with morality. It is a liquid concept, constantly subject to modification, rationalization, and more often than not, subordinate to self preservation.
If morality was absolute, than it could not be subject to modification. Since it clearly always has been in flux, it just as clearly has never been absolute.
You have decided to try and obscure this depressing truth by dreaming up ridiculously extreme examples of morally justified horrors, and then hoping that I would fall into some trap by signing off on them. History is chockablock with plenty of morally justified horrors, given the right circumstances, any of us may end up justifying pretty much anything. I believe that Balzac was onto something when he wrote "Behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
Conscience is that little voice inside us telling us that someone may be watching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
