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.
It does not matter whether Christians get their morality from ancient dogma or the word of God. My point is that both parties pick and choose morals that suit their needs. Yet, atheists claim some sort of moral high ground.
Of course we do, we own the higher moral ground in this case. An atheist deciding what will represent his or her moral values makes no pretense of being subject to a prevailing code. The atheist is free to pick and choose because there is no standard which must be selected based on doctrine or dogma.
The Christian who claims that the dogmatic sources are legitimate, and then selects morals based not on the dogma but on personal convenience, is being hypocritical.
For example, an atheist may conclude that there is no reason to be restrictive in choosing sex partners and no reason not to practice birth control while doing so. A Catholic is not free to make these choices, at least not in theory. He or she, as a supposed subscriber to Catholic doctrine, is supposed to view sex as for reproductive purposes only. The atheist is violating no code, the Catholic who indulges in the same manner, is going against the rules.
Of course we do, we own the higher moral ground in this case. An atheist deciding what will represent his or her moral values makes no pretense of being subject to a prevailing code. The atheist is free to pick and choose because there is no standard which must be selected based on doctrine or dogma.
The Christian who claims that the dogmatic sources are legitimate, and then selects morals based not on the dogma but on personal convenience, is being hypocritical.
For example, an atheist may conclude that there is no reason to be restrictive in choosing sex partners and no reason not to practice birth control while doing so. A Catholic is not free to make these choices, at least not in theory. He or she, as a supposed subscriber to Catholic doctrine, is supposed to view sex as for reproductive purposes only. The atheist is violating no code, the Catholic who indulges in the same manner, is going against the rules.
Got it?
Again, not true. Catholics have evolved and altered their position on many things. The Rules, rituals, and even teachings of the church change all the time. Religious teachings are not hard-coded.
illusion atheist has no conscience bark for express scold. no rod justice. staff correcting and cannot do rescue and knows only parish.there is no guard. moral not possible.
Again, not true. Catholics have evolved and altered their position on many things. The Rules, rituals, and even teachings of the church change all the time. Religious teachings are not hard-coded.
That was the point....absolute moral dogma is not supposed to be subject to evolution...word of god and all like that.
What is the point of being a Catholic if you decide that all of the rules of Catholicism are subject to your individual discretion? "I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe the pope is the head of the church, I don't feel obligated to ever go to mass or confession, I don't think that the bread and wine is actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, I'm in favor of divorce, abortion and capital punishment....but I'm a good Catholic."
I have often heard atheists argue that theists: say Christians, pick and choose their morality from the Bible. But then again, don't atheists do the same? I am not sure how they decide what is moral or not.
Not all atheists are NOT pro-choice. Not all atheists are pro-gay-rights. So aren't they as a group also picking and choosing their morals? Yet they criticize the religious for doing the same thing.
In a flexible relative morality, there is room to do that, but in a concensus we have agreed guidlines, rather than a moral compass to help us.
Because we often have to think about what's right rather than just do what a book says, we can often be more particular about our moral stance than Christians, who often seem to just do what they want and not what The Book says and put it all right with a few songs on Sunday.
That was the point....absolute moral dogma is not supposed to be subject to evolution...word of god and all like that.
What is the point of being a Catholic if you decide that all of the rules of Catholicism are subject to your individual discretion? "I'm a Catholic, but I don't believe the pope is the head of the church, I don't feel obligated to ever go to mass or confession, I don't think that the bread and wine is actually transformed into the body and blood of Jesus, I'm in favor of divorce, abortion and capital punishment....but I'm a good Catholic."
Well, now you are just side-tracking. I said nothing about absolute moral dogma. Religion also teaches you to question authority (e.g. church, pope) - but you chose to ignore that bit.
So according to you Catholics should have no wiggle room and no space for evolution of ideas. Their every action should be questioned, held accountable and compared to the dogma in the religious text. However, atheists somehow have a free pass to do whatever the hell they want - they are free to choose whatever beliefs they want - murder is okay OR not okay, rape is okay OR not okay, etc. Choose as you please.
Doesn't seem fair to me.
I am sure many Christians will tell you that about the wine and bread. But many others will tell you that it is just symbolic. But I fail to see your point here.
Many atheists will tell you that there are UFOs are real, Boston bombings were an inside job, Churches should be burnt to the ground ....
There is a false perception that atheists are somehow smarter and are removed from all the craziness in the world.
In a flexible relative morality, there is room to do that, but in a concensus we have agreed guidlines, rather than a moral compass to help us.
Because we often have to think about what's right rather than just do what a book says, we can often be more particular about our moral stance than Christians, who often seem to just do what they want and not what The Book says and put it all right with a few songs on Sunday.
Two quick points:
1. One could strongly argue that the complicated moral fabric of today's society has been derived from years and years of religious teachings/ religious history/ religious war / etc.
2. Everyone keeps saying that Christians somehow are the only ones that seek morality from an external source (i.e. a Bible). However, this is not completely true. Most Christians draw comfort and seek guidance from the Bible, and that is very different from doing what the book says. In reality, all citizens retort to external sources for understanding what is right or wrong - after all what else is the Constitution/ Local laws if not a guide book?
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.
