[pbleighton]

Quote

Speaking only for myself, that sounds like an incredibly difficult, I would say impossible, way to make one's journey through life, and I feel sadness.

It's not.

Peter

[mike777]

I do feel sadness for those that condemn themselves as guilty.

OF course if you never break your moral or ethical code of conduct or integrity by some action or nonaction this is a nonissue.

[Winstonm]

Quote

2) Winston, it is mainline christian belief that the nature of God is fully Just and equally full of Grace. Are you saying your Prof. brother disagrees with this opinion?
If so what does he say is the nature of the Christian/Hebrew God?

Mike,
My brother now believes that the nature of god is non-punishing. He does not believe in an altered human condition of "grace" or "sanctification". He also says that reading the original language makes it obvious that the old testament is simply stories meant to teach a morality lesson, more in line with moral myth, and should not be construed as history or basis for theology.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Aug 23 2007, 06:25 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 22 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Quote

his existence has to be accepted on faith, and it is this faith that saves

So, Jimmy, what happens to those who don't accept on faith this existence and are therefore not saved?

opinions vary, as mike says... i'll give you mine... i believe the words 'heaven' and 'hell' can be defined as: eternity in the presence of God (life; heaven) and eternity outside God's presence (death; hell)... just as we can't conceive what God has planned for us in heaven, we can't conceive what it means to be apart from him for eternity in hell

Jimmy, I appreciate your answer. Quite frankly, the only time I have complaints about the devoutly religious is when such a question is answered with comments like, It's a mystery, god move in mysterious ways, you have to have faith, etc. I have no problems with someone who holds devout beliefs, otherwise. I do tire, I admit, about pointing to christian scripture as a source to support a claim - the dispute is usually about the validity of the source to begin with.

I do find it interesting that those who hold strong views over time have (to me it seems) somewhat diluted the definitions of hell and punishment. Maybe this is evolution of the faithful, you think?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 24 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

same old circle... if subjective, then what is "moral" depends on what? culture? environment? we've had this discussion before (torturing small children for fun) and nobody has yet told me how such an act can be considered moral in any subjective sense

"Torture" is a loaded word. I don't think that you would find many people who would self identify as torturers. (In much the same way, you don't find many people who self identify as terrorists).

I can, however, point to many societies that do perform acts that you or I might very well describe as "torturing children" and consider this right and proper behavior. I can identify entire societies that have no qualms about this sort of behavior. More over, I'm sure that these same societies would be completely horrified about behavior that you or I would consider common place.

Female Genital Mutilation is most obvious example. There are societies out there consider this practice moral and appropriate. For example, consider the following quote

Quote

"While incest and illicit commerce of the sexes is abominable, there is another even more so--if that be possible--that is, the heinous sin of self-pollution or masturbation.... In some cases where there may be impingement of the clitoris, a slight operation may be necessary to relieve the tension and irritation...."

Lowry, Reverend Oscar. A Virtuous Woman: Sex Life in Relation to the Christian Life. Zondervan Publishing House, 1815 Franklin Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan; November, 1938 (Fourth Edition); pp. 29 and 35.

Slavery is another great example where slave owners felt morally justified in ensuring proper discipline. In many cases, said slave owners justified their behavior using the Bible. Recall those quotes about the "Curse of Ham"?

Last but not least, the child labor practices during the 18th and 19th centuries could be considered as akin to torture. Eventually reform movements arose and drove these practices out of the civilized West and into the third world, where they rightfully belong. (Luckily, we can still buy nice cheap Nikes, so long as we don't think too hard on where they're coming from)

You and I would probably condemn all of these practices. But you can't deny that entire societies accept these actions as behavioral norms.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I do feel sadness for those that condemn themselves as guilty.

OF course if you never break your moral or ethical code of conduct or integrity by some action or nonaction this is a nonissue.

If I've condemned myself as guilty by not accepting Christianity, how can it be a *nonissue*? I'm going to hell, do I console myself with memories of my flawless behavior while I'm buring eternally?

Peter

[mikeh]

Of all the arguments for religious faith, I find the argument that we need religion in order to be able to live moral lives the most personally repugnant. What utter arrogance... to suggest that atheists are immoral... and we must be, since how can we be moral without the fear of God's punishment?

While one's own experiences are anecdotal, and thus susceptible to bias and not well-generalizable, my life experiences have taught me to be very, very careful of the ethics of 'devout' religious people, and to trust atheists.

Where the 'f' does a religious believer get off, arguing that his or her religion is needed for ethical behaviour? Show me a religion (other than Buddhism, which is arguably not a religion in the sense of Christianity, Hinduism, etc) and I will show you a history of torture, abuse, intolerance and murder ... and believers have the nerve to question the morality of atheists????

Imagine the Sunnis and Shiiites in Iraq suddenly spontaneously converting to atheism... my guess is that a lot of the violence there would disappear.. not all, of course.

Have the Taliban become atheist, and does anyone think they'd still blow up statues of Buddha?

Have the lunatic fringe of American Christianity become atheist, and how many abortion clinics will be torched, or doctors murdered?

This argument that religion founds morality is insulting, juvenile, and idiotic. No student of history can deny that religous difference and religious intolerance underlies much (altho not all) human strife.


Personally, I wouldn't trust a professed born-again Christian as far as I could throw one... but an atheist, who (in my experience) is someone who has really thought about morality, is someone I would be inclined to trust. I would also trust many of the less-dogmatic religious believers...

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 23 2007, 11:28 PM, said:

As a side issue to atheists:
1) Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?An example of inaction may be your personal moral code requires you to help the poor or less well off but you do not take enough action to meet your moral code.
You gave your word of honor but then later broke your word or promise.
Or your moral code requires you to act with integrity, and one time you did not.
Pick you own example if none of the above applies to you.

I think these concepts have double meaning: one defined by the social context in which I live, one defined by my own personal standards. For example it could be that when playing bridge I feel bound by my personal standards to a high level of disclosure, while the opps expect me to adhere to a lower level to conform with local customs and thereby protecting the field. Or it could be that my personal standards require me to disobey my boss, for example if he orders me to carry out an unnecessary animal experiment prescribed by the law.

I'm a simple soul with respect to such dilemmas. In principle I would say I weigh the cases by utilitarian principles. I do not blame myself (or anyone else) too much for making the, in retrospect, wrong decision in such cases.

I may be wrong but my impression is that the vast majority of people, whether religious or not, make such decisions in the same way. I know people who I would call "idealists" who give a high priority to their own standards, and some I would call authoritarians who give a high priority to the social context. Both may or may not attribute their decision to some central moral dogma. But this is, I think, largely something for the post-mortem. People are generally not conscious about how they really make decisions, I think.

2) Who acts as the accuser?
3) Who acts as the judge?
4) Who acts as the jury?
5) Who hands down whatever sentence?
6) Who executes the sentence?

I do not believe in sentences. OK, a system of punishment can be a practical thing in large social groups and maybe for people who train dogs (I wouldn't know), but I see no moral necessity of punishment.

7) Who forgives you and on what basis and who decides the basis?

My friends tend to forgive me when I err, I think. The word "forgive" has no meaning to me beyond that.

[mike777]

ok so you break your moral code of ethics or integrity that you create yourself and if so there is no punishment or sentence?

To use your example you carry out an unneccessary animal experiment that is against your morals or pick some other example where you break your own moral code...no punishment or sentence.

You break your word of honor or do not keep a promise you make..no punishment or sentence. If these are not good examples of you breaking your moral code feel free to pick your own.


Again just speaking for myself and no one else I would find living a life such as this difficult if not impossible. I feel sad for those that do punish themselves when they must be the sole judge, jury and executioner if guilty by their own standards of morality. I feel sad for those who feel they can break their own moral code of integrity but feel no need for punishment or guilty sentence of consquences.

[Winstonm]

Quote

ok so you break your moral code of ethics or integrity that you create yourself and if so there is no punishment or sentence?

Mike and Helene: I don't mean to intrude on your discussion, but the quoted statement caught my attention.

This, to me, is an apt description of humanity and of being human. What would be the purpose of any punishment or sentence after the fact? The action has been completed and the consequences - if they have not ocurred - will occur.
What good is it to add a punishment or sentence to the natural human process of action accompanied by its own consequence?

In my views, you do your best with what you are but you fail frequently because that is the human thing to do. Inperfecton = humanity. If you punish imperfection, you are punishing for being human.

Quote

where you break your own moral code...no punishment or sentence.

I would find living a life such as this difficult if not impossible.

Mike: Isn't this in essence what you actually do? Granted, it is not your personally developed moral code. But it is your chosen code, so in actuality it is your code. Given that you believe in redemption, then cannot you violate this chosen moral code, ask for forgiveness, and thus be spared any punishment or sentence?

What is the difference?

Actually, there is a vast difference. By accepting a supernatural moral code, one adopts a baseline of moral behavior upon which one judges not only himself but others as well. It cannot be avoided.

If instead, one allowed himself the frailty of humanity, one finds it impossible to judge others for their only sin - of being human - the same as he.

Then, and only then, is one truly free to accomplish the only attainable goal in life, and that is to be the best person one can be by changing his own actions, behaviors, and attitudes. The actions of others is no longer his concern on a personal level.

At its heart, the concept of a supernatural moral code is control. Controllers are never satisfied with controlling only themselves - eventually, they must control everything that falls within their realm of influence.

[akhare]

mikeh, on Aug 23 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

Show me a religion (other than Buddhism, which is arguably not a religion in the sense of Christianity, Hinduism, etc) and I will show you a history of torture, abuse, intolerance and murder ... and believers have the nerve to question the morality of atheists????

Well, there's Jainism for one. Out of curiosity, what makes Hinduism (there are tenets of it that encompass atheism too) and Buddhism so different (besides the abominable caste system)?

In any case, all three share the principle of "Karma" and cyclic reincarnation. The universe is self regulating and you may choose to believe in"God" if you deem fit. Of course, if you do choose to believe in God, there's nothing that comes close to Hinduism in terms of multitude and variety .

For the record, I am a borderline atheist / agnostic (hedging my bets )...

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Aug 23 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

Quote

2) Winston, it is mainline christian belief that the nature of God is fully Just and equally full of Grace. Are you saying your Prof. brother disagrees with this opinion?
If so what does he say is the nature of the Christian/Hebrew God?

Mike,
My brother now believes that the nature of god is non-punishing. He does not believe in an altered human condition of "grace" or "sanctification". He also says that reading the original language makes it obvious that the old testament is simply stories meant to teach a morality lesson, more in line with moral myth, and should not be construed as history or basis for theology.

Interesting, what then was the purpose of Christ's horrible suffering and death on the Cross if not Justice?

[Gerben42]

Quote

1) Who decides what is an immoral or unethical or unjust action or lack of action?An example of inaction may be your personal moral code requires you to help the poor or less well off but you do not take enough action to meet your moral code.
You gave your word of honor but then later broke your word or promise.
Or your moral code requires you to act with integrity, and one time you did not.
Pick you own example if none of the above applies to you.

You do yourself. After all if you break your own ethics, do you not feel bad about it? You need to clean the slate with yourself, not some vague higher being. The danger is of apologizing to a god rather than to yourself is that you don't get feedback. And since your god is more understanding then you are yourself, all-forgiving in the Catholic sense, what is to stop you from breaking the code again?

Quote

2) Who acts as the accuser?
3) Who acts as the judge?
4) Who acts as the jury?
5) Who hands down whatever sentence?
6) Who executes the sentence?

Your social environment.

Quote

7) Who forgives you and on what basis and who decides the basis?

The basis is the universal rule of ethics: Do not do to others what you do not want others to do to you. If you don't keep the rule, you'll notice that your friends and family drop you.

[Codo]

mikeh, on Aug 24 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

Of all the arguments for religious faith, I find the argument that we need religion in order to be able to live moral lives the most personally repugnant. What utter arrogance... to suggest that atheists are immoral... and we must be, since how can we be moral without the fear of God's punishment?

From all non believers you are somehow the most arrogant and most hating the believers.
When mike stated that he had difficulties in live without gods guidance then this is true for him and million of others. He (or me) NEVER claimed that this is true for anybody. There are people who need religion to live moral lives. This is simply true. But I would never claim that atheists. are people without moral. And nobody claimed it.
To repeat your complaint that the believers call the atheists immoral does not make this nonsense better. I guess there are some souls who will do so, but I believe that these are a small minority.

The fear of gods punishment is not the only reason -not even the best or a good one- to live a moral live. But for some people it is a help to do so or the only reason they can accept.

Quote

While one's own experiences are anecdotal, and thus susceptible to bias and not well-generalizable, my life experiences have taught me to be very, very careful of the ethics of 'devout' religious people, and to trust atheists.

Where the 'f' does a religious believer get off, arguing that his or her religion is needed for ethical behaviour? Show me a religion (other than Buddhism, which is arguably not a religion in the sense of Christianity, Hinduism, etc) and I will show you a history of torture, abuse, intolerance and murder ... and believers have the nerve to question the morality of atheists????

The history off man from the stoneage till now is a history with crime, murder and war. This is true in any culture and in any country and for believers and atheists. And always religion had been a shield for some leaders for protect their real wishes. But what does this prove? There had been wars in the name of god, for self protecting, for the glory of the flag, to help freedom fighters, because of Helena or some misunderstandings.
But do you really believe that most of this reasons had been true? Do you believe that Mr. Bush was send by god to free Arabia? I don´t believe it.

You cannot follow a religion by war. Whoever says so is a liar. So the religion is just abused as a "reason" for war or terrorism. Yes this happened- much too often. But what does this prove? Nothing.

Quote

Imagine the Sunnis and Shiiites in Iraq suddenly spontaneously converting to atheism... my guess is that a lot of the violence there would disappear.. not all, of course.

Have the Taliban become atheist, and does anyone think they'd still blow up statues of Buddha?

Have the lunatic fringe of American Christianity become atheist, and how many abortion clinics will be torched, or doctors murdered?

This argument that religion founds morality is insulting, juvenile, and idiotic. No student of history can deny that religous difference and religious intolerance underlies much (altho not all) human strife.

And you really believe that the sunnis kill the shiites just because they have a different way in believing in Allah? And that George Bush will become a great president after he became an atheist? Sorry this is idiotic. Atheist will do the same harm to other people. They just will have other so called reasons to do so. If they don´t kill doctors in abortion clinics they will kill negros/Hispanos/Germans/ redhairs/smokers whatever. They are not cruel and blind because they follow a religion. They are just cruel and blind.

Quote

I would also trust many of the less-dogmatic religious believers...

At least one thing we agree about. I hate dogmatic believers too. And I would trust less-dogmatic atheists. But your postings sound too dogmatic to be trusted.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Quote

(Al_U_Card @ Aug 23 2007, 08:41 AM)
Man was originally an animal.  ~~

make your case

Read Darwin.

And err... what do you mean "originally"? Man is still but one species of animals on this rich but tiny planet. Statistically it is a near certainty that somewhere in this huge universe there are smarter beings than humans. To deny this is unrealistic. If mankind was suddenly wiped out by a deadly virus (practically impossible to reach even the last human but just assume) the Earth would continue to spin. Life would thrive as it had done billions of years before us.

Actually, smarter species might have existed on this very planet! We might never know if Homo neanderthalensis might have been intellectually superior (at least it had a larger brain than ours), although I think at some point some geneticist in an obscure country will find out (and might not like the answer...).
Intelligence is not "everything" in a Darwinian setting as the dinosaurs discovered.

[the hog]

Whoah Roland, I think you are a bit off base here. I think you are being very unfair on Mikeh.

Many people claim that atheists and perhaps even deists can't be moral, because it is God that has given the world a moral code. How can you be good if you don't believe in that moral code. In fact the very argument that most are moral is cited as proof of the existence of God by many theologians. This, for example was one of Augustin's proofs.

"Do you believe that Mr. Bush was send by god to free Arabia? I don´t believe it."
No I don't believe this and of course Mikeh doesn't either, HOWEVER Bush himself has said this very thing on more than one occasion.

"And you really believe that the sunnis kill the shiites just because they have a different way in believing in Allah? "

Yes, I absolutely believe this to be the case.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Aug 24 2007, 09:20 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 24 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

Of all the arguments for religious faith, I find the argument that we need religion in order to be able to live moral lives the most personally repugnant. What utter arrogance... to suggest that atheists are immoral... and we must be, since how can we be moral without the fear of God's punishment?

From all non believers you are somehow the most arrogant and most hating the believers.

But Mikeh did not accuse you or other non-dogmatic believers for being arrogant. I don't think you should feel targeted.

Quote

When mike stated that he had difficulties in live without gods guidance then this is true for him and million of others. He (or me) NEVER claimed that this is true for anybody.

Well, Mike777 said he felt sorry for us non-believers. Now I can somehow appreciate his compassion. Feeling sorry for me is very different from saying that I will burn in hell, or "either you or with us or you are against us", or whatever the rhetoric of a more militant Christian may be. However, Mike777 seems to assume that the fact that he would find it difficult to live without God somehow extrapolates to others. It is a little intruding. Of course, several atheists (including myself) have made intruding remarks in this thread as well, so I maybe I shouldn't blame Mike777. In any case I appreciate the fact Mike777 and Jimmy can discuss these explosive issues with me, Gerben, Mikeh and Peter without letting the tensions escalate to hostilities. It must not be easy, I can easily see that some of the things I have written myself can be insulting to some.

Quote

There are people who need religion to live moral lives. This is simply true.

I find this difficult to reconcile with another statement of yours:

Quote

They are not cruel and blind because they follow a religion. They are just cruel and blind.

Taken together, those two statements imply that religion can be good or neutral, but cannot be bad. If religion has the power to turn some people good, it probably also has the power to turn people bad, don't you think? Maybe a religion/atheism-neutral statement would be "some people need authorities to be good, some need authorities to be cruel, some are just cruel or good by their unchangeable nature, and whether those authorities are religious or secular may not be important". Actually I tend to think that it is important in some cases but that is an area that I have no expertise in so I can't say if there are any general trends.

Quote

But I would never claim that atheists. are people without moral. And nobody claimed it.

AFAIK Mikeh lives in a country where exactly that is claimed or implied very often and where it can be difficult to be an atheist. I think it's understandable if he reads slightly differently between the lines than you do.

Quote

But your postings sound too dogmatic to be trusted.

Mikeh was very careful to say that his observations are anecdotal. This is not the way a dogmatic would back up his statements.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 24 2007, 07:09 AM, said:

Winston said:

Mike,
My brother now believes that the nature of god is non-punishing.  He does not believe in an altered human condition of "grace" or "sanctification".  He also says that reading the original language makes it obvious that the old testament is simply stories meant to teach a morality lesson, more in line with moral myth, and should not be construed as history or basis for theology.

Interesting, what then was the purpose of Christ's horrible suffering and death on the Cross if not Justice?

I'm no bible scholar (to say the least) but AFAIK the story about the crucifixion is part of the new testament, not the old one

[Codo]

The_Hog, on Aug 24 2007, 05:25 PM, said:

Whoah Roland, I think you are a bit off base here. I think you are being very unfair on Mikeh.

Many people claim that atheists and perhaps even deists can't be moral, because it is God that has given the world a moral code. How can you be good if you don't believe in that moral code. In fact the very argument that most are moral is cited as proof of the existence of God by many theologians. This, for example was one of Augustin's proofs.

"Do you believe that Mr. Bush was send by god to free Arabia? I don´t believe it."
No I don't believe this and of course Mikeh doesn't either, HOWEVER Bush himself has said this very thing on more than one occasion.

"And you really believe that the sunnis kill the shiites just because they have a different way in believing in Allah? "

Yes, I absolutely believe this to be the case.

Hi Ron,

I do believe that religions did develop the ethics on our planet. But I cannot see any relatishionship between this sentence (which you can believe or you don´t) and the sentence: Atheist cannot have this moral.

This seciond sentence is so silly, that I would not respect the opinion of any religious leader who would claim so.

But I do understand if atheists became frustrated if they have to hear such sillinesses.

And I still stand by my point that there are many conflicts where someone claims to fight for god. But I believe that this is ALLWAYS a lie brought to the masses to make them fight. But it seems to me that I am the only one who believes this, so I won´t argue with this again.
I just do not understand why someone do believe that George Bush will lie about god for his purposes but can state that Hussein really became a muslim. They all lie for their purposes. And they all will abuse religion.

[pbleighton]

Quote

ok so you break your moral code of ethics or integrity that you create yourself and if so there is no punishment or sentence?

To use your example you carry out an unneccessary animal experiment that is against your morals or pick some other example where you break your own moral code...no punishment or sentence.

You break your word of honor or do not keep a promise you make..no punishment or sentence. If these are not good examples of you breaking your moral code feel free to pick your own.

When you repond to a post, please read it more carefully. I did not claim that I never broke my moral code, or that there were no consequences when I do. If you think I did, please supply the quote.

The *punishment or sentence* I incur varies by situation. I always have to live with myself. I may suffer from the alienation of people i have mistreated. I may lose a job, or go to prison.

Quote

Again just speaking for myself and no one else I would find living a life such as this difficult if not impossible. I feel sad for those that do punish themselves when they must be the sole judge, jury and executioner if guilty by their own standards of morality.

Well, as I said, it's not that difficult. Personally, I am not attracted by the prospect of confessing all of my sins to an All Powerful Imaginary Friend, who would then forgive me. I prefer to accept responsibility for my own actions.

But then, that's just me.

Quote

I feel sad for those who feel they can break their own moral code of integrity but feel no need for punishment or guilty sentence of consquences.

Do you know anyone who fits this description? This is a straw man, or, to put it another way, a sociopath or psychopath (categories not restricted to or even primarily composed of nonbelievers BTW).

Peter