So God, who has been in existence for all eternity, didn’t discover morality until ~25 A.D. Got it. How long do we get?
Apologies accepted graciously.
This does not change the fact that your Bible was used to justify slavery. That was the point being made, remember? Whether or not you agree with that interpretation is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Bible as a source of morality is subject to interpretation and manipulation.
Weren’t you arguing a little while ago about the “consistency” of god’s morality? What’s consisent about the changes you’re pointing out here? What’s to say things haven’t changed since Jesus made new and improved rules? Ever heard of a Jew?
-L
Theist chiming in -
I don’t know. Ask Harry Truman.
Listen, I’m agreeing with almost everything you guys are saying, but I think that, on this point, you’re confusing your material. Sure, the Ten Plagues don’t really jive with the Christian perceptian of a warm, fuzzy God; however, according to Jewish thought (remember, this is a Jewish story - the Christians are basically commiting copyright violation), God is anything but warm and fuzzy. He’s - or She’s - a harsh, manipulative, Machiavellian son of a bitch who acts according to his own plan, whether we understand it or not. He may love Mankind, but He doesn’t really care about us as individuals. He may notice crap like sparrows falling, but he only involves Himself in the fates of nations, planets, galaxies. Anything less than that is up to us.
Frankly, I may believe in God, but I’m not sure belief in God is a good thing. I think atheism may be a necessary step in the evolution of our species - if we stop looking to higher powers for help and guidance, perhaps we’ll finally be free to forge the world in our own image. I think God may want that.
I mean, what parent doesn’t want his children to make it on their own?
Glorfindel, you can find Paul talking about slavery, and isn’t he considered one of the greatest witnesses of Christ’s?
Anyhoo, you said:
Just to be provocative, let me put something in perspective here. You state that, if you were to be addressed by God in the manner described by manhattan and Stoid, to the effect that your behavior was completely irrelevant, you’d have to think about whether you’d change your behavior or not?
In that case, why is it the atheists’ morality you’re concerned with? We already believe that there is no God to whom our behavior is relevant (which is effectively no different from believing that there is a God to whom our behavior is irrelevant), yet the vast majority of us manage to avoid murdering, raping, stealing, etc. And if we discovered tomorrow that God existed, our behavior in that respect would be no different. If, as you seem to imply here, you might behave differently upon such a discovery, it would seem that it’s your morality that is more worrisome.
Gluons is the current theory.
Well, call me Mr. Third Option. I’m an full-bore agnostic- the nature of God cannot be known, and attempts to know will not result in understanding. If there is a God- how can we possibly attempt to understand him by any means? His powers, his abilities, his knowledge is so much as to be inconceivable. And I mean that. This isn’t a Greek God who looks like us except more buff and can occasionally call down lightning. This is the end-all, be-all. Where did he come from? In the beginning, there was nothing, and then he shows up. From where? How? Was he created? Can he create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
In the end, it’s all impossible to answer. Any one vision of God is incomplete, and for us to attempt to understand it is akin to trying to describe a fifth-dimensional object (“It goes up about five feet, then turns yellow- the direction, not the color- for about five seconds. Then it turns 3, and goes that way for left.”). Why, then, attempt to understand or comprehend it? It’s impossible.
However, it is possible to understand what is best for society, and what is best for humanity as a whole. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good rule regardless of whether you think it will gain you a heavenly reward or not.
Morality is certainly possible without a Deity; it just requires empathy. And quite frankly, I’d much rather that we try to teach empathy and understanding than teach that you’ll go to Hell if you break certain rules.
Sorry, thought the sarcasm would seep through on that one.
Seeing how I’ve already got a good and fulfilling life, would I then suddenly change and start raping and pillaging?
Please, not even a good stab at it.
A good description of a fifth-dimensional object might be that it resembles a beautiful balloon.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Alessan *
**Theist chiming in -
To whom does God have to justify his actions? Besides, Pharoah choose the method of their destruction not God. He was warned that the next thing he said would be the punishment dished out to his own people.
I guess I get confused by those who think that Christians believe God is some grandfather looking guy that just sits somewhere loving everything? Like the Jews knew, he is a God that loves but He also punishes. That whole, you don’t discipline something you don’t care about thing.
As to the original question about what the atheist uses to determine things like morality and so forth, I thank all of you for sharing. I know I have a better understanding of how some of you think. Never really discussed it with many atheists before.
Plus, we’ve gone off on enough side-bars to start several new threads!
Lookit, mister, Manhattan and Stoid asked you a legitimate question (with two slightly differing sets of wording). To wit: “If you find that God isn’t going to punish you for raping/killing/stealing, will you start doing those things? And if not, why not?”
Your answer was “Let me think about it for a while.”
You were then told that your answer tends to throw the stability of your own moral code into question, more than that of an atheist’s moral code.
And you come back with that? (see above quote)
I’m feeling generous today, and I’ll let you get by with the “just sarcasm” defense (don’t necessarily expect anyone else to).
But now you seem to have left the second part of the question unanswered. Unless your answer is:
Because if that is your answer, then the stability of your moral code is essentially dependent on inertia, and still appears to be somewhat problematic.
I’ve got a question for you, though, and I would appreciate a serious and sincere attenpt to respond to it.
What is the matter with a universe that doesn’t have any cosmic purpose?
But for some reason the same doesn’t apply to atheists? If not, why not? No dodging, please.
stoid
Alessan:
Oh, I have no illusions about that at all. I’m all down with the Jewish perspective, and i respect it a lot.
What I don’t get, though, are the Christians who believe that their New Testament can be fully reconciled with the Jewish Bible. What it so often seems to boils down to “that was a different God–he’s changed. Sure, he used to kill infants, but he’s on the Prozac now.”
Sheesh.
(I love your idea of the Parent wanting His kids to make something of themselves, BTW.)
Glorfindel:
So, then, your morality is not based on God’s will? Kewl, now we’re getting somewhere.
To the innocent lives he took.
No?
Then how about to me.
Eichmann was only following orders. The bitch had it coming, she mouthed off. The debbil made me do it. Osama bin Laden is fighting a holy war. I’m not pulling the dog’s tail, I’m just holding it.
Who pulled the trigger?
Not to hijack things too much, but I’d like to remind everyone that, in regards to Moses and Pharoah, Pharoah was set up by God to take the fall.
Dig out the Bible and see for yourself – when Moses was chatting with God As A Burning Bush, God specifically says that He (god) will harden Pharoah’s heart against Moses’ pleas to free the Hebrews. In other words, it doesn’t matter how compassionate Pharoah was or how persuasive Moses was, God was going to use his divine intervention to make Pharoah a hard-hearted bastich – and keep the Hebrews enslaved. Which, of course, then gives God an excuse to send down the frogs and locusts and whatnot, and for Moses to go and advocate the slaughter of all the Egyptian men and boys.
Pharoah was set up, and Moses was in on the sting from the get-go. If this doesn’t smack of entrapment, then I don’t know what does.
I just want to chime in that not all atheists dismiss the idea of objective morality.
Carry on.
Oh this gave me a chuckle this did. Like someone said earlier, I may be an atheist, but my belief system certainly includes absolute faith that Christians are funny.
One of the original points of the OP was that Christians believe that God provides them with the big answers to difficult questions. Lately the debate has centered around the old chestnut that Christians believe God can be the only source of a firm moral code. I made the point earlier that just referencing difficult questions to answers centered on a “God” who you admit is unknowable is no answer at all anyway.
And now Glorfindel hammers the atheist nail home firmly by admitting his God does whatever the heck He likes, because He answers to no one. Glorfindel believes he obtains a firm moral code by referencing a God whose only moral code is that of the thug (ie anything I don’t have to answer for is OK, 'cos I can get away with it!)
The emperor not only has no clothes, he is pissing on Glorfindel and giving him the finger and he doesn’t notice, he just stands there with his mouth open admiring God’s “clothes” and God’s “love” for him.
And then Glorfindel’s own morality is cornered and under heavy fire from Stoid and Manhattan, and Glorfindel runs away.
And lest y’all think that it’s only the God of the Old Testament that was a mass-murdering, intolerant bastard, and that the Son o’ God was all sweetness and light, take a look Betty Bowers’ New Testament Bible Quiz.
Thank you, everybody, for your posts.
I can use The Evolution of Species to justify the statement, “Men are all monkeys.” I would be wrong but that doesn’t mean the book is. I direct you, DoctorJ, Andros, and others to Paul’s letter to Philemon. Paul compelled Philemon, as a Christian, to release his slave, Onesimus, and accept him as a brother. Slavery was not condoned in the Bible and those who claim it does misunderstand the Bible.
I agree with Glorfindel_31. How can we have a concept of justice if each man decides for himself what is right and wrong? If you kill a man who has no family and no friends, what have you done wrong? He’s dead and no one left behind cares that he was taken away. Why should you face the court of law if you don’t think you did anything wrong? If you steal something from someone and they do not realize it, would you feel bad? Why?
Minor, teeny, tiny nitpick…
Are you referring to the book by Charles Darwin? If so, you should know that the title is actually The Origin of Species.
IIRC, the word “evolution” never appears once in Darwin’s text.
Carry on.
My bad. But I think you know what I mean. 