No. Many Christians (not necessarily a majority, but a noticeable number) use their religion’s doctrines of forgiveness to justify behaving badly now and then “sincerely” repenting on their deathbed or at the confessional.
Sorry for misinterpreting you yet again. Doubly unfortunate since you and I largely agree on many issues.
I was over-reacting to your “irrational” morality :dubious: . One of the most righteous charitable persons I know would speak, not of an overdue library book, but of an attempted murder charge (it was self-defense). Even I, sometimes charitable to the point of being pushover, am not completely tame. For example my admission of “more than two” traffic tickets was an … understatement.
Sorry about my extended absence from this thread, and thanks for all the responses. I won’t try to comment on everything, but I picked a few (probably too many at once) to respond to, and undoubtedly overlooked some others that also deserved a response.
I don’t know, but I’m sure they think they need it. Everybody develops their own standard of behavior whether they model it after some set of rules they read in the Bible or if they just saw the standards they wanted to emulate modeled for them by peers and elders. If those rules help them behave better to their fellow human beings then fine. Too frequently, people use religion as a smokescreen to cover their own prejudices, to justify their maltreatment of others or desire for power, or as a shield from having to think about things which they find too disturbing to contemplate (like the suffering of others, f’rinstance. I think a lot of “religious” people would be better served by turning their minds back on and doing something they should have been doing all along, like questioning doctrine that requires behavior that is out of character with the stated goals of the religion in question.
My Mom and Dad, imperfect as they were, instilled in me consideration for others and tolerance, despite both of them having been brought up in the Deep South and indoctrinated in the “White folks is better than colored” school of “thought” (Dad much more than Mom). They didn’t even insist I continue going to church once I was old enough to decide for myself.
I’m pretty sure if you asked my denomination, I’d have to say “None of the above”. I have had experiences where I am convinced that I benefited from divine intervention (a little more on the economic front might be appreciated ;)), and have experienced a sense of the presence of G-d in my life. I believe. That’s not enough for you. I get that.
I do not believe that knowledge of (or, perhaps delusion, from your perspective) G-d necessarily means that I now must exert some kind of control over you or others to bring them into compliance with G-d’s will.
Firstly, I think it’s arrogant beyond my ability to describe for someone to assume that G-d has given them authority over people who don’t even know them, and certainly have no basis for trust. Secondly if I try to do so anyway, I am presuming that I, rather than you or anyone else, am the only person with a clear and infallible understanding of what G-d wants you to do. Fat chance of that!
I believe it’s my responsibility to do the best I can, and recognize that I am human and will inevitably fall short of perfection. That’s what forgiveness is for, so we’ll stop expecting perfection from ourselves and others. I didn’t say it actually works like that, but what can you do?
Just because our ethical systems are socially constructed (and socially transmitted, from one generation to the next) does not preclude a divine influence in their origins. You argue that it’s not necessary, while I believe that we would have worked something out had G-d remained silent on this subject.
[QUOTE=The Hamster King]
For example, if God spoke to you and commanded you to kill your son, would you do it? After all, by your standards, God is the ultimate arbiter of morality. So if he explicitly tells you to kill your son, that’s the moral and ethical thing to do, right? And even if your gut tells you that you shouldn’t do it, God’s word still should trump your moral instincts … .
[/QUOTE]
Maybe Abraham was commanded to do so before there were hard-and-fast rules of conduct written in what would become the Bible, but I’m operating under a different set of rules. If G-d wanted me to kill my son, I would deny it was Him doing the commanding, because such a commandment would be completely foreign to my understanding of who/what G-d is.
Seriously, if G-d asked you to kill your son, wouldn’t you at least ask for some I.D. before rooting around the knife drawer for a suitable implement for the job?
I believe such out-of-character behavior in my fellow theists comes from at least two sources: an ignorance of the nature of G-d or a desire to use G-d as a beard for their own improper behavior.
I’m not guilted into behaving. My G-d isn’t particularly angry anyway, though it took me a long time to finally figure that out. I still despise “fire-and-brimstone” preaching as a result. If I behave it’s because I have been taught (and learned) to value others as (but no more than) myself and to at least try to treat others with respect, love and dignity whenever possible. Do you really think that an all-powerful G-d is going to get his panties in a twist over some crazy ape’s inability to be perfect? He might despise my behavior at times, but G-d never hates people. Anyone who tells you different wants something (that doesn’t belong to them).
The problem of pain you refer to assumes that there is no greater good than a complete cessation of human suffering. From a human perspective, that might seem desirable (it sure does to me!) What if there is a good purpose that is beyond our human ability to grasp? If I take my dog to the vet and he gets a vaccination, from the dog’s perspective, that was a BAD experience, and no amount of jabbering at the dog will enable him to grasp that he gets vaccinations because they will provide immunity to the diseases he’s been vaccinated before. Nor will his life experience enable him to grasp the truth of the matter. Likewise, if G-d is multiple orders of magnitude smarter than us, perhaps there’s no way to explain to us what good could possibly come from whatever suffering we may have experienced or witnessed. At least until heaven (I know, provided it exists).
If it was G-ds objective for us to live pain- and problem-free lives, I think that’s what we’d be doing. It’s possible that S/He allows suffering so we have the opportunity of helping others. But I’m not absolutely sure if that’s it. Is that okay with you?
In Jesus’ opinion, as well. Note that Samaritans were not Christian (a term which would not be coined for a few hundred years). By the Jews living in the Holy Land at the time, the Samaritans were considered an “counterfeit” people who had been settled there by some conquerer I can’t remember the name of. As was customary at the time, they were provided with priests who knew the proper worship of the god of that land, and had their own temple and rituals modeled off those in Israel. So the fact that the beaten man was refused aid by his co-religionists and rendered aid by one of “Those” people illustrates that what religion one is is of lesser importance than how one treats his fellow humans. At least that’s the message I came away with.
I think my understanding of how that really works is different than yours. One English translation says: “The Lord…visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.” From my own understanding of human nature (and family history), my Grandfather on my Dad’s side of the family was an alcoholic, a neer-do-well and a womanizer. He was the black sheep of his family.
My father grew up hearing rumors that his dad had a whole other family living in another part of town, and had a lot of fights in High School as a result. When he grew up, he had problems with jealousy and alcoholism. He had serious difficulty controlling his anger. I’d say that’s a fair example of the sins of the father being visited upon the son.
My dad’s temper and his concern that I might turn out like he did led him to be very stingy with praise, I presume because he wanted to avoid making me full of myself. He was often unnecessarily cold and remote when I had done something of which he did not approve. I suspect this was his way of “not encouraging” bad behavior, but I took it kind of personally and modeled my idea of G=d for much of my life after his “you failed to measure up” attitude. He finally started to loosen up in December of 1987 during one of my visits. Unfortunately he died just 7 months later from cancer, before I could really make the transition from “Son” to “Friend”. …To the third …
I was convinced that no-one could love me so when I fell in love with someone who seemed to love me, I invested all my self-worth into that relationship, little realizing that not only would she leave me 2 months after marrying me the first time, but that she’d leave me again for essentially the same reason (she found a wealthier sugar-daddy), this time taking our son with her.
I spent the next 5 years trying to make her honor our joint-custody agreement, but finally my attorney pointed out something I hadn’t noticed. Every time she and I went head-to-head over visitation (Christmas was an annual tragedy) the person who suffered most was my son, who watched his mother hide in her own home rather than answer the door and let me have visitation, who listened to her explaining why he didn’t need to see Daddy, and how this other guy was noe “Daddy”, so shut up.
I finally gave up. And this is how the sins of the father are visited upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation. Not so much because G-d hates sinners so much that he punishes their children, but because those are the natural consequences in people’s lives. It’s not a threat, but a warning.
Yep! Pretty much. [Love your user name, BTW :D)
[QUOTE=CurtC]
And the unstated assumption in your OP seems to be that atheists would have no grounding for their morals/ethics, or that it’s mysterious to you how we come up with our morals. Care to explain that some more? What’s your view, and why?
[/QUOTE]
It’s unstated because that wasn’t my assumption. If the wording is kind of awkward it’s because I figured it would be better to get the question out there imperfectly and field questions than wait until I had the perfect phrasing. I’d spent enough time composing the OP that I was pretty sure that by the time the perfect phrasing came to me, I’d have forgotten the question.
The Bible is a reference book, not G-d. It can confirm my moral compass and provides a guide.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
If so, how do you feel about the breaking many of the Ten Commandments being legal? How do you feel about the Bible allowing slavery? Females as property?
[/QUOTE]
That depends on the Commandment. As far as the commandments themselves are concerned, they are part of a contract between G-d and the Israelites (and the non-isreili people who accompanied them out of Egypt). They contain instructions that are specific to those people at that time. Therefore, since we aren’t Israelite living in that time and place, we should examine each of these laws to determine if they need to be legislated or simply a matter of conscience. If G-d tells me to do something, but does not tell me to enforce compliance in others, then it’s asinine of me to insist that you do likewise under the force of law.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Or is your general sense of right and wrong sourced from the environment you live in?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure what “sourced from the environment you live in” means in this context.
Again, to everyone, thanks for all the responses! Evangelicals are more than happy to tell you what they believe (and go on to insist that you do likewise) but Atheists rarely get to talk about what they believe without being interrupted by hostile listeners. I really just wanted to know what you thought.
I didn’t realize “political correctness” has now entered the realm of “religion”.
The idiocy of religion where riots erupt due to a few cartoons depicting Mohamed or the Catholic church covering up pedophiles, tells me the statement is on the nose.
I’ve personally been attacked and harassed for being an atheist by Southern Baptist. They called me the spawn of Satan. I don’t believe in Satan either.
Those Baptist showed no restraint or respect for my lack of faith, why do I need to show compassion to what I consider to be fantasy.
Unlike those Baptists, I respect your right to believe what ever you like. But, ask me what I think, and I will tell you what I think. I refuse to hold back on my opinion that religion is ultimately evil, it creates ignorance and poverty and gives too much power to few individuals who abuse the power it gives them.
I think all current religions will eventually go the way of the Greek, Roman and Norse gods. A footnote in history.
As for the quote itself, it was by American Physicist & Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.
Perhaps you could request Dr. Weinberg to change his words.
Personally, I find it describes religion perfectly.
It describes many other things, too. The quote, as written, denies the existence of things like Stalin and Hitler, both of whom killed for ideologies which were not religious and both of whom acquired followers who were swept along in the moment rather than thinking through their decisions.
Totally aside from that, this thread isn’t the place or time for it: we don’t have to have a “religion is evul lol” side discussion in every damn thread that touches on religion.
Now to contribute instead of engaging the threadjacker.
I’m a Buddhist with beliefs that waver between agnosticism and vague deism. I believe that if there is a greater power, he or she deigned that we have intellect and empathy for a reason. Thus, my moral code flows out of empathy and utility theory–what would I not want to happen to me? What rules result in the most good outcomes and fewest bad outcomes?
There are many sub-cultures in the world who’ve never even heard of your christian “G-d”. (and why are you not allowed to type the word “God”?) How did these societies develop their moral compass without the all-knowing Bible?
This is one of many things I don’t understand about modern christianity. Why do you believe that your bible and your belief system the only “right” ones?
“G-d” is a Judaism thing, not a Christianity thing.
First of all, Hitler was a Catholic, but that’s another discussion.
Secondly, the quote as written would include both monsters.
Thirdly, the OP specifically asks atheists to explain themselves and to me that quote does exactly that. From my atheist opinion.
And the quote isn’t even mine.
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Now to contribute instead of engaging the threadjacker.
I’m a Buddhist with beliefs that waver between agnosticism and vague deism. I believe that if there is a greater power, he or she deigned that we have intellect and empathy for a reason. Thus, my moral code flows out of empathy and utility theory–what would I not want to happen to me? What rules result in the most good outcomes and fewest bad outcomes?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for dismissing my post as a “hi-jack” and for providing a Buddhist point of view on a thread asking atheists to explain themselves. :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, did you miss the word “agnostic”? It’s right up there.
No need to apologize, I didn’t miss it. I was making a point.
Look, you make some valid points. I agree with a lot of your posts.
My irritation came when you tried to make a perfectly good quote into something completely different. It targets religion specifically and it relates to morality and how under organized religion, that morality can easily be warped.
I understand and even agree to a certain extent what you mean about expanding it to include ideology, but I don’t understand why you need to bring in political correctness.
I don’t think I’m the only one here who has experienced a double standard in that a religious person somehow deserves respect and admiration for their unwavering faith, whereas there is an unwritten acknowledgement that ridiculing an atheist for his lack of belief is acceptable. This is especially true in the US.
Here is a quote you might recognize:
[QUOTE=George H.W. Bush]
No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.… I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.
[/QUOTE]
Complete disrespect for all American atheists. Not to mention contradictory and not “PC”. It’s fed by ignorance provided by Christianity.
This thread even has a sense of that disrespect. “Atheists, explain yourselves” as if the religious has some sort of monopoly on morality. It has that underlying tone in which it is accusing atheist for lacking morals because we have no faith in God.
It’s bullshit and a double standard and I for one refuse to be apologetic for being an atheist. The fact that the question needs to be asked shows the Christian dogma spreading ignorance amongst the faithful.
First, nice thread and reasoned responses from you.
To me, your response seems to indicate that you have an innate sense of morality that you project on to God rather than deriving your moral code from him.
I’m not bringing in political correctness. I simply feel it’s not valid to solely blame religion for inducing good people to do evil things when the problem is clearly and historically ideologies in general. Nazism is not a religion. Communism is not a religion. Neoconservatism is not a religion. Etc.
Nazism and communism certainly were religions. They had all the characteristics.They were based on mythologies (especially nazism). Both essentially replaced the worship of God with the worship of the state (though Nazi Germany also made a quasi-cult of race and bordered on deifying Hitler).
We might ask you the same question. Assuming that you were not born with religious beliefs, that you acquired those beliefs somewhat later.
How did you come to believe in your religion? How did you choose a specific set of beliefs, rather than a different set? On what basis do you believe in your personal system of ethics?
Explain yourself.
This thread is not about the immoral aspects of ideologies. I’m not the one who brought up Hitler and Stalin in this discussion. And for the sake of argument and for those who missed the quote I had posted by American Physicist Steven Weinberg, he said:
Both Catholic Hitler and atheist Stalin would fall under the first part of that quote, specifically the part about “bad people can do evil”.
The Spanish Inquisition would fall under the second part.
Ok, historically a long time ago, so let’s look at some more recent evil acts under the religious banner such as bombing and killing abortion clinics and staff.
Beating and killing homosexuals.
Discouraging condom use in Africa.
Flying airplanes into buildings.
Killing film directors and cartoonists who practice freedom of speech.
I believe that having the “right” religion matters less than what’s in your heart and mind, and before the Bible ever came about, G-d was already communicating with people about this sort of thing. Of course, I think that no one should abdicate their responsibility to think things out for themselves just because a person in authority told you that You Must Not Question Authority either. That’s part of why I’m not really part of a recognized Church. I want to retain my right to “politely and humbly” raise the BS flag when it appears that someone in authority is abusing that authority.
Regarding the spelling of G-d: I had a friend who was (Conservative) Jewish and he explained how they do not write out The Name in casual correspondence, that it’s customary (in English) to never spell capitol-g-o-d except as G-d. He was my friend, so out of friendship I adopted that usage in all my on-line dealings. Every time I spell it that way I remember my friend and respect his custom.
I suppose if I thought G-d did not possess the qualities I believe Him/Her/It to have*, I would have chosen to disavow Him. I recognize that I’m Christian at least in part because that was the religion I was exposed to the most throughout my developing years.
I can easily understand how the “G-d” some people have had demonstrated to them would make anyone of good sense reject It in no uncertain terms. Just as I’m responsible for my own actions, among them lies the responsibility to choose a belief system that encourages what I might term virtues and discourages behavior that might be called “sinful” but is more accurately described as detrimental to ones self or others. Is that utilitarianism?
It’s my responsibility to try to demonstrate in my every action what I believe in (not that I’m claiming any special talent for that sort of thing). It’s not my place to enforce compliance in others. You (and everyone else) navigates their own course, so of course people will choose differently. Maybe that’s the experience G-d wants you to have. If you do not believe there is a G-d, that’s okay, because I don’t think “belief” is required to be a decent human being, just as being a decent human being doesn’t require “belief”. Maybe belief is only helpful to some and a hindrance to others.
I believe that the promise of eternal bliss (or whatever the afterlife turns out to be, even if it’s nothing) is no excuse to be a dick in this life.
I may agree with you on some things, but NiceGuyJack has a point. If you deride the very words someone uses to express an idea you deny that they have a right to articulate any ideas associated with those words, even those which ought not be offensive. I consider that sort of censorship a tactic to hinder rather than promote communication. We’re all adults here, we’ve heard all the “words that hurt” and know they can’t really hurt us, so let the man have his say.
I would like to counter that “good” people do evil things without it necessarily being caused by religion. I believe some people would do evil things if they imagined it was for your own good , even without religious input. I can believe that an atheist or a theist might consider mandatory innoculation of people to prevent the spread of disease a greater good than allowing people to choose whether they will be innoculated. On the other hand I can see either of them doing just the opposite.
Maybe, but not in my house, nor, I hope, in this thread.
[QUOTE=NiceGuyJack]
This thread even has a sense of that disrespect. “Atheists, explain yourselves” as if the religious has some sort of monopoly on morality. It has that underlying tone in which it is accusing atheist for lacking morals because we have no faith in God.
It’s bullshit and a double standard and I for one refuse to be apologetic for being an atheist. The fact that the question needs to be asked shows the Christian dogma spreading ignorance amongst the faithful.
[/QUOTE]
I chose the title because after trying for over 30 minutes I simply could not engage the part of my brain that could rephrase that awkward sentence and since I wanted to hear what you have to say more than I’m afraid you’ll hate me forever for asking awkwardly, I finally decided “It’ll just have to do.”
Quite frankly I’m pleased to get so many excellent responses, and especially without herds of my fellow theists descending upon this thread and trying to counterpoint your every point.
*I really wish English had a gender-neutral pronoun that didn’t imply a kind of second-class-ness.
I can’t argue with you there, but any religious movement that involves unthinking obedience is (my opinion) of the Devil, without regard to his actual existence or lack thereof. If it isn’t evil yet, just give it some time. It will be.
I’m trying to think of a religion that doesn’t involve unthinking obedience. Catholicism certainly did. I’m sure there are some that aren’t quite so insistent on the obedience part, but most are right up there in the ‘unthinking’ part. Thinking is not beneficial to religion.
Any sort of Shamanistic religion, outside of their recommendations that you give tribute to the gods, is pretty loose on any other rules.