Do Christians feel that athiests are amoral or unprincipled?

Great Debates
261

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
You and I have had a couple of brief exchanges in past threads about Biblical knowledge and meaning. I certainly agree that knowledge does not come from Googling some quotes and expressing an opinion. It comes from studying and research. Still wouldn’t you say that the Bible has a lot of room for interpretation?

Regardless, In this thread as in others, rather than share your insight and knowledge or add context to the verses badchad quoted you chose to ask for context and an elaboration of what **badchad **had already posted. You never actually responded to the original post you asked for a cite for {and he gave you one}
You’ve done the same to me a couple of times. I don’t understand that technique.
If you don’t agree and think someone is cherry picking out of context then how about actually responding {which chad encouraged you to do} Tell us a few specifics of why we’re mistaken instead of demanding more from us without offering anything yourself.

A specific scriptural quote or two sure seems like a cite to me. If you think it’s taken out of context and misinterpreted then please **show us ** rather than simply requesting more.
[/QUOTE]

I will ask for clarification or for contextual background when it is not entirely clear to me what the posters thoughts were.

I am interested in the posters view of the context—I may have a distinct opinion that the texts is either taken out of context, or misapplied. But I don’t want to put words in the posters mouth, or presume to know what they were thinking or what their rationale is. I don’t want to misunderstand the poster, and I don’t want to misrepresent his point.

In the case of badchad, he said:

Now I found that to be nonsense, hyperbolic and unfounded. I simply asked for his complete thoughts on the topic. To me, it seems fairly straight forward that those thoughts includes 1) Valid cites and; 2) His cogent thoughts on those cites. (something short of a thesis is just fine)

Another reason is that this place is full of Google Armchair Geniuses–posters who have just enough ‘knowledge’ to cut and paste their way to glory. I don’t know badchad, and for all I know/knew he’s a kid with some enthusiasm, modem and google-fu. Asking him–or anyone else–is a legitimate litmus test to gage their interest, knowledge and experience.

I’m not trying to be sneaky. But if I’m going to discuss something with you it helps to understand you first. And, I don’t waste bandwidth on a crackpot.

And…so I asked him.

In post #139 he directed me to post #63 that had some cut and pasted texts, with no commentary. While I’m happy to see cites, he offered me nothing else. And I mean nothing. How shall I repsond to some cut and pasted texts there posted even before I asked him? He then went on to give me a series of excuses as to why he wouldn’t respond.

How should I have responded? Shall I direct my argument at the bible? (for I did not badchad’s thoughts) Shall I formulate his argument for him, based on those texts and then respond to my own argument? Shall I just hoist the white flag because Polycarp might think he’s a genius?

I’ve been more than willing to engage people here on the bible, in a substantive way with both cites and commentary- often exhaustive and verbose. :frowning: So I wasn’t ducking him, and his posts indicate that he didn’t feel that way. On the contrary, he may have felt I was trying to lure him.

And, I guess I was. I was trying to lure him into a substantive position from which we could begin a discussion. I am left with the impression that badchad is long on bravado, enthusiasm and sarcasm. I see no indication however, that he knows one bit about what’s he so excited about.

In the last few days he’s he’s cut a path a mild wide and an inch deep. Apparently that has been good enough so that those even more uninformed about the bible are convinced he “knows his shit.”

If badchad is interested in disussing the bible texts (as distinctly different than theology or a particular dogma) I would be pleased to disuss them. But I do not think he is interested, in large part because he cannot.

262

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Still wouldn’t you say that the Bible has a lot of room for interpretation?
[/quote]

I believe there is room for interpretation, and reasoning. It is a complex document spanning at least 40 writers over at least 1500 years. It’s for this reason that a google induced knowledge is no knowledge at all.

If you want, you can find texts that you can interpret that shows Paul a woman hater, a homosexual, that Jesus had rage issues, God a ruthless hateful killer and all kinds of other positions.

I have disagreed with you, in part, because you hold the bible open to levels of interpretation that can’t be supported. I respect your faith, and I respect that you are always thoughtful, although I disagree. You have been willing to take the time to explain yourself and your beliefs, and it appears that you draw then from different sources.

That’s not the same as badchad; who seems to be more interested in tearing through the virtual landscape throwing hand grenades.

And I have, dozens if not hundreds, of times. And, I was willing and interested in doing that with badchad. But he had so many different rants, and C/P texts that is impossible in my mind to find a point of clarity to begin.

I’d be pleased to discuss the bible with badchad. He’s more than welcome to keep all the bile in his stomach. All I ask is a cite, and a cogent, concise, focused set of thoughts based on that site.

263

Sorry for the delay. I’m usually offline on weekends.

I thought (incorrectly) that logic and programming syntax could be used interchangeably. Apologies. Allow me to try again.

X=Y is not a proof but an assertion. When dealing with the metaphysical, there can be no ‘proof’, only assertions. I think we can agree here?

I am asserting that X, which is what I define as god, possesses the property of Y, in this case necessary existence. The key part of the assertion is Y, rather than X. Any value possessing the property of Y can rightly be equated to X. Can I ‘cite’ Lib’s proof of NE, which demonstrates that whatever you choose to call NE, exists as NE.

To quote Shakespeare, “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.

To try and be less wordy, my first paragraph in post #114 boils down to: all the terms refer to something that has the same specific qualities as its essence. Therefore, to use a term that is outside the normal synonyms in reference to this essence, while not incorrect, serves more to distract from the discussion rather than contribute to it.

I think this post also attempts to address several of DTC’s comments.

*awaits a lesson in logic…

264

[QUOTE=Greenback]
Sorry for the delay. I’m usually offline on weekends.

[/quote]

No problem. I didn’t even turn on my computer yesterday.

I’ve designed a few languages, so I get picky. :slight_smile: I disagree that there can be no proof when dealing with metaphysics. Given certain premises about metaphysical objects, you can prove things about them. If logic does not work, all bets are off. For instance, people answer the old “can god create something so heavy he can’t lift it” question by saying that such a thing is logically inconsistent, and is like asking if god can create an even number not divisible by 2. That’s a perfectly reasonable response, but it doesn’t work if you can’t prove metaphysic things.

It is true that if you assert X = Y, then you can assert that Z != Y. But these are just assertions, and as such not very interesting. You’d also have to explain why an IPU couldn’t have property Y.

Lib did something a bit different - he defined God as the entity that has NE. His proofs had a lot of problems, but the main problem was that he could never demonstrate that the entity he called God had any characteristics of what we usually think of God. For instance, the thing that exists in all possible worlds might just as well be a slime mold as an all-powerful entity - both are Gods under Lib’s definition. He also never explained to my satisfaction why a world identical to a world without the NE entity but without it is not possible - except by it not having the NE entity.

To quote Lincoln:
Someone once asked him how many legs a horse would have if you called a tail a leg.
Four he answered - calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

Now, the traditional proof of NE, I believe, is that the most powerful entity must be NE, since if it did not exist in each possible world it would not be most powerful. This fails, since it assumes a most powerful entity exists. The most powerful entity must be omniscient and omnipotent, but these two cagegories are mutually contradictory in one entity. There could be an omnipotent entity and an omniscient one, but it is not clear that either qualifies as most powerful, since there are clearly things that either cannot do. Thus, they do not have to exist in all possible worlds, and are thus not gods. Lib did not assume that the NE entity is all powerful, (which I thought he did - it took a while to get that clear.)

Now, since it is not true that any powerful entity must exist in all possible worlds, we would have to prove it exists in our word by other means. Or, we could argue for its existence based on evidence. Neither strategy has seemed to be very successful so far.

265

[QUOTE=the raindog]
I will ask for clarification or for contextual background when it is not entirely clear to me what the posters thoughts were.

I am interested in the posters view of the context—I may have a distinct opinion that the texts is either taken out of context, or misapplied. But I don’t want to put words in the posters mouth, or presume to know what they were thinking or what their rationale is. I don’t want to misunderstand the poster, and I don’t want to misrepresent his point.
[/QUOTE]

That makes sense to me. That might be followed by a “Are you saying X” type of post. From a gut level, when you ask for cite* and context* it feels like you’re asking for a much more detailed interpretation or justification of beliefs in a medium where people may not have the time to give it.
When you ask for context are you asking for the verses around the specific verse or the cultural historical context as well?

fair enough

FWIW he made a plain statement and pointed to a small group of verses to support his point. It might have been more productive to the conversation to respond specifically about those cited verses. As in, no they don’t make your point conclusively because X, Y Z, You took them out of context and here’s a cite of my own to prove my point. IMHO that might have drawn more out of him than a discussion of why you thought he should offer it up without any real argument from you.

You may be right. I never supposed you were ducking him. I just wonder if there is a better way to move the discussion forward. My suggestion is presenting your own position even briefly.

I haven’t read that many of your posts and our exchanges have been brief. Perhaps I’ll check out threads I wasn’t in. Any suggestions?

266

[QUOTE=Jodi]
DCMS, the question isn’t whether my morals come from the Bible, but whether they come from God. Atheists disavow any outsider actor as instilling or activating the urge to do good. My understanding is that they attribute that urge to biology and cultural/social conditioning, and I’m fine with that. I just don’t think at the end of the day that’s any more provable or intellectually defensible than believing they come from God. But then, as a Christian, I don’t live or die by whether something’s provable, so it’s no skin off my nose either way.

And I didn’t at all think you were bashing, but thanks for the disclaimer. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

So you say that my aversion to slavery comes from god, but that god wrote in his book (or inspired others to write in their books) that slavery is ok? So which should I go by? My god-given sense of right and wrong, or what he actually wrote down for me to read? Why would the two conflict?

267

I think that a lot of Christians do not know where you would get moral guidance from if not from god so athiests only acto morally to comport to societal norms but would not do so if a “Lord of the Flies” situation.

Why be good and moral if you don’t even believe there is a reward in heaven sort of attitude.

268

No more so than I think Falwell and Robertson are amoral and unprincipled. People are people, some are good, some are bad. Having a belief system, religious or secular, does not make you moral. Hitler had a belief system, and I dont think you would consider him moral!

Empathy is what I think makes people moral and principled. If you know your action, or in-action, will hurt/harm another you will be less likely to do that action and vice-versa.

269

[QUOTE=col_10022]
I think that a lot of Christians do not know where you would get moral guidance from if not from god so athiests only acto morally to comport to societal norms but would not do so if a “Lord of the Flies” situation.

Why be good and moral if you don’t even believe there is a reward in heaven sort of attitude.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure if the “Lord of the Flies” is an appropriate choice of example. If several children were marooned on an island without a ready supply of food and water and the promise of rescue, then I would bet that survival of the fittest would beat the threat of Hell hands down- regardless of which church the children were raised in.

As far as reward for good behavior- that is the root of the question. Consider this:

A starving man knocks at the door of an atheist. Atheist feeds him because he recognizes a fellow human in need of kindness.

A starving man knocks at the door of a Christian. Christian feeds him because the Christian wants to ensure his place in Heaven.

The action is the same; the motivation is questionable. I am not sure that I am comfortable in a society where people are motivated to kind and moral action simply because of the promise of Heaven or the fear of Hell.

Note how this paints the Christian in an unfavorable and insulting light. Wait, stay with me- there is a purpose to this excercise. The Christian will insist that he would feed the starving man because “It is the right thing to do; regardless of what punishment or reward is promised” and “I don’t need to be promised Heaven in order to be kind to someone in need.”

The atheist can say exactly the same thing.

Again: Neither Christian nor atheist needs the promise of an afterlife to do the right thing. It is a human decision and not derived exclusively from the Christian belief.

Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was portrayed in the Bible committing all manner of kind acts. Atheists have similar role models: Tenzin Gyatso, Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, etc. Granted, none of these people have walked on water (yet) but they are modern people of varying religious belief who have committed extraordinary kindnesses. Some of them still very much alive, and still teaching kindness. Moral codes are not derived solely from the Bible, or any religious text for that matter. They come from family, from society, and from within.

The side argument that occured has to do with Christians following (some literally; some by inspiration) the Bible closely. Many conservative Christians who apply Bibllical teaching literally have a tendency to exclude or condemn various persons based on orientation, race, and religious beliefs. I, as an atheist, find this discrimination unkind. I also find the Old Testament God quite scary, and those who delight in His unparalleled retributions (flood, fire, plagues, damning to Hell, etc, etc) even scarier. “Schadenfreude” fits here- there are Christians who find justice in eternal damnation, Holy Wars, Divine Jealousy, pestilence, plagues, etc. Taking a special satisfaction in suffering and misery is… mean.

Atheists do not wish to see people eternally punished for mistakes, for sexual orientation, for following another religious belief, for disrespecting God or His Son, for accidents of birth (i.e. born in the Amazon without having been exposed to missionaries). Atheists would like for people to have personal freedoms like freedom of thought, freedom to marry the person they love; freedom to practice other faiths. Atheists do not want people to live in fear or shame.

270

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
So you say that my aversion to slavery comes from god, but that god wrote in his book (or inspired others to write in their books) that slavery is ok?
[/QUOTE]

Where does the Bible say that?

271

Um, JThunder, are you kidding or are you serious?

From your link:

Ah yes, those happy slave, bound to servitude not because of their skin color but because their side lost the war this year. In Bible times, instead of debtors prison they had slavery. Those enlightened folks.

The site continues, lest you get the idea that slavery is ok because the Hebrews did it:

Ah. It’s so clear now. Enslaving people because you want to is fine. But don’t do it because they’re inferior to you. All these years I thought the plagues of Egypt were demonstrating that somebody wasn’t happy with the way Mr. Rameses was treating Moses’ homeboys. Silly me.

If this construction is accepted, then we could return to Roman style slavery. We’re missing out on a golden opportunity, actually. Instead of capturing insurgents and tossing them into a hole in Cuba, we could put them to work picking Strawberries in California. Bang! We solved the whole secret prison problem and illegal immigration all at once. Want a job but can’t get a visa? No worries, mate! Just sell yourself into slavery and we’ll give you all the job you need. We’ll even provide for your family and children. They can work in my house.

:rolleyes:

sinjin

272

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Where does the Bible say that?
[/QUOTE]

Here, here, here, and here are a few examples.

Joshua 9:23 Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.

Genesis 24:35 And the LORD hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses

Genesis 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

(Maybe that is why atheists have a mistrust for Christians: God promised to make slaves of us)

273

I want to apologize for my post. I have no business picking out unpleasant verses in the Bible and it in no way helps explain my point of view. I have already said that I feel that the Bible endorses and encourages some unkind practices; and that is why I choose not to use it as a handbook for family values. I do not need to quote hateful passages to support that. My OP was intended to gain insight as to why modern people find atheists amoral- personal opinion is more than sufficient and tossing Bible verse back and forth is just further derailing the discussion.

274

[QUOTE=Dob]
No more so than I think Falwell and Robertson are amoral and unprincipled.
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying they aren’t ? I’d call them amoral at best.

275

[QUOTE=JThunder]
Where does the Bible say that?
[/QUOTE]

JThunder, please tell me that you are joking with this ridiculous link. That is about the worst piece of apologetic drivel I have ever read. It is so wrong in so many ways, and its main point, that biblical slavery is different from American slavery, is so irrelevant it boggles the mind. So what if it’s different. It’s still slavery! Slavery is bad! Do you see what your religion has done to you? It’s put you in a position that you feel you need to defend slavery! Think about that for a second- you are defending slavery!

In answer to your questions, however:

Leviticus 25:44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

There you go. That condones slavery, notwithstanding the mountains of apologetic obfuscatory semantic bullshit that states otherwise. If you can honestly say that passage does not condone slavery then you are too far gone to be reasoned with. I would also note that it contradicts your little linked article’s assertion that people were not enslaved because of their nationality, since slaves were taken from surrounding countries and people stupid enough to visit Israel.

Also, the belief that slaves were treated well is contradicted by

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Hmm, starting to sound more and more like American slavery, isn’t it? Certainly any differences are merely cosmetic; they are taking slaves of other nationalities, enslaving them for life, enslaving their offspring, beating the hell out of them, ringing any bells?

But to appease you and your ridiculous apologetic joke of a website, I will reword my question (which was not directed at you to begin with).

Jodi, my god-given sense of right and wrong tells me that it is wrong to buy slaves from neighboring countries or to enslave foreigners, keep them in bondage for life, enslave their children, and beat them within an inch of their lives. However, the book that god wrote tells me that these things are ok. Why would god implant a sense of right and wrong in me that directly contradicts the book he wrote to tell me right from wrong? It doesn’t make sense.

Now, JThunder, I assume this newly worded question will pass muster with you, since I took it straight from the bible. Care to take a crack at actually answering the question now, or are you going to try to distract the discussion with ridiculous non-sequitors some more?

276

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Atheists have similar role models:
[/QUOTE]

Buddhist

Christian

Christian

Christian

Not sure. But I admire him immensely.

I think it is great that a-theists can have so many theist role models. And why not? There are admirable traits about each of the people named above. It would probably be much easier to make a list of jerks, scumbags, thieves and murderers who professed one religion or another.

Likewise those who are atheists. My best friend is an atheist. I am a Christian, and a very active one. We get along fine. I would be thrilled if he were to become a believer, but that is his business. He sees how I live. That is the best I can do.

So let us agree that we are all people of faith. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to say there is no God. We simply choose to place our faith in different places. I think it is unfortunate that people choose to live a life not having the joy I have in following Christ. Atheists probably think it is unfortunate that I pray to an invisible man in the sky and follow the questionable teachings of a first century rabi.

But we are all much bigger that these single facets of our personalities. In reality we each probably have several meaningful relationships with Christians, atheists, maybe a Buddhist here and there, the occassional Jew, a Hindu? Maybe even a muslim? And we get along. Every day. Or we become hermits.

So let us all lay down the broad brushes. We are talking about real people here. People of religion and atheists are each as diverse as the other. Some Christians follow a moral code they believe comes from God and studying the Bible. Some atheists can follow a parallel moral code founded in love and consideration for their fellow man. In case you hadn’t noticed, both camps have produced their fair share of Asshats (Admiral Class).

The truth of the matter is that in real life I could sit down in a pub with just about anyone, share a few pints and debate religion (or atheism or both) very civilly. Then I could stumble home with the opposing party and gladly serve them pancakes like Prince served to Charlie Murphy. It is not my job to “save” you. Or even convince you. My job as a Christian is to love and serve my fellow man. If anyone asks me why I do it, the answer is that Jesus commands this love of everyone who claims to follow Him. If the person wants to know more, I will gladly share.

Can we at least agree that after all is said and done, there is no cut and dry answer? Religion or Atheism is not an indicator of an individual’s “morality”.

277

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
Buddhist

Christian

Christian

Christian

Not sure. But I admire him immensely.

I think it is great that a-theists can have so many theist role models. And why not? There are admirable traits about each of the people named above. It would probably be much easier to make a list of jerks, scumbags, thieves and murderers who professed one religion or another.

[/QUOTE]

I picked some of the *more recent and familiar * American winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. (there have been 93; to determine and post the religion of all winners may take you a little longer) My point was this: These accomplished and respected leaders were people; just people. Not the Son of God; and not all Christian. I will repeat myself: morality is not derived solely by a belief in the God of the Bible (New Testament or Old Testament).

278

[QUOTE=newcrasher]

Can we at least agree that after all is said and done, there is no cut and dry answer? Religion or Atheism is not an indicator of an individual’s “morality”.
[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. And thank you for being generous and inclusive. I hope there are many more Christians like you in my future.

279

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I picked some of the *more recent and familiar * American winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. (there have been 93; to determine and post the religion of all winners may take you a little longer) My point was this: These accomplished and respected leaders were people; just people. Not the Son of God; and not all Christian. I will repeat myself: morality is not derived solely by a belief in the God of the Bible (New Testament or Old Testament).
[/QUOTE]

Whoops- I meant to say more recent and familiar to Americans. Sorry.

280

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
Can we at least agree that after all is said and done, there is no cut and dry answer? Religion or Atheism is not an indicator of an individual’s “morality”.
[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. Surely many of us have met people who profess to be of various theological stances with widely differing levels of character. I’m sure I have.