Where does morality come from?
How is it possible?
What does it mean to be a good person?
Morality is the shared understanding between members of a society that certain behaviors are allowed and others not allowed. I begins with the common sense understanding that in order for a society to function, there has to be some sense of order and some form of observed decorum among its members. Without that, the society functions less effectively. It has been observed among other species
http://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html
Until recently, scientists would have said your cat was snuggling up to you only as a means to get tasty treats. But many animals have a moral compass, and feel emotions such as love, grief, outrage and empathy, a new book argues.
The book, "Can Animals Be Moral?" (Oxford University Press, October 2012), suggests social mammals such as rats, dogs and chimpanzees can choose to be good or bad. And because they have morality, we have moral obligations to them, said author Mark Rowlands, a University of Miami philosopher.
Some research suggests animals have a sense of outrage when social codes are violated. Chimpanzees may punish other chimps for violating certain rules of the social order, said Marc Bekoff, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-author of "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals" (University Of Chicago Press, 2012).
Male bluebirds that catch their female partners stepping out may beat the female, said Hal Herzog, a psychologist at Western Carolina University who studies how humans think about animals.
And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.
It isn't really that difficult. If you do not provide some form of order when raising young and needing to provide for a group, tribe or society, it follows that there will be an eventual set of tacit understandings that best serve the group. And if there is no effort made to both nurture and protect, the group will notsurvive.
Morals are subjective. One culture will be based on a set of criteria that might allow murder of another group for any set of reasons, or seek harmony for others. Homosexuality has been allowed in some cultures and banned in others. Captial punishment in some, none in others. different groups with different criteria to base their morals on.
thanks, I appreciate referencing books, gives me something to expand on
It should be noted that morals are just an extension of altruistic behaviors that have been with us since single-celled organisms began sharing resources for mutual advantage. Their development over hundreds of millions of years into pack behavior and later into our own concept of morality makes for fascinating reading and research, to be sure.
Now, if you're going to go the typical theistic route and say morals come from a deity, I'm going to point to this interesting but not particularly outstanding developmental history and say "lolno."
Well benevolence does have evolutionary benefits, so I don't intend to tie this to theism until my understanding is better
Fascinating point about cells
Humans are social animals. We are social animals because with our relatively vulnerable physical traits working collectively was the best way for our species to propagate. In general the solitary animals you see are large apex predators at the top off their respective food chains, or small, quick herbivores. Most other animals are social to an extent; there is strength in numbers.
As social animals we have adapted several traits that are the basis for morality. Among them are empathy, altruism, sharing, conformity and other such things. These traits allow for social cohesion within the group and propagation of the species. Interestingly enough these traits weaken significantly when another individual is seen as part of the "them" rather than "us". That's why a large part of propaganda is devoted to demonizing the other side; it's much easier to kill a filthy infidel than a father of 3 children and a loving husband. Anyways those traits combined with our higher thinking capabilities allows for what we would call "morality" or "ethics". We, unlike other animals, have the ability to ponder the very nature and consequences of morality. While a chimp may act in a "moral" way towards other members of its group, I doubt it actively thinks about the moral implications of its actions, it's simply enforcing group norms. On the other hand we come up with moral philosophies to guide us, and hopefully we come up with ethics based on reason and empathy rather than what the group dictates. Being social creatures does mean that it is hard to break free of the group thinking though, so I can't blame those whose morals come from their group as long as they don't try to impose those morals on others and as long as they don't harm anyone.
Morality is what it takes for a given population to get along in a given geographical area at a given time frame. That's why it keeps changing.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 06, 2014, 06:52:56 PM
Where does morality come from?
How is it possible?
What does it mean to be a good person?
Morality comes from the nature of existence. We are fundamentally one being, consciousness itself, and morality comes from a deep subconscious and unconscious (but sometimes conscious) recognition of this brute fact of existence.
Being a good person is ultimately to follow The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This becomes apparent when you realize that the others are
literally you. What you do to others, you are doing to another yourself.
All of morality comes from the simple principle, "We Are All One."
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 06, 2014, 06:52:56 PM
Where does morality come from?
Most definitely not from your jebus-monstrosity.
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 02:19:19 AM
Being a good person is ultimately to follow The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I'm a masochist. Does this mean I get to hurt people who aren't?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 06, 2014, 06:52:56 PM
What does it mean to be a good person?
Confronting your immoral beliefs instead of sticking your head in the sand would be a good start.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 06, 2014, 09:43:53 PM
I don't intend to tie this to theism until my understanding is better
Your intent is wrong.
Where do you think YOUR sense of morality comes from, CP? It has always struck me as alarming when people claim that their morality comes from the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, or whatever religious text they currently follow, as they are "life instructions".
It strikes me because it implies that without this set of moral instructions, people would just commit "immoral" acts because they wouldn't get caught. I realize this may be offensive to you, as well as simplistic, and that is not my intent, but it's a concept I've always found interesting.
Mermaid - I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong, for example children (as young as 3) know that lying and stealing is bad, dogs even hide when they do something wrong. Despite this inherent sense of good, people choose evil. The bible isn't the source of my morality, however it does help me understand my faith better.
Everyone - For future reference, I will not acknowledge ad hominem attacks, if you disagree with me, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to call me an idiot
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Mermaid - I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong, for example children (as young as 3) know that lying and stealing is bad, dogs even hide when they do something wrong.
Lying is wrong? My grandfather lied to the nazi's when they came and asked him if he knew where the were jews hiding in the neighborhood. Good thing he didn't do the christian thing, at least, that's what I think.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Despite this inherent sense of good, people choose evil.
In World War 2 many german christians believed they were doing good by killing 6 million jews.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
The bible isn't the source of my morality, however it does help me understand my faith better.
Good. How do you deal with the obviously immoral stuff your bible tells you to believe? Like it's core message that only people who believe in your jebus go to heaven?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Everyone - For future reference, I will not acknowledge ad hominem attacks, if you disagree with me, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to call me an idiot
I was talking about your jebus-monstrosity and his unholy book. Not about you. But you are not stupid, you already knew this.
I was trying to keep things simple, but fine
Look up the confessing church
Nazis were not killing in the name of God, they killed in the name of eugenics
Nazis worshiped a nazi form of Christianity, positive christianity, it was only a tool to control the masses
Lying for personal gain is wrong
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 02:19:19 AM
Morality comes from the nature of existence. We are fundamentally one being, consciousness itself, and morality comes from a deep subconscious and unconscious (but sometimes conscious) recognition of this brute fact of existence.
Being a good person is ultimately to follow The Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This becomes apparent when you realize that the others are literally you. What you do to others, you are doing to another yourself.
All of morality comes from the simple principle, "We Are All One."
*Citation Needed
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:53:18 AM
Nazis were not killing in the name of God, they killed in the name of eugenics
Nazis worshiped a nazi form of Christianity, positive christianity, it was only a tool to control the masses
No true Scottsman would ever [yadda yadda yadda]...
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:53:18 AM
Nazis were not killing in the name of God, they killed in the name of eugenics
The nazi's operated in a country with a very big christian majority. A christian majority that did next to nothing to oppose the nazi's, and often worked with them in the destruction of jews. The trains taking jews to Auswich were operated by normal germans.
To understand their behaviour a bit better, lets have a look a the roots of western antisemitism:
QuoteTraditional antisemitism is based on religious discrimination against Jews by Christians. Christian doctrine was ingrained with the idea that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, and thus deserved to be punished (this is known as the Deicide, or Killing of God, Myth). Another concept that
provoked hatred of Jews amongst Christians was the Supercession Myth, claiming that Christianity had replaced Judaism, due to the Jewish People’s failure in their role as the Chosen People of Godâ€"and thus deserving punishment, specifically by the Christian world.
http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205742.pdf
And:
QuoteIn Germany, this type of thinking found expression in a political, nationalist movement called the Voelkisch movement. This group's representatives opposed the industrialization and secularism which accompanied modernization, as they believed these concepts would destroy traditional German culture. Voelkisch blamed the Jews for undermining the Germans' traditional way of life, and stated that German Jews were not really part of the German people.
Same source.
Also:
QuoteAfter World War II, when the West realized what had happened in Europe, antisemitism was greatly weakened. Many churches admitted their huge mistake in cultivating traditional Christian antisemitism.
Same source.
The concept of deicide was partly repudiated by the catholic church in 1965. Yup. You read that right. 1965.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_deicide
And it's still around even today:
QuoteMel Gibson's film The Passion incorporates the Gospels and extra-biblical material in its graphical portrayal of Jesus' execution. In 2003-SEP, five months before the movies first public showing, Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles CA said that his organization has already received considerable hate mail from people who have seen or heard about the movie, and are accusing modern-day Jews of blame in Jesus' death. Rabbi Hier told Reuters: “Are there any manifestations of hate so far? The answer is an unequivocal yes. We have had hate mail in the past. But never in spurts like this.â€
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_jesu1.htm
A christian source for good measure:
Quote“Anti-Semitism,†writes Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong, “is a terrifying prejudice that is rooted so deeply in the church’s life that it has distorted our entire message.â€
http://theholocaustandchurch.com/christianitys-original-sin-anti-judaism/
And I could go on
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:53:18 AM
Nazis worshiped a nazi form of Christianity, positive christianity, it was only a tool to control the masses
No true scotsman fallacy. Germany was populated by christians when they committed their mass murder.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on May 07, 2014, 03:26:44 AM
I'm a masochist. Does this mean I get to hurt people who aren't?
No. The golden rule should be followed as such: "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you if you were literally them." So you can extrapolate: "If I was that non-masochist, I would not want to be hurt." so even if you are a masochist, you should not hurt others who aren't according to the golden rule.
However, following this standard of The Golden Rule, all of us
do get to hurt
you since you are a masochist! Hope you enjoy the pain!!
Look up the confessing church, and Bonhoeffer
To say the church didn't resist is incorrect
(Edit) I think it's illogical for you to associate Christians with nazis, I don't associate y'all with Stalin
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:53:18 AM
Look up the confessing church
Okay. On protestants in general:
QuoteMany Protestants voted for the Nazis in the elections of summer and fall 1932 and March 1933.
The [Protestant] churches did not reject National Socialism on principle. The idea of a strong authority and a close bond between throne and altar, of the kind that existed in the empire between 1871 and 1918, was in keeping with Protestant tradition. Many ... [Protestants] had reservations about the democratic Weimar Republic and sympathized with political forces â€" such as the German National People's Party[11] â€" that idealized the past.[12]
A limited number of Protestants, such as Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Wilhelm Busch,[13][14] objected to the Nazis on moral and theological principles
QuoteThe German Christians were sympathetic to the Nazi regime's goal of "co-ordinating" the individual Protestant churches into a single and uniform Reich church, consistent with the Volk ethos and the Führerprinzip.
On the confessing church:
QuoteHowever, the Barmen Declaration itself did not mention the Nazi persecution of Jews or other totalitarian measures taken by the Nazis; it was a declaration of ecclesiastical independence, consistent with centuries of Protestant doctrine. It was not a statement of rebellion against the regime or its political and social doctrines and actions.
We totally deferred our political opposition to Nazism and tried to bring the church opposition to its feet....We did it from a tactical standpoint....We hoped to bring [our brethren] to recognize the contradictions of being a Christian and a Nazi.... so we deferred our political polemic against the Nazi state.[33]
The Confessing Church engaged in only one form of unified resistance: resistance to state manipulation of religious affairs. While many leaders of the Confessing Church attempted to persuade the church to take a radical stance in opposition to Hitler, the church never adopted this policy.
QuoteA select few of the Confessing Church risked their lives to help Jews hiding illegally in Berlin during the war.
source of all these quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AMMermaid - I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong
Generations of slavers would seem to hint otherwise.
Slavers had no qualms about taking slaves and did not often regard what they were doing as immoral. in fact, your Bible was fairly uncritical of the institution (and even used as justification for it), which seems odd coming from an omniscient God who would've known that slavery would've been abolished and universally reviled in the far future, but makes a lot of sense coming from middle easterners long accustomed to the practice who had no idea that its days were numbered.
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:05:53 PM
No. The golden rule should be followed as such: "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you if you were literally them." So you can extrapolate: "If I was that non-masochist, I would not want to be hurt." so even if you are a masochist, you should not hurt others who aren't according to the golden rule.
However, following this standard of The Golden Rule, all of us do get to hurt you since you are a masochist! Hope you enjoy the pain!!
Lol
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 03:08:58 PM
(Edit) I think it's illogical for you to associate Christians with nazis, I don't associate y'all with Stalin
I'm adressing the immorality of christianity, as it is an important source of the anti semitism that led to the holocaust. There are no such association in my posts, and if there are, I apologize.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong
False. Some people are born without empathy. We call the sociopaths.
Sociopaths still know right from wrong, they choose to ignore social norms and lack emotion
Sociopath is no longer used as a clinical term
Antisemitism already existed before Christianity and many Christians are not and were not Antisemitic
What am I not addressing
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:00:40 PM
What am I not addressing
I was responding to your post about atheist marxists and christian abolitionists, which you removed while I was typing.
When I noticed I removed my response, just as you were typing this.
Its a mess :D
I removed it because it was irrelevant, you addressed the issue and I thought that I should remove that post since the issue was addressed
Sorry
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:05:56 PM
I removed it because it was irrelevant, you addressed the issue and I thought that I should remove that post since the issue was addressed
Sorry
No need for an excuse. I'm off to bed. Curious about what you think about the stuff I posted about deicide and the christian origins of anti-semitism.
I'll restate my point
Christianity isn't that bad because many movements came from Christianity such as abolition in Britian and America
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
I don't think using the actions of people to judge their ideals isn't fair
Especially considering the teachings of Jesus advocate peace
Guess that's why he needed a sword...
When did Jesus use a sword on another human being?
Without positing this as proof, the most likely hypothesis to me would be that morality is a product of evolution. It could be an effect of group selection; in broad terms those groups that learned to survive together, survived, passing on their proneness to rely on eachother, trust eachother, work together etc. to the next generation. All animals that live in herds or packs would show some 'basic' sense in morality according to this hypothesis. Which we do find; apes and elephants mourn their dead, wolves and piranha's work together but don't eat their own pack or school, all manner of animals make sure they protect their young even at the cost of their own safety or even lives, ... It's a logical evolutionary trait; a proneness to take care of kin, especially one's offspring, ensures the chances for survival of that offspring. So if an ancient ancestor had a slight proneness to safeguard his or her offspring, due to for example a random mutation in the DNA of that creature which influenced it's hormones, that offspring which had a greater chance of having the same mutation itself would have a greater chance for surviving. Same goes for those creatures that learn to trust eachother and work together. If they make groups, those groups who depend on eachother, have a greater chance of breading and furthering the herd or pack or flock or ... The difference between us and other animals seems to me to most likely be due to our added brain-capacity. With the more our brains evolved, giving us a better chance for survival, the more our capacity to think about our behaviour towards one another grew.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Everyone - For future reference, I will not acknowledge ad hominem attacks, if you disagree with me, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to call me an idiot
Umm... yeah here's the thing. Everyone has the right to call anyone an idiot if they feel so inclined. I get that you might not like it, but that's just how life works. Sorry champ.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Mermaid - I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong, for example children (as young as 3) know that lying and stealing is bad, dogs even hide when they do something wrong. Despite this inherent sense of good, people choose evil. The bible isn't the source of my morality, however it does help me understand my faith better.
Thanks for explaining this. I have respect for you and your beliefs.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
I'll restate my point
Christianity isn't that bad because many movements came from Christianity such as abolition in Britian and America.
Slavery was condoned with the bible in hand as well. For hundreds of years. It was only after the enlightenment when christians suddenly started reading moral stuff in their bible. Just as christians abolished the idea of deicide - a concept that has agian led to pogroms and exclusion for hundreds of years - only after the holocaust took place and the horrificness of it was evident. Coincidence? I think not.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
I don't think using the actions of people to judge their ideals isn't fair
Atheism isn't about ideals. It's just disbelief in god. Stalin, pol pot and Mao did have ideals, they came from a thing called 'Communism' (and also theories about nation building). Their ideals (an egalitarian society) have everything to do with their actions. Would they have redistributed wealth if they were not communists? I think not. Beliefs and ideals inform actions.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
Especially considering the teachings of Jesus advocate peace
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Jesus teaches that the only way to salvation is through belief in him. Actions do not matter in christianity. If Hitler believed in the end, he would be in heaven, unlike Anne Frank I might add. Giving mass murderers a free ticket to salvation, while sending their victims to hell is nowhere near advocating peace.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 05:18:10 PM
When did Jesus use a sword on another human being?
Hitler probably killed nobody himself as well.
Your jesus advocated division. "I come not to bring peace, I came to bring the sword".
He also condoned slavery by the way.
God's Grace isn't a get out of jail free card, its an on going process. Avoiding hell is not the message of the bible, the point of Christianity is to pursue a relationship with God. Actions still matter in Christianity
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed in the name of Communism, and communism considers religion the opium of the masses, so they tried to remove religion from their society
Just because religious people can make mistakes doesn't change the fact that religion is a force for good
Societies without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
Jesus was referring to the sword of the gospel, and division from the wicked, those concepts are better developed in 2 corinthians and Ephesians 6
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Just because religious people can make mistakes doesn't change the fact that religion is a force for good
Societies without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
That "fact" is debatable. I would say that the opposite was true and that religions cause far more harm in the world than good.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
God's Grace isn't a get out of jail free card, its an on going process. Avoiding hell is not the message of the bible, the point of Christianity is to pursue a relationship with God. Actions still matter in Christianity
Okay. Many christians disagree with you, but no matter.
Why did jesus need to die on the cross in your version of christianity? Original sin is no biggy?
Also: Anne Frank believed she was pursuing a relationship with jahweh. Are you saying the new testament is just an addendum meant to make pursuing this relationship somehow easier? That jesus - contrary to what he said about the subject - is not the only way to salvation/relationship with god?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot killed in the name of Communism, and communism considers religion the opium of the masses, so they tried to remove religion from their society.
You are missing the point. Their - communist - ideals and beliefs informed their actions. Just like christian beliefs and ideals have informed actions. Like pogroms agains jews throughout the ages. Christian inspired anti-semitism being widespread in Europe in the 30's was the context that made the holocaust possible. In Salt Lake city many gay kids are living in the streets because their parents kicked them out for being the way they were born - again, because of religious beliefs.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Just because religious people can make mistakes doesn't change the fact that religion is a force for good.
Tell that to the jews who died in the last 2 millenia because of christian pogroms. Tell it to gay kids in Saoudi Arabia and Iraq.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Societies without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
It's the - communism - that made these societies terrible. In communism a lack of freedom is inherent, and that is what makes them terrible. If Marx would have been a christian who thought christianity would empower the masses, atheism and other religions would have been persecuted.
Maybe you could name a terrible atheist society that was not communist? That would be more convincing.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Jesus was referring to the sword of the gospel, and division from the wicked, those concepts are better developed in 2 corinthians and Ephesians 6
Funny how jesus specifically said that he came to divide families.
I'll look up the quotes though, thanks.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 03:50:06 PM
Sociopaths still know right from wrong, they choose to ignore social norms and lack emotion
But they don't "inherently" know it. It is not something they are born with, it is something that they are taught.
Quote from: Contemporary ProtestantChristianity isn't that bad because many movements came from Christianity such as abolition in Britian and America
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
Comparing your group's best against another group's worst. (And apparently forgetting about the multitude of pro-slavery Christians in the process) Sounds fair.
QuoteSocieties without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
Except you know, all those largely atheistic countries that aren't communist.
QuoteSocieties without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
Tell that to the countries that rank highest on human rights and quality of life... you know, the one's that have the highest rates of atheism?
I would say if anything, CP, you have exhibited a high degree of intelligence on here. But from what you have told us, you are still in high school and in an intellectually restrictive environment. Intelligence is where you start, knowledge comes after, and knowledge takes time and experience. Some of the questions you have posted on here indicate a level of naivety, which is to be understood from lack of knowledge and experience. Don't let that curtail you in your search for knowledge. I commend you for having the courage to do so.
And you have also taken some flak on here, but don't let that drive you away. I respect you and I know others here do as well. Don't leave because of negative comments. Every experience, good or bad, builds character, so stick around.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 08:26:31 AM
Just because religious people can make mistakes doesn't change the fact that religion is a force for good
Societies without religion have all been terrible (communist societies)
It has been explained by others here, but you're confusing politics with atheism. While it is true that the communists, particularly Stalinists, practiced political atheism, it had everything to do with politics. To them there was no place for religion because the state was the highest power. Communism is a political and economic system first and foremost. They used communism as their reason for repressing religion, not atheism. In a sense it was politics laid bare. Religious tyrants, on the other hand, have explicitly used religious reasoning to justify their atrocities, even though the ulterior motives were most certainly political.
When the politics are laid bare, as was the case with the communists, you can directly attack their political reasoning for the bullshit it is. When someone uses religion to mask their politics you first have to attack their religious reasoning, then their politics. Religion serves as a convenient shell for tyranny in that manner.
If atheism by itself was a corrupting influence on society you would a correlation in countries with high rates of atheism. I believe the Scandinavian countries and other European counties are enough evidence to prove this correlation does not exist.
Fine point taken, I just think it's fair to say christianity is bad because of what Christians have done
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 01:27:33 PM
Fine point taken, I just think it's fair to say christianity is bad because of what Christians have done
The fact that there is a way to interpret Christian texts to justify tyranny, hatred, and more is why I consider Christianity as a harmful religion. Compare the history of Christianity to that of Jainism. While it is true that how the Bible is interpreted depends upon the individual congregation or Christian, the fact that there is room in it to allow people to interpret it as allowing or even demanding their particular brand of tyranny shows that at the very least it is flawed. Basically you would expect the main book of the one true religion to be pretty clear and concise on the whole "not allowing tyranny" thing.
I think you make a good point and church does explain that, the concept of total depravity of man, and I just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral
I consider myself and my beliefs at least decent and it's upsetting when a stranger tries to say otherwise
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 01:46:44 PM
I think you make a good point and church does explain that, the concept of total depravity of man, and I just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral
I consider myself and my beliefs at least decent and it's upsetting when a stranger tries to say otherwise
And it should be upsetting. While I respect you, I will not respect your beliefs so I cannot comply with your request. If we started respecting beliefs because people got upset we would be allowing all sorts of harmful things (like anti-vaccine people). Please try to understand that I consider you a decent person, but that doesn't mean I will tread lightly when it comes to your belief.
I consider it upsetting when Christians call me an abomination because I happen to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, but I still debate them. If we strayed from ideas simply because they are upsetting we wouldn't learn much at all. We should analyze why they upset us and then determine if those ideas hold up to scrutiny.
I hear yah, that's reasonable, and I see now where u r coming from.
"Contemporary protestant"??? Really???? What does that even mean?
Contemporary: Modern
Protestant: Christian
Contemporary: with the times
Protestant: Protesting
You should read a history book
Might I suggest reading about; Martin Luther, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Second Great Awakening
Sorry but Protestant doesn't mean protesting (anymore), it just means I agree with ideas similar to the separatists who broke from Catholicism
I call myself contemporary because I am moderate, I think gay marriage should be legal simply because its not right to infringe on another person's freedom
You need a few more books and years. Good on you for being sincere, but don't take those books/ lecturers as gospel - just exciting to learn about new stuff.
Um, Im embarrassed to ask, how old are you? What country are you from? I ask because you implied that Im young and lack knowledge, before I get offended, I want to know if English is your first language
Well are you young?
I think you're younger, but yes I am youthful
Good for you. While you're young, go and live a bit. Be youthful.
QuoteMight I suggest reading about; Martin Luther...
As an ex-Lutheran... dude was a major bigot. Thankfully alot of the Lutheran church is far more tolerant and liberal than he was.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 01:46:44 PMI think you make a good point and church does explain that, the concept of total depravity of man
Total depravity - the belief every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin. That's quite an explanation.
Quoteand I just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral
What you are describing is not tolerance, but censorship.
QuoteI consider myself and my beliefs at least decent and it's upsetting when a stranger tries to say otherwise
You, perhaps. Your beliefs are much less laudable. Even the relatively progressive strains of Christianity still demand faith and obedience, and still try to live their lives (and incidentally, the lives of others) around a society long since gone which arguably wasn't even very good compared even to its contemporaries and a morality centered around notions of "sin" utterly detached from the well-being of humans.
Quote...and I just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral
If they are immoral, they are immoral. Just because someone believes something does not mean it is free of criticism. The Nazis had some good beliefs as well, that doesn't mean you can't say, "Nazism was immoral.".
Martin Luther? You mean the guy who removed 7 books from the Old Testament that you've probably never read or heard of unless you're Catholic or curious?
And folks wonder why I laugh when they say the Bible is the "indisputable word of God." Indisputable my ass. XD
I only mentioned Martin Luther because Benno asked what my username meant, and then proceeded to tell me I am incorrect, so I told him to look up a few people before telling me what protestant means
I disagree with Luther and Calvin (especially Calvin), I really like transcendentalism, but I am also open to other things, and think I have a lot of room to grow both as a person and as a theist
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 08, 2014, 01:46:44 PM
I think you make a good point and church does explain that, the concept of total depravity of man, and I just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral
I consider myself and my beliefs at least decent and it's upsetting when a stranger tries to say otherwise
How is the 'concept of total depravity of man' not immoral exactly?
I don't understand the question, total depravity refers to separation from God because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, I have free will and with it I sinned, thus total depravity
So God is not omnipresent in your book?
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent but Jesus and The Father are not, they exist in heaven, sin can't exist in heaven
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 09:37:01 AM
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent but Jesus and The Father are not, they exist in heaven, sin can't exist in heaven
So the Holy Spirit is God and the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, Jesus is God, but Jesus is not omnipresent?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cqqBD4xb_vU/Uvz2DB7oXpI/AAAAAAAAL1A/EUaN2nOqPko/s1600/chef_bot___does_not_compute__by_giframa-d555wi8.gif)
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
...
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
I don't think using the actions of people to judge their ideals isn't fair
...
I recommend you watch some debates of Christopher Hitchens on the so-called "atheistic regimes". you might learn a thing or two.
Second: you say we shouldn't judge the ideals of theists based on their actions but you do the same with supposedly atheistic regimes. Talk about some good ol' christian double standard.
ps. I'm amazed how nobody called CP on his "atheistic regimes" for so long. Don't tell me You all agree he has a point there.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
I don't understand the question, total depravity refers to separation from God because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, I have free will and with it I sinned, thus total depravity
The only people saying you sinned are the theists. It's just a tool for crowd control. They make you feel ashamed of your natural instincts and make you do all sorts of stuff and be obedient so they can forgive you. It's a scam so obvious it hurts.
I never said that those regimes killed in the name of atheism, I wasn't making the atheistic regimes point, I was saying that using regimes isn't a good point in response to nazis
You sure as hell implied that atheism is the thing that drove them. Shiranu and Bibliofagus called you up on that but, as I see it, they went too soft on you.
Hirohito was considered god's incarnate, Stalin and Mao are the "dear leader" types. In all 3 cases people worshipped them not unlike theists worship jesus. They had miracles and heresy hunts in Soviet union (don't know about China and Japan). That doesn't sound like atheism to me.
There's a thread about religious diversity. Check that out. Czech republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hong Kong, Uruguay and South Korea are all atheist 40% and above. I don't see them launching pogroms, wiping out neighbouring tribes etc.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4502.msg1011173#msg1011173
There's a famous challenge put forth by Hitch about religions contribution to morality: Name a moral action made or moral statement uttered by a believer because of their faith that couldn't be made/uttered by an atheist.
If you manage to do that I might consider... well, I'm not sure what I'll do. But do try :)
I'm going to try and answer your question, I don't have an answer now but I will try and find one
Btw South Korea has very high suicide rates, not a great example of the way things should be
Uruguay is only 14% atheist
You can check what's the cause of the suicides while you're trying to find an answer to the challenge.
Uruguay - 12th row from the bottom, 40.7% Unaffiliated. Maybe you looked up Ukraine :)
It's not atheism, it's despair, I was just pointing out that South Korea isn't a good example of an ideal society
Hong Kong looks friggin awesome though
Quote from: pioteir on May 12, 2014, 02:03:39 PMThere's a famous challenge put forth by Hitch about religions contribution to morality: Name a moral action made or moral statement uttered by a believer because of their faith that couldn't be made/uttered by an atheist.
Here's a couple of examples:
"Homosexuality is wrong"
"Sex before marriage is wrong"
I'm not condoning those statements. In fact, I don't think those are moral statements, but in order to answer the question, it would have to be something that a naturalist like myself didn't agree with, because if I agreed with the answer, then it wouldn't be an answer to the challenge.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:29:42 PM
It's not atheism, it's despair, I was just pointing out that South Korea isn't a good example of an ideal society
Hong Kong looks friggin awesome though
I get what you're saying about despair in SK. Today's Japan is a tough one to live in. Social pressures are friggin colossal plus they have the whole Fukushima thing going on. Scary as shit.
But guess what. While many nations saw Fukushima as an opportunity to shut down some nuke plants given the risks and other factors Poland (where I live in, for now) makes a bold plan to build a nuklear plant! I mean we don't have earthquakes here but by the time we build it, it'll be friggin obsolete! Fortunately I will be far away by that time. Sorry for the OT.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 12, 2014, 03:35:19 PM
Here's a couple of examples:
"Homosexuality is wrong"
"Sex before marriage is wrong"
I'm not condoning those statements. In fact, I don't think those are moral statements, but in order to answer the question, it would have to be something that a naturalist like myself didn't agree with, because if I agreed with the answer, then it wouldn't be an answer to the challenge.
Hitch, as well as I meant the positive contribution from religion. Sorry for not specifying that in the challenge. But as a matter of fact Hich had a follow-up: Contrary to the first name a wicked or immoral act or statement done/said BECAUSE of religious beliefs. In this You're spot-on.
That just shows that religion has nothing good to contribute to human morality (unless CP finds a good answer to the first part).
There is some validity to abstinence, I intend to find better info but planned parent hood gives good basics
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/abstinence-4215.htm
If I'm wrong then correct me, but I'm pretty sure abstinence was a belief that originated in Abrahamic religion
QuoteIf I'm wrong then correct me, but I'm pretty sure abstinence was a belief that originated in Abrahamic religion
Nope, the Hindu ascetics practiced it as well, and I am sure there have always, throughout human history, been people who said that sex was wrong or abstained from it.
Against abstinence, the main argument against it, from the link...
QuotePeople may find it difficult to abstain for long periods of time and may end their period of abstinence without being prepared to protect themselves against pregnancy or infection.
Abstinence runs contrary to human biological nature, and thus is rarely practiced outside of the most self-controlled people. And teaching abstinence simply doesn't work, it has to be a choice of the individual.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 09:00:42 AM
I don't understand the question, total depravity refers to separation from God because sin cannot exist in the presence of God, I have free will and with it I sinned, thus total depravity
I'll rephrase: How exactly is the concept that -->> every human being that ever lived, no matter what he or she did or does <<-- is "depraved" a moral concept?
Do atheists tithe? (Giving up 10% of income)
Can an atheist "turn the other cheek"
I'm not saying all Christians follow the tenets described, just throwing them out there
Thanks, I'm going to look into Hindu ascetics
Define moral concept
QuoteDo atheists tithe? (Giving up 10% of income)
(http://www.troll.me/images/obama-isnt-happy/are-you-shitting-me-thumb.jpg)
Okay...
-Atheists don't (for the most part) believe in the validity of the church.
-Atheists generally don't attend churches.
-If atheists don't believe in the validity of the church, nor attend the church, then it is highly unlikely they give up 10% of their income to the church.
Now, I am guessing you meant this as a moral argument... that tithing is something good. However if you are just tithing 10% to the church... what church are you tithing to? Are you tithing to one that helps the poor, feeds the needy, or are you tithing to one that is lobbying against gay rights, promoting guilt and shame amongst the population, using fear to scare people into believing in it?
Donating to a charity, or buying food for the hungry, is better than donating to a church. And I am positive there are atheists that give far more than 10% of their income in charity just as there are MANY Christians who don't tithe 10% of their income.
QuoteCan an atheist "turn the other cheek"
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/216/896/seriously-wtf-is-this-shit_583.jpg)
Nope, we cant. If you wrong us, we will hunt you down and slaughter your kin. That is just how we roll.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
Define moral concept
You know what I mean. Hell. It's
your thread discussing
morality dude.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
Do atheists tithe? (Giving up 10% of income)
Can an atheist "turn the other cheek"
I'm not saying all Christians follow the tenets described, just throwing them out there
Thanks, I'm going to look into Hindu ascetics
Define moral concept
I don't consider tithing (especially to any church) as moral. If you mean charity many atheists do that, help the poor, feed the hungry and all that. Religious also tend to prosletyze alongside the feeding and helping so i would say it's immoral (preying on the weak I mean).
Please expand on turning the other cheek. Is it like non-violence thing or loving your enemy or sth?
I definitely consider abstinence (sexual repression and frustration it induces) as one of the main reasons of many mental and sociological problems. So no, it's not moral to condemn (or as it is written in the bible, stone to death) people (mostly women - again scripture) for normal sexual acts and desires.
btw Shiranu I love the slaughter of kin bit :) That's just how we roll hahaha :evillaugh:
I give money directly to charities in lou of the church, and well loving your enemies is a Christian virtue, so yeah, showing kindness to those who hate you
Define moral concept, I don't know what you mean
Giving any amount of money to a charity is better than tithing to a church.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:22:00 PM
Define moral concept, I don't know what you mean
Whatever you meant when you started this thread about morality dude.
It's
your thread discussing --> morality <--
It defines the Christian view on the human condition, kinda a tangent to morality but still an important topic
Please elaborate. I'm not sure I follow.
I wouldn't say that christians loved their enemies during the crusades (it's not about the death toll, it's the thought that counts :) ).
I see loving your enemies rather suicidal than moral. Anyhow love your own enemies, don't love mine. I'll stay with combating them thank you.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 09, 2014, 07:23:38 AM
Contemporary: Modern
Protestant: Christian
Ignore benno. He's a bit off and possibly just a troll. Even if he's not purposely trolling, he has offered zero things of value to this forum so far other than the reassurance that the internet needs to be restricted from some people.
Christians believe the world is broken because of sin, sin being defined as separation from God, and that through Jesus Christ we can someday be in the presence of God
This brokenness is not necessarily every negative emotion because crying isn't sinful, this brokenness is what allows evil to hurt so many lives
I would be willing to debate the crusades had more to do with fear than religion, the kings just used religion as a tool to command the masses to kill
Jesus told us to love our enemies, the crusades are not an example of that, I respect that you disagree with this
What a sad world you believe in :(.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:35:15 PM
Christians believe the world is broken because of sin, sin being defined as separation from God
Sounds like your gods fault then. He keeps choosing to stay well away from us.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:35:15 PMand that through Jesus Christ we can someday be in the presence of God
I've asked before: How would this work out for Anne Frank, who worshipped this god until the bitter end? But who never worshipped your jesus?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:35:15 PMThis brokenness is not necessarily every negative emotion because crying isn't sinful, this brokenness is what allows evil to hurt so many lives
Your almighty gods allergy to this 'sin' thing - meaning his chosen absence... - seems to lead to a lot of problems.
I disagree simply because christians took part in the crusades. The kings had "god given right" to rule, so when they said "go kill them heathens in the desert" good christians did go and kill a bunch of people in the name of god. Just shows how loving they were to their enemies. And it wasn't just using religion to political gains, in the bible god commands people to kill others, considered enemies, on numerous occasions so why wouldn't christians go kill some heretics in the desert.
Even if they launched the crusades merely for profit why would christians follow?
In the New Testament, killing enemies isn't justified, jesus fulfilled the old law, and the crusaders were acting against scripture, the words of Jesus to be precise
The medieval Catholic Church was oppressive and lied to the people, saying they were exempt from sins if they did this, the bible doesn't support such things
Quote from: Shiranu on May 12, 2014, 04:39:36 PM
What a sad world you believe in :(.
yea, when someone buys that sin crap it's easy to shove any type of thing on them just so they could reach absolution and forgiveness. If you assume there is no sin to begin with, you're free from all the guilt, shame and everything else they try to manipulate you with.
Alright, I will listen to an argument as to why the world is not broken and not in need of saving
We don't argue that world is perfect and without suffering, pain and mysery. But given the fact that we are evolved species half a chromosome away from the chimpanzee it makes perfect sense the world would be as it is. Do I like it? No I don't, but there's nothing mystical about it.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
Alright, I will listen to an argument as to why the world is not broken and not in need of saving
Why do you say this?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
Alright, I will listen to an argument as to why the world is not broken and not in need of saving
It's not broken, it's on a decline because of human intervention. The answer and cause is scientific innovation. Nothing about religion can help us undo some of the damage we've caused. For example; Texas is using religion as a weapon to try make billions off the oil industry, they do this by spreading lies, lies designed to keep the public from wanting regulations on carbon emissions. It's not difficult to use religion as a weapon to keep the masses blind to a problem that is literally (in the case of Texas) staring them in the face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ_VuGZw3cY
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:35:15 PM
Christians believe the world is broken because of sin, sin being defined as separation from God, and that through Jesus Christ we can someday be in the presence of God
This brokenness is not necessarily every negative emotion because crying isn't sinful, this brokenness is what allows evil to hurt so many lives
I would be willing to debate the crusades had more to do with fear than religion, the kings just used religion as a tool to command the masses to kill
Jesus told us to love our enemies, the crusades are not an example of that, I respect that you disagree with this
Leave it to religion to make someone think that emotions are a thought crime....
Oh and only us humans can do anything to make the world a better place. Not by referring the problem upward, but by actually doing something about it. You can't pray away global warming, you can't pray away priests fucking innocent children. We are the only ones that can act.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
This has likely been addressed, but it is really important that you understand why you are wrong in this application. I know you are not being dishonest, but it is a dishonest and incorrect argument and this is why:
Atheism is nothing. It is not an ideology. It has no tenants. It cannot make people do anything. It's a result, not something that in itself is capable of creating a result. Labeling atheists together is like labeling people who are not into sports together, and judging people who doesn't like sports by their actions. For example, if someone notes football hooligans killing someone, the opponent can bring up some random serial killer who didn't like sport, or many killed athletes.
Christianity is a specific ideology, and can therefor have consequences. It tells people how to act and behave, atheism cannot (nor can theism btw).
It makes no sense.
Even if we accept atheism as a label, it would be no more a label than theism. Connecting us to Stalin would by that be like comparing you to Osama Bin Laden as you are both theists. Most atheists here would likely be secular humanists, an ideology that has nothing to do with Stalin.
In fact, if we're twisting definition to be more accurate, rather than following your narrative, you're the one that should be branded with Stalin while we cannot. Stalin was a proponent of communism, communism is a dogmatic ideology, religion is a sub-category of dogmatic ideologies - most people on this forum are likely against dogmatic ideologies. This means that you and Stalin have similar ideologies, while we have opposing ideologies from both you and Stalin.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
Alright, I will listen to an argument as to why the world is not broken and not in need of saving
The world can only be broken if there is/was a purpose to it that it deviated from. Being a Christian, you probably believe that the world had a purpose that it deviated from due to sin. I don't believe in God, I don't believe the world has a purpose to fulfill, so I don't believe it's broken. Society can be broken, the system can be broken, and I would argue that they are. The difference is that those things have purposes, they were devised by humans to serve a function.
As per "saving" the world, that's a bit of narcissism on the part of humans. The world doesn't need saving, we do. We need to save ourselves from ourselves, and we're the only ones who can do it. Maybe if people stopped praying and starting thinking we'd be a lot closer to saving ourselves. The world will still be here when we're gone, and it won't care a bit.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:35:15 PM
Christians believe the world is broken because of sin, sin being defined as separation from God, and that through Jesus Christ we can someday be in the presence of God
This brokenness is not necessarily every negative emotion because crying isn't sinful, this brokenness is what allows evil to hurt so many lives
I would be willing to debate the crusades had more to do with fear than religion, the kings just used religion as a tool to command the masses to kill
Jesus told us to love our enemies, the crusades are not an example of that, I respect that you disagree with this
But what Christianity tend to consider sin is often harmless, positive or just straight up morally good. That's one of the major problems with Christianity. For example you tell people that love between consenting adults, which is amazing, is evil if they happen to be of the same sex. Of course many Christians don't believe this anymore, but your bible does. Divorce is seen as immoral, but getting out of an unhealthy marriage and even finding new partners to fall in-love with later is clearly positive. Masturbation tends to feel amazing, and cannot hurt anyone. Sex before marriage has no negative consequences what so ever (as long as it's safe sex). Abortion is often viewed as wrong, but keeping the option for abortion is clearly a moral obligation saving people from poverty and being slaves to biology - and obviously the fetus is not a person. The list goes on.
I find the concept of sin evil myself. It's used to install shame, and it psychologically traumatizes people. It's in no way or form good.
It's funny as you say that we know what's moral and have a shared inherent morality when my inherent morality would appear to be very different from your inherent morality. How do you explain that?
I don't know what you want me to say
And I need to correct you on something, I've never given an opinion on sexuality, I've said I'm male and see abstinence as a positive thing
I don't dwell on sexual issues because it's not something I'm bothered by, if you want a direct response it will be time before I feel like I can articulate one, and I don't appreciate you indicating that I'm morally inferior.
Are you aware of the risks and damage that abortion can cause? I think abortion should be legal because people should have the freedom to choose but I don't necessarily agree with it
Reforming the foster care system would be a better solution than abortion because it can help far more people
What specifically do u want me to address
I was not referring to your beliefs, but what's generally/often agreed upon as sins by Christians. As long as you think people should have the right to choose, we are on the same page of abortion. I do not believe foster care is a superior option though. Why create a life that would have to live in foster care? And why force yourself through 9 months for that, when you can just have an abortion, which is simply the removal of a non-sentient entity?
I'm primarily just interested in the answers to these two questions to keep the discussion simple however, no need to really get into abortion, etc:
1. Why is the concept of sin good rather than evil, given the psychological damages and needless limitation people are afflicted with due to these concepts?
And more importantly:
2. Why do people have opposing inherent moral compasses if said compasses come from a god?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
Do atheists tithe? (Giving up 10% of income)
Can an atheist "turn the other cheek"
"Do theists tithe?"
"Do theists 'turn the other cheek?"
If your answer is not a straight yes or no, I think you'll probably agree with me that these are badly-targeted questions.
Like the overarching group "theists," atheists are not a group that these descriptions can be applied to. Remember, "atheist" is just the other side of "theist." If you wouldn't ask, "Do theists do [such and such]," you probably shouldn't be asking it of atheists.
Sin is bad, i consider it a tragic truth
I want to avoid cliche Christian terms but a simple explanation would be Satan did it
However I'm going to honestly attempt to answer you
I think people whose compasses are out of sync are damaged, for example, child soldiers in Africa have been taken, brain washed, and tortured. I wouldn't expect someone to come out of that without being hurt in a profound way.
I believe God can fix those people, if they desire to be fixed, but this is something we won't agree on
I understand atheists are all separate people, that wasn't an assertion it was a response to a question, I was asked what makes Christians unique, and I referenced the fact that our holy book calls for those things, and stated them in the form of a question
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:36:02 AM
Mermaid - I think everyone inherently knows right from wrong, for example children (as young as 3) know that lying and stealing is bad, dogs even hide when they do something wrong. Despite this inherent sense of good, people choose evil. The bible isn't the source of my morality, however it does help me understand my faith better.
Everyone - For future reference, I will not acknowledge ad hominem attacks, if you disagree with me, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to call me an idiot
I disagree. I DO have the right to call you an idiot. It's part of our constitution, the right to free speech. That said I think you're a fairly reasonable person and likable which doesn't by default make you any less of an idiot. With enough time here you might even get rid of that idiot mindset of xtianedness.
What did you accomplish by that
I acknowledge my viewpoint has shifted, but I'm not debating and never intended on forcing my view point on others
Just a comment. I wasn't trying to accomplish anything except to type it and hit the "post" button.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 06:35:32 PMSin is bad, i consider it a tragic truth
I want to avoid cliche Christian terms but a simple explanation would be Satan did it
Both sin and Satan are foreign concepts to someone who doesn't subscribe to your belief system. Most of us are aware of them at all only because of either being raised Christian or knowing lots of people who are Christians. So, you might as well be saying that Thetans cause people to commit evil and it wouldn't make much of a difference.
Of course, these are primitive explanations forged in scientific ignorance of human behavior and don't make much sense outside (or inside) a narrow ideological stance. In stark contrast, there has been a lot of scientific research regarding morality. The causes of good and evil are actually much more prosaic -and far more interesting- than vying supernatural forces.
Quote from: pioteir on May 12, 2014, 03:41:57 PM
Hitch, as well as I meant the positive contribution from religion. Sorry for not specifying that in the challenge. But as a matter of fact Hich had a follow-up: Contrary to the first name a wicked or immoral act or statement done/said BECAUSE of religious beliefs. In this You're spot-on.
That just shows that religion has nothing good to contribute to human morality (unless CP finds a good answer to the first part).
The challenge isn't logical, it begs the question of naturalistic morality. Your standard for what is "good" is derived from a naturalistic worldview, and if you assume that standard to judge the answer, then it's staged so that it can never be answered.
If you have methods A and B for determining what is "right" and "wrong", and you ask for something from method B that is considered "right" that A could not say is "right", then of course A will consider it to be "wrong", but that would be a legitimate answer. However, if you use A to judge the answer, then of course you will find it to be "wrong" and the challenge could never be met.
I'm sorry but this is a fallacious challenge.
Hydra, I think I was quoted out of context, I provided a better explanation on the same post you quoted
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 08:53:18 AM
I was trying to keep things simple, but fine
Look up the confessing church
Nazis were not killing in the name of God, they killed in the name of eugenics
Nazis worshiped a nazi form of Christianity, positive christianity, it was only a tool to control the masses
Lying for personal gain is wrong
The percentage of Nazis who were not Lutherans or Catholics was very low. The 'Nazi form of Christianity' you're describing was pretty much a fantasy of Hitler and some of his cronies, not an actuality for the rank-and-file. Not that the Nazis killed in the name of God. For the most part, they killed in the name of Hitler.
Exactly why I don't think they're a shining example of Christianity
If Christian is defined as someone who follows the tenets of the New Testament
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
I'll restate my point
Christianity isn't that bad because many movements came from Christianity such as abolition in Britian and America
Christianity isn't that bad compared to some things. It isn't that good compared to some other things.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
Atheism doesn't have a good track record either, Stalin, pol pot, Mao Zedong, hiro hito (maybe)
I have as much to do with those people because I am atheist as you do with Osama bin Laden because you're theist. You're comparing apples and oranges, atheism with Christianity. They're different kinds of things. The propler comparison would be atheism with theism, or a specific atheist philosophy with a specific religion. If you want to compare communism with Christianity, fine, but doesn't directly relate to us, not many communists here. A more relevant comparison would be humanism and Christianity.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
I don't think using the actions of people to judge their ideals isn't fair
I think using the actions of communists to judge the ideals of noncommunists may be a tad unfair.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 07, 2014, 04:15:57 PM
Especially considering the teachings of Jesus advocate peace
While the actions (and votes) of Christians fall short of advocating peace on a routine basis, and you can dispute Jesus's consistency on advocating peace, sure. The Buddha advocated peace, too. It's easy to advocate, hard to get people to live by.
I mentioned those regimes to highlight how ridiculous it is to make comparisons, I'm not a crusader, nor am I an inquisitor
Likewise you are not a soviet
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 03:01:50 PM
I'm going to try and answer your question, I don't have an answer now but I will try and find one
Btw South Korea has very high suicide rates, not a great example of the way things should be
I'll take a high suicide rate over a high murder rate any day.
If you're referring to the United States, I need to clarify something
If inner cities are excluded, then The United States is quite safe
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 11:24:22 AM
Exactly why I don't think they're a shining example of Christianity
If Christian is defined as someone who follows the tenets of the New Testament
I think this is the most useful definition:
1a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus
Else you can define anyone whose actions you find repugnant as 'not actually a Christian'. Hitler wasn't a good Christian, he wasn't a mainstream Christian, and he didn't think much of mainstream Christianity...but the only justification for excluding him from the ranks of Christendom entirely is that he doesn't make Christians look good. I can make at least as good a case that Mao and Pol Pot weren't really atheists.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 11:49:17 AM
If you're referring to the United States, I need to clarify something
If inner cities are excluded, then The United States is quite safe
Every country is safe if you exclude the dangerous parts from consideration.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 12, 2014, 06:35:32 PM
Sin is bad, i consider it a tragic truth
Why is "sin" bad? Are there any logical reasons, or is it just because your bible (that cannot support it's claims) tells you that this is god's (subjective) opinion?
QuoteI think people whose compasses are out of sync are damaged, for example, child soldiers in Africa have been taken, brain washed, and tortured. I wouldn't expect someone to come out of that without being hurt in a profound way.
Out of sync with what? Your ideology? So everyone are born with/develops your inherent sense of morality, and then it's distorted? There is nothing implying this, and the fact that it appears you are stating that everyone who disagrees with you are just damaged is one heck of an insulting cop-out. At least you conceded that people don't know right from wrong if they are "damaged", which contradicts the previous argument you made that everyone knows right from wrong.
Interesting that you bring up these concepts, because I would apply them to Christianity. It takes concepts and actions that are inherently good and makes people see them as bad through indoctrination/brainwashing.
Also, remember a few pages ago when you said this:
QuoteI just ask that my beliefs be tolerated, and not called immoral. I consider myself and my beliefs at least decent and it's upsetting when a stranger tries to say otherwise
Why is it problematic when we point to things we find immoral about your beliefs, when you don't seem to find it problematic that your religion have concepts such as sin, which for example brands entire lifestyles (that are not only harmless but bring joy and happiness to people's lives) as immoral?
Quote from: La Dolce Vita on May 13, 2014, 12:53:40 PM
Why is it problematic when we point to things we find immoral about your beliefs, when you don't seem to find it problematic that your religion have concepts such as sin, which for example brands entire lifestyles (that are not only harmless but bring joy and happiness to people's lives) as immoral?
^ this. Religions have no problem laying down judgment on anybody for any reason. It doesn't take much time in a history book to figure that out. I have no reservations on calling religion out for its transgressions because they certainly have no reservations on calling everybody else out for theirs.
Is it reasonable for me to request that I be considered an individual
Because I refrain from judging others, and respect other choice/freedoms
I admitted that I was incorrect in saying everyone knows right from wrong because people can be brainwashed or suffer from mental illness, that is what I meant nay damaged
Im completely open to the possibility that I am wrong
Yes I consider sin a bad thing, especially an external sin because it hurts another person, all sin is equal before God, but that doesn't mean killing someone is the same as hating someone
I'm not judgemental, and I don't claim to have all the answers
How is Mao not an atheist?
How was Hitler not a Christian? He believed he was acting in accordance with God's will by exterminating the Jews. He had "God With Us" inscribed on the belt buckles of his Nazi soldiers. See, the problem is that there are as many different kinds of Christianity as there are Christians. Ask any two of them what they believe about the Bible, and chances are they won't agree on everything...yet they ALL claim they are being guided by the Holy Spirit. This is very confusing to me. Is the Holy Spirit telling all these nice people different things, or are some of them misinterpreting what God is telling them? How does the Holy Spirit speak to people, anyway--a voice in their heads? Usually, hearing voices is cause for alarm. At any rate, if even Christians can't agree on the Bible's teachings, I see no reason to take their religion, or their holy book, seriously. Sure, some of them do nice things, but the same can be said of anyone, anywhere in the world, no matter their beliefs. Not all Muslims are terrorists with bombs strapped to their children's bodies, that doesn't mean I believe Islam to be a force of good in the world.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 01:47:03 PM
Is it reasonable for me to request that I be considered an individual
Actually no, not in the way you want to at least. You are presenting yourself as a member of a specific ideology, and you are presenting said ideology. You, of course, are an individual, and will be treated as such, but the views you are presenting is a part of a larger whole.
QuoteBecause I refrain from judging others, and respect other choice/freedoms
You said "sin is bad", there appears to be a contradiction here, unless you believe that only you can "sin". Sin = immorality, and if you view someone/acts they do as immoral, you are judging them. There is no way to get around that.
QuoteI admitted that I was incorrect in saying everyone knows right from wrong because people can be brainwashed or suffer from mental illness, that is what I meant nay damaged
Am I brainwashed and damaged? I appear to have a different sense of right and wrong from you. You seem to have defined this as only being possible if brainwashed and damaged. You do see how that's insulting, right?
QuoteYes I consider sin a bad thing, especially an external sin because it hurts another person, all sin is equal before God, but that doesn't mean killing someone is the same as hating someone
I agree that anything that hurts another person is bad (on certain condition of course, a serial killer being hurt due to the victim running way isn't bad for instance) - but as things that hurts others are just "especially bad", does that mean that something can be bad/immoral if it has no negative consequences to anyone else? How?
QuoteI'm not judgemental
Well, you have basically stated that we're all brainwashed/damaged, that you believe in the concept of sin (judging by definition) and that something that hurts no one can be immoral. All of this seems very judgmental.
I didn't mean it that way, I don't think y'all are immoral, nor would i consider y'all damaged
I'm sorry if I offended anyone, that wasn't my intention
Apparently my understanding is flawed and I need time to reevaluate
You have never offended me. I think you are really trying to understand how atheists can be moral without God. I'm trying to understand how theist can be moral when they can use Scripture to be immoral, especially unethical in their business dealings. Solitary
Quote from: Mister Agenda on May 13, 2014, 11:47:30 AM
I'll take a high suicide rate over a high murder rate any day.
I'd rather neither...
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 06, 2014, 06:52:56 PM
Where does morality come from?
How is it possible?
What does it mean to be a good person?
This particular video pretty much sums up how I view morality and also shines light on some of the problems with "Christian Morality." It's a little lengthy, but well worth it.
Yeah, Christianity "spawned" abolitionism. You know what else it spawned? Justifications for the very system of slavery they were abolishing.
Don't give religion undeserved credit for people being and not being assholes.
Are y'all aware that transatlantic slavery was different than slavery before hand?
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
Are y'all aware that transatlantic slavery was different than slavery before hand?
Are you referring to the slavery practice of only being a slave for a set amount of time, and then being a free person? Or the taking slaves from opposing countries/clans/citystates in time of war and again them being slaves for a set period of time and then being freed? Or the option for all slaves to earn or buy their freedom?
But as someone with a PhD in history, yes I am quite aware of the differences between transatlantic slavery and the slavery that came before.
Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on May 13, 2014, 08:49:35 PM
Are y'all aware that transatlantic slavery was different than slavery before hand?
It honestly doesn't matter, the bible could have just clearly said "Slavery is wrong" but it doesn't. I mean, god felt the need to clarify that eating shelled fish is detestable, and that we should not wear cloths of mixed linen, but he couldn't be bothered to mention that owning people as slaves is wrong? Isn't he omniscient, meaning he could have seen all the suffering that his lack of clarification would cause?
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 13, 2014, 01:53:39 AM
The challenge isn't logical, it begs the question of naturalistic morality. Your standard for what is "good" is derived from a naturalistic worldview, and if you assume that standard to judge the answer, then it's staged so that it can never be answered.
If you have methods A and B for determining what is "right" and "wrong", and you ask for something from method B that is considered "right" that A could not say is "right", then of course A will consider it to be "wrong", but that would be a legitimate answer. However, if you use A to judge the answer, then of course you will find it to be "wrong" and the challenge could never be met.
I'm sorry but this is a fallacious challenge.
I don't find the challenge to be fallacious at all. Religious people assert that human morality derived from their god is superior to other value systems. They state god gives objective moral standards for everyone to live by, even now. So when I want a believer to find me something that really is superior to my morals I only want them to meet their burden of proof. It's like weighing apples and pears. They are different but You can weigh them all the same. Even if we assume that there are different moral standards being used by me and theists, they still say their morality is "better" (like saying 1 kg of apples weighs more than 1kg of pears). If anything, the challenge shows they can not say their morality is "better", beause, as You pointed out, we can be using very different standards to begin with. And another thing is that the challenge shows theists are using the same moral standards as anyone else but they credit religion for them. They don't stone people to death, they don't do many other things described in the bible because they know it's immoral by today's standards. It's cherry-picking caused by cognitive dissonance.
ps. Sorry if the apples and pears example is wrong, I really suck at making this sort of analogies :)
apples and pears...
Is your native language Dutch by any chance?
Always heard people who speak English compare apples and oranges.
I'm Polish :)
Good to know there's other places that compare apples and pears then :p
Yea. I love Your work on the debate with Casper btw. I don't think he's going to change his mind but still it's a great treat to organize my own thoughts and regain perspective.
ps. I don't have the brain capacity to understand and interpret the physics mentioned there (even as a layman) :) so again much props for You.
Quote from: Drummer Guy on May 14, 2014, 02:51:24 AM
It honestly doesn't matter, the bible could have just clearly said "Slavery is wrong" but it doesn't. I mean, god felt the need to clarify that eating shelled fish is detestable, and that we should not wear cloths of mixed linen, but he couldn't be bothered to mention that owning people as slaves is wrong? Isn't he omniscient, meaning he could have seen all the suffering that his lack of clarification would cause?
The fact Jesus didn't condemn slavery, and even tacitly condoned it, is probably the biggest single indicator to me that he isn't the moral authority Christians claim.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 14, 2014, 04:57:13 AM
Good to know there's other places that compare apples and pears then :p
We do that in Norway too. :)