Morality

[pioteir]

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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.

[La Dolce Vita]

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?

[Contemporary Protestant]

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

[La Dolce Vita]

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?

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[Contemporary Protestant]

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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[Contemporary Protestant]

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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Just a comment. I wasn't trying to accomplish anything except to type it and hit the "post" button.

[Hydra009]

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

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.

[Drummer Guy]

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.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Hydra, I think I was quoted out of context, I provided a better explanation on the same post you quoted

[Mister Agenda]

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.