The Gospel

[lostnick3]

So in your world:

People are such dumb brutes that without a God, they have no sense that to rape is wrong, or that to murder is wrong, or that to steal is wrong. So without God, I would think the man holding a gun to my head while he rapes me is doing a good and right thing, is that it? In fact, I'd lie down for him, wouldn't I? I'd applaud his performance when he was done, and if he didn't blow my brains out, I'd give him the addresses of my closest friends so he could do them next.

Without God, I'd think it was perfectly fine to slowly dismember a small animal; I'd take delight in watching a bomb go off in a bus; I'd line up for the chance to kick a homeless person.

And this really makes sense to you? Really?







Really?

yep pretty much.although i don't profess to know whats going on in your mind. an example would be war- raping, killing everyone down to the last man, woman, child, cow, pig, duck, chicken, then looting and burning every thing is pretty standard business for the loosing side historically.

 

[lostnick3]

This is a non-starter since we can't prove that there is or isn't a god.

How about examining humans who don't believe in god? There are societies and people who don't. We could look to them. Is there any demonstrable data to show that atheists are immoral/amoral.

very good idea. you guy's go first

 

[delphi_ote]

very good idea. you guy's go first

Well your logic there really doesn't work out (no suprise there,) but sure:

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

 

[lostnick3]

Well your logic there really doesn't work out (no suprise there,) but sure:


http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

very good i stand humbled. so the answer was Japan?

 

[UrsulaV]

excuse me i get a little wound up.

what I'm saying that the strongest group of men in a society make the laws and dictate the morality. without a god the sociaty has no where to point to and say no thats not right.

Uh-huh. That's nice, but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. Do you actually read my posts? It almost seems like I say something, and you see maybe one or two words, and they trigger some kind of rant from you, and you don't actually read the rest of the post.

You can claim all you want that a strong group of men will make the laws. Occasionally that may even be true--certainly in the early stages of forming a government, that's usually what happens.

And yet, I'm still operating as a fairly moral being without beliving in a God.

I'm sorry if that scares you or freaks you out. But this is a skeptic's board--you can't just say "No you aren't!" We demand evidence here! So if you believe that I am not a fairly moral being, please provide it now. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[UrsulaV]

yep pretty much.although i don't profess to know whats going on in your mind. an example would be war- raping, killing everyone down to the last man, woman, child, cow, pig, duck, chicken, then looting and burning every thing is pretty standard business for the loosing side historically.

Many soldiers believed in God and still engaged in acts of wartime atrocity. The belief or non-belief in a God didn't particularly stop them.

And I think that looting and rapine is wrong. (I also think that when you wind a bunch of guys up that tight and throw them at the enemy without sufficient discipline or training about the aftermath, bad stuff is going to happen--but merely understanding that something may well be inevitable in some situations does not mean a belief that it is acceptable or right.)

Look, ma! No god! And yet here I go thinking something is wrong!

Just because you can't concieve of how I can believe something is wrong without a God doesn't mean I'm not sitting here doing it. Can you explain how I can possibly think these acts are wrong when I am a godless heathen?

 

[psy kick]

How about examining humans who don't believe in god? There are societies and people who don't. We could look to them. Is there any demonstrable data to show that atheists are immoral/amoral.

I doubt there is. I'm sure there are many tribes like that; have any been quizzed on that?
Of course, morality isn't always black and white.

 

[psy kick]

Besides, from personal experience, some christians are the nastiest people you could find.
I've known (briefly) 2 self professed satanists who were unusually nice.

 

[RandFan]

I doubt there is. I'm sure there are many tribes like that; have any been quizzed on that?
Of course, morality isn't always black and white.

There are large numbers of atheists living in China and and a number of states from the former Soviet Union. No, morality isn't always black and white but surely if these people are more likely to be what you and I consider immoral or amoral we would see a pattern, right?

 

[RandFan]

Besides, from personal experience, some christians are the nastiest people you could find.
I've known (briefly) 2 self professed satanists who were unusually nice.

Sure but to be intellectually honest these are but anecdotes. 4 of my closest and dearest friends are atheists and they are wonderful people who are all decent compassionate and philanthropic. We would need more that 6 people to prove our thesis. However these are enough to demonstrate that atheists can be moral (assuming they are not committing atrocities in secret like the pedophile priests).

 

[psy kick]

I am agreeing with you, atheists certainly are moral. Morality isn't exclusive to God.

 

[RandFan]

I am agreeing with you, atheists certainly are moral. Morality isn't exclusive to God.

That's what I gathered from your posts. I just wanted to note that it's not like we don't have groups that can be studied.

 

[lostnick3]

Uh-huh. That's nice, but it doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. Do you actually read my posts? It almost seems like I say something, and you see maybe one or two words, and they trigger some kind of rant from you, and you don't actually read the rest of the post.

You can claim all you want that a strong group of men will make the laws. Occasionally that may even be true--certainly in the early stages of forming a government, that's usually what happens.

And yet, I'm still operating as a fairly moral being without believing in a God.

I'm sorry if that scares you or freaks you out. But this is a skeptic's board--you can't just say "No you aren't!" We demand evidence here! So if you believe that I am not a fairly moral being, please provide it now. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

a sunny good morning to you and yours from me and mine on the left coast


i said it before, I've never claimed to be literate. since there is no swearing here at JREF I've lost a third of my vocabulary. if no on else will take an opposing view I will because i feel a number of these posts a just Christian bashing to be part of the group.

that said

please read the statement i made again. i maintain that current and past governing body's were started and maintained by a strongman and or strongmen with support of a army that historically the loosing side/culture died, my example today would be Jafar, i know the population is all not dead yet, but if you look at the issue you can understand what i mean. i have never stated i supported this.

when statements are made about "my world","my invisible friends" or "my invisible God" (i doubt anyone anyone here has the slightest inkling of a concept of "my world") it just sounds confrontational and detracts from the discussion.

to end my rant

have you ever considered that your morals were established in a country based on euro centric writing and philosophy that were themselves based in the belief in God.

 

[RandFan]

have you ever considered that your morals were established in a country based on euro centric writing and philosophy that were themselves based in the belief in God.

In large part of course. But the relevance of believing in god is tricky. Which came first the moral or the believing in god?

 

[Dr Adequate]

According to Jesus, morality comes first.

"How can you love God whom you have not seen when you don't love your neighbor whom you have seen" (paraphrase --- can anyone give chapter and verse?)

 

[lostnick3]

In large part of course. But the relevance of believing in god is tricky. Which came first the moral or the believing in god?

yes! we have some agreement. i agree the relevance of believing god is tricky, the relevance of believing in the one true God is a conundrum. It is my thought that real science and God in this universe are playing by the same rules.

 

[lostnick3]

According to Jesus, morality comes first.

"How can you love God whom you have not seen when you don't love your neighbor whom you have seen" (paraphrase --- can anyone give chapter and verse?)

1 John 4:20 I Belive. Love comes first.

 

[UrsulaV]

have you ever considered that your morals were established in a country based on euro centric writing and philosophy that were themselves based in the belief in God.

Sure. So what? I still don't believe in God, and I'm still a reasonably moral being despite that. Just because my ancestors were Christians, doesn't mean that I therefore have to be.

I am fully aware that some of my society's laws are based on a Christian past. Some of those specific laws, I find quite stupid and would not or do not obey. Others are reasonably sensible, and would be sensible whether or not they had a Christian backing (laws against murder, for example, are found in most functioning societies, regardless of whether they have a Christian history or not.) We might just as well argue that since many of those Christian laws and philosophies have Greek roots, there can be no morality without a belief in Zeus and Apollo. I don't believe in them either, and yet a number of elements in my culture are derived from one that believed in it.

Sorry, dude, but you still have not proved by any stretch that morality requires God. That moralities exist which are based on God DOESN'T prove that. It's not enough to say "Look, there are moralities based on God!" You have to DISPROVE the ones that aren't, if you're going to prove that morality requires God. Otherwise you're saying "Look, all crows are black!" and we're holding up white crows (which do exist.) You can claim that it had black parents all you like, you can wave as many black crows as you like, but that doesn't change the essential fact that I've STILL got a white crow.

 

[lostnick3]

Sure. So what? I still don't believe in God, and I'm still a reasonably moral being despite that. Just because my ancestors were Christians, doesn't mean that I therefore have to be.

I am fully aware that some of my society's laws are based on a Christian past. Some of those specific laws, I find quite stupid and would not or do not obey. Others are reasonably sensible, and would be sensible whether or not they had a Christian backing (laws against murder, for example, are found in most functioning societies, regardless of whether they have a Christian history or not.) We might just as well argue that since many of those Christian laws and philosophies have Greek roots, there can be no morality without a belief in Zeus and Apollo. I don't believe in them either, and yet a number of elements in my culture are derived from one that believed in it.

Sorry, dude, but you still have not proved by any stretch that morality requires God. That moralities exist which are based on God DOESN'T prove that. It's not enough to say "Look, there are moralities based on God!" You have to DISPROVE the ones that aren't, if you're going to prove that morality requires God. Otherwise you're saying "Look, all crows are black!" and we're holding up white crows (which do exist.) You can claim that it had black parents all you like, you can wave as many black crows as you like, but that doesn't change the essential fact that I've STILL got a white crow.

OK dudette, by what yardstick do you base your personal morality on, to judge the difference between right and wrong.

I've had no trouble stating I believe in one God or that I follow the teaching of a man called Jesus although I do not call myself a Christian.

 

[delphi_ote]

OK dudette, by what yardstick do you base your personal morality on, to judge the difference between right and wrong.

I've had no trouble stating I believe in one God or that I follow the teaching of a man called Jesus although I do not call myself a Christian.

If your moral source is some particular thing, and it's okay to get your morals from that thing, why is it not okay to make that thing reason?