"Worth" of Christianity.

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Adrian1197]

Wurley

Good post, thanks

Why did you leave Christianity??  You seem to be a person of faith that was disappointed by something you found in your Church.

Adrian

You have a distorted understanding of the nature of the “God” that Christians worship.

The God I know has never shaken a finger at me.  Rather my Christian teaching as revealed to ma a God that loves me and serves as my model for all that “ethical behavior that you respect.

Where does an Athiest get his or her ethics of  morals?

And if you don't follow God's moral codes or disagree with Scripture, what happens? You end up in the Pit. To me, God is the diety who plays parent to the world. A parent spanks a child for acting out. God sends them to Satan. Same basic concept.

Atheists either derive their own morals or learn from predecessors. In my opinion, religions get their morals from the same places we do, they just choose to build a belief structure out of them and enforce their teachings by means of an omniscient diety and the fear of eternal suffering. The only difference between our morals is why we follow them and the likelihood of them changing.

[Faithfulee]

Adrain

No wonder you aren’t a Christain
You don’t understand how we know God.

Our morals are “learned from our predecessors” also but we include the Ancient words in the Old and the New Testament, and we  modify our thinking based on  our experience since,  The difference we have is the grounding in the Bible.

And yes I believe in an omniscient diety.  I also know that Christians are still learning about the action of God in our lives, the lives of others and throughout history.

And I have absolutely no fear of eternal suffering.  I wonder where you got that, it certainly isn’t part of my Christian experience.

What I do look forward to is spending eternity with my friends and family and the rest of humankind in a place of eternal peace.  How about you?  Think I will meet you there?

PS - where did you get the idea that "Allah smiles"  I find no such concept in the Koran. 

[Acumen]

Squirl:  I do not believe "it's in the Bible" or "it has been revealed" is a BETTER answer for selecting some moral system over another, and in any case, when people do say "it's in the Bible" or "it has been revealed" and have a moral system of some value, someone can often pretty successfully try to defended using non-religious arguments and evidence, and it is the non-religious argumentation and evidence which BEST supports the choice of such a moral system, NOT the claim "it is revealed"

Here is the problem when dealing with a system of morality.  What is morality?  I think most people would be inclined to say something like it's a set of human guidelines that defines or describes rightful conduct.  However, it would be impossible to describe what rightful human conduct should be without first knowing why we're here.  For instance, hand tools are evaluated based upon their functionality.  A chair, for example, is a good chair if it meets the following requirements:

• First, it must support a desirable amount of weight.
• Second, it must be comfortable for sitting.
• Third, its decor must complement or fit in reasonably with a designated environment.
  
  
• And fourth, it must be structurally and decoratively durable.

If the chair fails one of these standards of goodness, then it becomes less likely of being a good chair and more likely of being a bad chair.  In other words, we don't know if a chair is good unless we know the function of the chair.  And the best way to determine the function of a chair, or any product for that manner, is to consult the one who designed or manufactured the chair.  A lot of times, the products we buy come with user manuals -- and it is often advisable for us to read them if we are to get the best use of the product we purchased.   

I see human morality much of the same way.  Like the good chair, there are standards of goodness to maintain.  Like the chair, we can't know what is good unless we understand our function.  And like the chair, the best way to determine what constitutes a good human being is to consult the manufacturer, or perhaps the user manual. 

Now, of course some products are so simple to use (the chair) we don't really need a user manual.  And just as we are capable of using our faculties of reason to determine how a chair is supposed be used, based upon its basic design, we can also determine, although limitedly, some rightful human conduct.  However, the more complicated the product, the more reliant we become on the user manual if we are to use the product properly.  And human beings are very complicated, so where is the user manual?

Atheists, in my opinion, refuse to look for a user manual.  To me, that's akin to buying a car, but refuse to consult the very source that provides the right information.  What type of gas are we supposed to put in our car?  What type of oil provides the best engine performance?  What pressure should our tires be set at?  Do we check the transmission oil when the vehicle is on or off?  How do we know when the brakes are going bad?  Is there brake test we should know about?  And the list goes on.  However, the atheist would rather wing it or follow what everyone else seems to be doing.  But like with the car, that may work for a while, but it's not full proof.  Most people wait for their breaks to make strange sounds before replacing them, but what's the right way to determine brake proficiency?

----------------------------

Squirl:  But atheists and religious people often DO give reasons and evidence in support of what they say.  Now it may not completely satisfy, but we are fallible human beings and we can try to discuss these things rationally and challenge each other so we can identify our errors perhaps by such a process.  Going around just saying "it's revealed" doesn't tend to allow for much of that, does it?

What is the alternative to the revelation?  Is it winging it?  Is it following what others are doing?  If it is, then what happens when people start changing what they're doing to the point they're doing the opposite of what they were doing before?  Should we change too?  Why? 

For this reason, I don't prefer the change as you go method -- there is no reliability, no peace of mind.

---------------------------

Squirl:  Alleging that you have such a ground and giving this story about invisible law-givers and meaning-bestowers doesn't satisfy me at all.  Why is that?

Good question.  Maybe you're a "do it yourself-er"?  Maybe you like to wing it, or change as you go?  Maybe you like the freedom of not knowing for sure what is right or wrong, and like the Matrix, you would rather stay in a deluded state?  Maybe you enjoy problem solving and looking at the manual is too easy?  Maybe you don't want to be held accountable once you realize what the manual says?  Or maybe everyone else seems to be doing fine without the manual, so why not yourself? 

In other words, there are many reasons why the invisible law giver philosophy doesn't work for you, but it sure makes a lot of intellectual sense to the theist.  But what intellectual sense does it make for the atheist?   

[Acumen]

Atheists choose a moral system over an other for the betterment of mankind... For our children and our children's children to live in a more suitable environment... Because we care about others, and we don't want to see them degrade themselves by means of unethical acts any more than we would want to disappoint them. We choose morals based on our emotions and the realization of a more content world, should we choose to enhance its more pleasing aspects. We all have our reasons. Although, we are not bound by certain laws that dictate us to reiterate what those specific reasons are. We are free to make up our own minds on the issue.

We don't choose our morals based on a diety that shakes a finger at us from 2000 years ago.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.

[Thorolf]

Atheists choose a moral system over an other for the betterment of mankind... For our children and our children's children to live in a more suitable environment... Because we care about others, and we don't want to see them degrade themselves by means of unethical acts any more than we would want to disappoint them. We choose morals based on our emotions and the realization of a more content world, should we choose to enhance its more pleasing aspects. We all have our reasons. Although, we are not bound by certain laws that dictate us to reiterate what those specific reasons are. We are free to make up our own minds on the issue.

We don't choose our morals based on a diety that shakes a finger at us from 2000 years ago.

I have two immediate reactions...

a) What a load of garbage.

b) You're not really an atheist.

Or, maybe you're not really a Wiccan... or not really Hindu... or I tend to think you're not really any of those things.

Whatever the answer, throwing poo against the wall hoping something sticks so you can feel better about yourself and your advanced poo-slinging skillz is hardly productive, nor is it humorous. Atheists - real atheists - are atheists because they don't believe in a higher power. Period. End of story.

Adding ANYTHING else to the mix is an insult to true atheists, who don't need or want all these flowery justifications. Out of pure integrity, they are atheist because they cannot accept theism.

And that is all.

I'm asking you - please stop pretending to be something you're not. We may be all be flawed around here (no offense, everyone - everybody is flawed) with a wide range of talents, abilities and weaknesses, but at least we are who and what we say we are.

[VLinvictus]

My argument for Christianity is grounded in moral absolutism.  Atheists cannot give an answer why they choose one moral system over another.  They cannot give an answer why it is beneficial to be courageous, loving, kind, loyal, sacrificial and every other moral virtue we desire to see in others.  Christians, on the other hand, can give a reason for their system of morality because it's grounded in an intelligent Creator who has given us the meaning of life and has purposed us to fulfill it has good human beings.

Not necessarily true. Atheists need not be nihilists.

Example. One can conclude from observation that certain behaviors are beneficial to life while others are injurious to life. One can observe that humans, like most primates, are social animals whose chances of survival are greater in cooperation with the group than alone or in conflict with the group. One can then conclude that the harmony and survival of the group is end for which one should strive because it is necessary for the survival of the invididual. One thus has a very real and personal incentive to refrain from socially destructive behaviors. Within the context of the group, it is also logical and natural and observable that an economy of reciprocity is beneficial to the survival of the group as a whole. The individual can choose to act for the benefit of another without any direct and immediate benefit to himself on the understanding that this contributes to a social order in which others will be encouraged to aid him should he himself be in danger. From such observations, one can formulate basic human rights derived from the natural needs of the individual and the group and establish a "social contract" in which each member of the group agrees to limit his or her natural freedom to harm others in exchange for the liberty conferred by the resulting society that he himself will not be harmed. At no point is an appeal necessary to the authority of God or gods.

While a Christian can indeed claim the teachings of his or her God as an absolute moral authority, that moral authority is only as strong as the individual's own belief. Moreover, since such a belief is dependent on faith -- which is by definition subjective -- the dictates of the moral authority are, objectively, arbitrary. Witness the multiplicity of faith systems throughout the world. Most agree on the basic social-contract stuff, which is understandable since they arise out of human nature itself.

Yet, there are issues where the rights, life, and security of others are not involved that religious systems of values differ so markedly. Take sexuality, homosexuality being a hot button case. Consensual and non-exploitative sexual relations between two individuals of the same sex harms no one. No one's rights are violated, no one life put at risk, and the social order is not imperiled. Yet, certain religious traditons claim -- on the authority of their God and scripture -- that such relations are morally wrong. While arguments have been attempted on observable and objective grounds, none have so far proven viable. The basic fundamental argument against homosexual acts is, essentially, "God said so." Fine, but if one does not believe in God or does not believe that about God, there is no reason for the non-believer to accept the opinions of the believer.

Another controversial issue is abortion. There are some religious traditions that claim that abortion is murder and categorically unjustifiable. This is the opinion of the Catholic Church and some other Christian denominations. Other religious traditions, such as the Jewish tradition, claim that abortion is sometimes necessary in order to save the life of the mother. Arguments for and against abortion can also be made without appeals to religious authority of any denomination.

The point is that appeals to religious authority to justify moral behavior is not the all-deciding answer that some would claim it is, nor is it impossible to establish criteria for moral behavior without referencing any sort of deity.

[Faithfulee]

Victus

Welcome to Beliefcorner and thank you for the post.

Do you think that anyone is capable of completely understand God however one defines God??

We Christians are still learning and hopefully growing in understanding.  We have grown and made wonderful changes to this country and the world.  Acceptance of Blacks  and homosexuals are just two.  But they too are works in progress

You certainly don’t speak for me nor most of my understand of God. You are welcome to believe in God or not and the only reason for you to accept my opioniions is that they make sense and are in the best interest of you, and others..

Certainly there are differences of opinion about abortion.  It is a hear werntching experience that deals with human life.  I don’t know  the answer but I do know that  respect of Human life is the most important consideration.  That  leads to a belief in when does a fetus become “human”  I don’t know the specific time,  do you??

Certainly one doesn’t need to believe in God, to promote moral behavior,  but  we don’t know everything about humankind or our universe and never will.  Until we do humility and prayer are important things to do as we make decisions in significant areas of concern. .

[VLinvictus]

I don't have much time to respond right now, but I am not convinced about the subjectivity of faith.  I obviously recognize that faith can be subjective but why does faith have to be subjective?

Faith by definition involves belief in something that cannot be proven. If such beliefs could be proven we wouldn't need faith because we would then have knowledge.

Faith is also a very personal thing, a relationship between the individual and God as he or she conceives of God. It's like love in that respect, and also like hope (which is probably why Paul grouped these things together). It is not something which can be shown or proven to another person -- it is something which each person must experience for him or herself, just like love and beauty and so forth.

Moreover, many people have faith -- and have faith in things that contradict the faith of others. Yet, no one can prove the unique validity of his own faith nor can one disprove the faith of another. If that were possible, the world would be a much simpler place -- and we wouldn't have faith anymore but knowledge.

[Acumen]

Not necessarily true. Atheists need not be nihilists.

We shall see.  ;-)

Example. One can conclude from observation that certain behaviors are beneficial to life while others are injurious to life. One can observe that humans, like most primates, are social animals whose chances of survival are greater in cooperation with the group than alone or in conflict with the group. One can then conclude that the harmony and survival of the group is end for which one should strive because it is necessary for the survival of the invididual.

Can one rationally conclude, from observation, that survival is the proper end of all creatures?  If you can answer this question without involving a leap of faith, then you have made an argument that atheists, by the natural logic of their positions, are indeed not nihilists.  Personally, I don't think this point can be made without the leap. 

While a Christian can indeed claim the teachings of his or her God as an absolute moral authority, that moral authority is only as strong as the individual's own belief. Moreover, since such a belief is dependent on faith -- which is by definition subjective -- the dictates of the moral authority are, objectively, arbitrary. Witness the multiplicity of faith systems throughout the world. Most agree on the basic social-contract stuff, which is understandable since they arise out of human nature itself.

I don't understand how you can move from "moral authority is only as strong as the individual's own belief" and "belief is dependent upon faith" to "which is by definition subjective."  There are real reasons to believe in an absolute moral authority that is independent of subjectivity.  How is my belief or theory of an absolute moral lawgiver on the grounds of teleological human development, the mobility of moral cultural standards, the powerful appeal of religion on the human psych, and the private experiences with the divine any different than any other objective theorizing by sociologists or scientists?

Yet, there are issues where the rights, life, and security of others are not involved that religious systems of values differ so markedly. Take sexuality, homosexuality being a hot button case. Consensual and non-exploitative sexual relations between two individuals of the same sex harms no one. No one's rights are violated, no one life put at risk, and the social order is not imperiled. Yet, certain religious traditons claim -- on the authority of their God and scripture -- that such relations are morally wrong. While arguments have been attempted on observable and objective grounds, none have so far proven viable.

Right, and I think you have touched on an interesting aspect of moral philosophy.  Non-theistic moral philosophy requires no appeal to a law-giving authority as the basis for its view/position.  It depends, on what appears to be an arbitrary standard, rational criteria for its positions without regard to teleology.  For instance, even within your response, you presupposed that the "harm principle" should be conceptually consulted in the determination of whether a sexual orientation and conduct is inappropriate.  Why?  It would appear to me that the harm principle isn't the only criteria society uses as a standard of moral incorrectness.  The incest example is a perfect counterpoint.  I can imagine a scenario where two consenting adults can engage in safe incestuous sex.  Two siblings, who care for each other deeply and believe they are genuinely expressing their love in a legitimate way are not legally allowed to express themselves sexually.  Why not?  If there is no problem with defective births due to the practice of safe sex and both members are consenting adults, then to put it the way you do, "While arguments have been attempted on observable and objective grounds, none have so far proven viable."

And yet, those very people who advocate the rights of homosexuals to marry are not willing to do the same for incestuous couples.  I find that rather intriguing.

[VLinvictus]

Victus

Welcome to Beliefcorner and thank you for the post.

Oh dear. I sense from the tone of your post that there has been some sort of miscommunication.

Do you think that anyone is capable of completely understand God however one defines God??

Absolutely not. It is my personal belief that God cannot be grasped or understood by our finite individual minds. Which is why I am suspicious of those who seem to have God all figured out.

We Christians are still learning and hopefully growing in understanding.  We have grown and made wonderful changes to this country and the world.  Acceptance of Blacks  and homosexuals are just two.  But they too are works in progress

I consider those to be admirable achievements.

You certainly don’t speak for me nor most of my understand of God. You are welcome to believe in God or not and the only reason for you to accept my opioniions is that they make sense and are in the best interest of you, and others.

I never presumed to speak for you or anyone else.  

Certainly there are differences of opinion about abortion.  It is a hear werntching experience that deals with human life.  I don’t know  the answer but I do know that  respect of Human life is the most important consideration.  That  leads to a belief in when does a fetus become “human”  I don’t know the specific time,  do you??

This is the point I was trying to make. Many people have many different opinions on this subject. Some try to make arguments pro or con based on biology and anatomy; others claim that their faith tradition reveals God's absolute will on the subject. IMO, when a fetus becomes "human" is irrelevant. I personally subscribe to the Jewish opinion that abortion is in general prohibited except when the life and health of the mother are at risk in which case it is required. I am not a woman and thus will never be in this position, so I recognize that I do not really have the right to pass judgment on what a woman may think or feel in such a situation. Now, this Jewish position is largely based on observable situations. We conclude that life is a good thing and that killing is a bad thing. But we also believe that a person who is alive deserves to remain alive and is justified in using whatever means necessary and appropriate to remove threats to life. In the case that a woman's life is in danger and that danger cannot be removed except by termination of pregancny, we reluctantly terminate the pregnancy. While it is grounded in our faith in our scriptures that urge us to choose life in all things and that permit the use of force, deadly if necessary, when being attacked, the opinion about abortion is more or less derived from practical real-world cases rather than philosophical or theological ideals. But this is not the place for discussions of Jewish law. The only point I'm trying to make is that one can make arguments based on observable phenomena to which everyone has access and you can make arguments based on faith to which not everyone is privy.

Certainly one doesn’t need to believe in God, to promote moral behavior,  but  we don’t know everything about humankind or our universe and never will.  Until we do humility and prayer are important things to do as we make decisions in significant areas of concern.

Humility certainly is a virture, yet prayer is of questionable value to a person who does not believe there is anyone or anything to pray to. Contemplation and reflection and meditation, of which prayer can be considered a form, is of course valuable to many.

But the point was not whether religious belief was valuable or useful. The point was whether it was necessary to establish morality -- if without belief in some higher power that morality could not exist. I am arguing that morality can most easily be established without appeals to religious belief.

[/quote]

[VLinvictus]

Can one rationally conclude, from observation, that survival is the proper end of all creatures?  If you can answer this question without involving a leap of faith, then you have made an argument that atheists, by the natural logic of their positions, are indeed not nihilists.  Personally, I don't think this point can be made without the leap.

It is observable that things which are alive generally are not in much of hurry to cease being alive. It's inevitable, but even the most simple animal will do whatever is in its power to avoid life-threatening situations, to defend itself against enemies, and so forth. Self-preservation is a very deeply ingrained instinct seen in all species, humans included. One does not need any leap of faith to determine that creatures want to live and do not want to die -- at least not yet.

There are real reasons to believe in an absolute moral authority that is independent of subjectivity. How is my belief or theory of an absolute moral lawgiver on the grounds of teleological human development, the mobility of moral cultural standards, the powerful appeal of religion on the human psych, and the private experiences with the divine any different than any other objective theorizing by sociologists or scientists?

"Private experiences of the divine," being private, are by nature subjective.

The "powerful appeal of religion on the human psyche" appears to function regardless of the content of the religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, paganism, all affect their adherents in essentially the same way) and even can be replicated in non-religious ways (such ideologies as Fascism, Nazism, and Communism spring to mind). Given that all of these ideologies provide the individual with a sense of belonging to something greater than him or herself, one can argue that this is rooted in our natural social primate behavior.

I do not know what you mean by "the mobility of moral cultural standards" nor "teleological human development."

I am not contesting the notion of an absolute and objective moral authority. I am instead arguing that such an absolute moral authority can be derived from naturalistic principals and that appeals to a divine lawgiver are not necessary for morality.

It depends, on what appears to be an arbitrary standard, rational criteria for its positions without regard to teleology.

Is not teleology subjective?

For instance, even within your response, you presupposed that the "harm principle" should be conceptually consulted in the determination of whether a sexual orientation and conduct is inappropriate.  Why?

It should of course be consulted because it is an obvious and observable criterion. If I perform an action that harms you, it is wrong.

It would appear to me that the harm principle isn't the only criteria society uses as a standard of moral incorrectness.  The incest example is a perfect counterpoint.  I can imagine a scenario where two consenting adults can engage in safe incestuous sex.  Two siblings, who care for each other deeply and believe they are genuinely expressing their love in a legitimate way are not legally allowed to express themselves sexually.  Why not?

Indeed, why not? The simple answer -- and it in fact surprised me that incest between consenting adults is illegal in most states -- is that the Bible, which was the religious text of European civilization, prohibits incest and so therefore laws were crafted to mirror the Bible and were never removed. It would seem to be an accident of history.

If there is no problem with defective births due to the practice of safe sex and both members are consenting adults, then to put it the way you do, "While arguments have been attempted on observable and objective grounds, none have so far proven viable."

And yet, those very people who advocate the rights of homosexuals to marry are not willing to do the same for incestuous couples.  I find that rather intriguing.

Yes, so do I. This is one of the reasons why I do not support gay marriage -- or any marriage for that matter. The government has no place in the private lives of consenting adults whether they be gay, straight, or siblings.

The only value I see in marriage is as a form of domestic corporation for the more efficient mingling and distribution of assets. If we do not limit who can form a corporation for the disposition of commercial assets, why should the be any limitation on the distribution of domestic assets? Nevertheless, I think that tremendous sums of money and paper could be saved if civil marriage as a legal category were totally abolished. Let those who seek religious blessings of their union continue to undergo sacramental marriage as their faith requires but I see no reason why society needs to put its imprimatur on their sex life.

[Acumen]

This discussion is very interesting to me, however I have to clean my house for the wifey and stop at Home Depot for some sink parts.  I'll be back in an hour or two.

For what it's worth, we're glad you're here.  We need the intellectual stimulation!

[VLinvictus]

I guess you are not going to let me study, thanks Vic! 

Hey, I should be working but you don't see me complaining!

If faith is based on perfect reason and logic then it is no longer a subjective action but an assent to that which is the author of that perfect reason and logic.There are many reasons why some accept this perfect logic and even more reasons why some people do not, this is in no way a proof against the objectivity of perfect reason and logic.  

Reason and logic are not things but processes -- processes by which conclusions can be drawn from premises. Perfect reason and perfect logic can still render false or unreliable conclusions if the premises on which they are base are false or unreliable.

I guess y question to you, so that we don't go in circles, is if there is an absolute truth but it must be accepted by faith, is it an subjective truth?

If the absolute truth must be accepted by faith -- that is, if there is no objective or observable evidence to support it and if no argument can be formulated to support it without resorting to the supernatural or to personal opinions -- then yes it is a subjective truth. How then could one be sure that it is an absolute truth after all?

Let's say that "Murder is wrong" is an absolute truth. One doesn't need to take that on faith: arguments can be made from human nature, from the idea of a social contract, etc.

But if one says "The universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is an absolute truth, well there's nothing to back that up and so if you choose  to believe it it's up to your own subjective opinion.

[Acumen]

Acumen:  Can one rationally conclude, from observation, that survival is the proper end of all creatures?  If you can answer this question without involving a leap of faith, then you have made an argument that atheists, by the natural logic of their positions, are indeed not nihilists.  Personally, I don't think this point can be made without the leap.

V:  It is observable that things which are alive generally are not in much of hurry to cease being alive. It's inevitable, but even the most simple animal will do whatever is in its power to avoid life-threatening situations, to defend itself against enemies, and so forth. Self-preservation is a very deeply ingrained instinct seen in all species, humans included. One does not need any leap of faith to determine that creatures want to live and do not want to die -- at least not yet.

---------------------------

Let's examine what you're saying.  Does it logically follow that since animals, by their very nature or instinct, desire to live or to survive, therefore living and surviving must be a good thing?  Why do we assume this?  It is clear to me there are cases where survival may not be a good thing.  What about the 95 y/o woman suffering from congestive heart failure, who must struggle every night against drowning in her own interstitial lung fluid?  Or what about the 80 y/o cancer patient who begs to die day after day, but nobody wants to put him out of his misery?  What about the 65 y/o diabetic patient who lost three limbs and is in extreme pain un-dulled by the potency of pain killers?  Yes, our bodies appear to work in an orderly way to survive, but why presuppose that the natural order is a good thing?  But death, also a part of the natural order, is not a good thing?

-------------------------

V:  I do not know what you mean by "the mobility of moral cultural standards" nor "teleological human development."

I find it unsettling that cultural standards of morality shift throughout time.  200 years ago in the U.S., Slavery wasn't considered such a bad thing.  Southern society found it useful for their industry, however the same nation a century or two later finds such an institution abominable.  After careful analysis of morality, I doubt one can establish moral criteria that resists the forces of cultural relativism.  We'll get into teleology later.

-------------------------

V:  I am not contesting the notion of an absolute and objective moral authority. I am instead arguing that such an absolute moral authority can be derived from naturalistic principals and that appeals to a divine lawgiver are not necessary for morality.

I understand.  However, I fear that absolute and objective morality doesn't exist without an absolute and objective source.  For instance, we deduce that since the human body typically fights disease states, that it must be a good thing.  Therefore, we have hospitals built for prolonging life.  My career is based upon the presupposition that survival is good and death is bad.  However, without an absolute or objective source of morality, we are using faith to accept the presupposition that the natural order of our bodies are inherently good.  Why have we made this step?  Is this step sound judgment?  If survival is an absolutely true moral good, then eating hamburgers is morally wrong.  Taking a person off of life support is morally wrong.  If I fail to rusticate a patient in cardiac arrest, then I have done something wrong.  If I step on an ant, it is morally wrong.  I fear that if we are left to our feeble faculties of reason, we really have no idea what morality is.  It's essentially becomes a make it up as you go philosophy. 

--------------------------

Acumen: It would appear to me that the harm principle isn't the only criteria society uses as a standard of moral incorrectness.  The incest example is a perfect counterpoint.  I can imagine a scenario where two consenting adults can engage in safe incestuous sex.  Two siblings, who care for each other deeply and believe they are genuinely expressing their love in a legitimate way are not legally allowed to express themselves sexually.  Why not?

V:  Indeed, why not? The simple answer -- and it in fact surprised me that incest between consenting adults is illegal in most states -- is that the Bible, which was the religious text of European civilization, prohibits incest and so therefore laws were crafted to mirror the Bible and were never removed. It would seem to be an accident of history.

-------------------

Not so fast.  Father/daughter incest is not condemned in the bible.  It is the only form of incest untouched by the OT for some reason or another.  Since there is no scriptural or rational basis to condemn it, then why has it been prohibited?

[Adrian1197]

I have two immediate reactions...

a) What a load of garbage.

You're so sweet! God, we should be best buds! *sarcasm* I bet you think I can't be an Atheist because I said "God" in a sentence.

b) You're not really an atheist.

OMG! I was right! I must be psychic! Oh... But now I'm going to Hell (since I'm obviously a Christian...). What do I do?!

Or, maybe you're not really a Wiccan... or not really Hindu... or I tend to think you're not really any of those things.

I'm apparently non-existant.

Whatever the answer, throwing poo against the wall hoping something sticks so you can feel better about yourself and your advanced poo-slinging skillz is hardly productive, nor is it humorous. Atheists - real atheists - are atheists because they don't believe in a higher power. Period. End of story.

Adding ANYTHING else to the mix is an insult to true atheists, who don't need or want all these flowery justifications. Out of pure integrity, they are atheist because they cannot accept theism.

The vast majority of Atheists only have a problem with Christianity. I don't believe in a higher power...at all... But I do practice religious rituals and philosophies.

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [Today at 07:16:04 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87095
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 4
Guests: 58
Total: 62

SteveC
Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111