This is one of the biggest problems I have with religious beliefs.

[Ben_Jamin]

Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.

The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.

This is key.   Jesus was raised from the dead.   

And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God.    Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor.   But a deep sense of respect.   The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...

Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right.   He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.   

Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal. 

I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about.   So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...

I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.

[Chino]

Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.

The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.

This is key.   Jesus was raised from the dead.   

And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God.    Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor.   But a deep sense of respect.   The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...

Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right.   He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.   

Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal. 

I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about.   So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...

I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.

Because we are all made in his image.... By your logic, more than half the world is fucked from the start since they are raised to have different beliefs from birth. I'm sure God would be smart enough to understand that people question or brush off his existence because of the brain he gave them.

[yeshaberto]

Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.

The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.

This is key.   Jesus was raised from the dead.   

And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God.    Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor.   But a deep sense of respect.   The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...

Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right.   He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.   

Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal. 

I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about.   So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...

I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.

because he is our father.  a parent loves a child unconditionally.

[Rathma]

Meh, the guy is an adult with his own beliefs and is capable of making his own decisions.

This.

[Chino]

Surely a God that would expect you to do that for him is not all loving. Also, if I ever get to be a father, I'd prefer a public slander of myself to the death of my child. And I'm sure my father sees this the same way.

The Christian God doesn't see it as the "death" of His child.

This is key.   Jesus was raised from the dead.   

And I could not disagree more with the statement that honor is an "earthly vice"...honor is a commandment from God.    Not a formalistic "honor"...going through the motions of honor is not truly honor.   But a deep sense of respect.   The Hebrew word for honor came from a word meaning "heaviness"...and the Greek word (ti-me') translated "honor" carries the meaning of "esteem", "value", "preciousness"...and the verb (ti-ma'o) can also mean "set a price on"...and the adjective (ti'mi-os) can mean "dear or valuable" or "precious"...

Honor is spoken of many times in the Scriptures and is a quality that Jesus had towards his father...which is why he was willing to die for what is right.   He also trusted his father that he would be raised from the dead, which he was.   

Pain and suffering is never something that God wishes upon us...but *anything* that others do to us, *HE CAN UNDO*...provided we are loyal. 

I *did* say that you may not feel the same way...but the co-worker that I spoke to immediately understood what I was talking about.   So I know that this is not isolated to just "religious people"...

I agree, why would God help if you don't have faith in him.

because he is our father.  a parent loves a child unconditionally.

For ten years I attended catholic schools, one thing that was drilled into our heads, over and over again, was that no sin to was unforgivable. That's true only if the person was truly sorry and begged for forgiveness. What I took from that was, a believer could rape, murder, and dump the bodies of 50 women, as long as he was truly sorry, god would forgive him. Let's take me as an example. I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part. Now, I can't ask for forgiveness because I don't believe in god. If I ever needed saving, and god does in fact exist, I can't believe that I would be ignored because of this one flaw. A flaw that is very minor when compared to the things I was taught could be forgiven, and a flaw that is in a sense due to god himself. He gave me a brain that believes what it reasons to be the most logical. If anything, it's partly his fault that I believe what I do.

[yeshaberto]

without intending any offense against catholic schools, I can't imagine that being the best place (especially based on your description) for learning about the God of forgiveness in the Bible.  I would simply urge you to go to the direct source and I trust it provides a clearer picture of forgiveness and will help in your pursuit of finding Him.
 

[Omega]

I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.

Why choose to continue living this way?

Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)

[Adami]

I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.

Why choose to continue living this way?

Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)

I have a feeling this will go very badly.

[Omega]

Ya, me too

[Chino]

I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.

Why choose to continue living this way?

Do you hold that there exist absolute moral truths? (ie: rape is objectively wrong, etc)

Because we are all humans and all have emotions. We all have a finite time to experience life, why make it suck for other people?Do whatever is needed to make it equally enjoyable for all. I care about others because I myself like to be cared about.

 I don't believe in absolute moral truths. The word absolute indicates that moral truths must exist as an eternal truth somewhere. Seeing as I don't believe in more than one form of reality, I can't believe morals are absolute.

[rumborak]

I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.

Why choose to continue living this way?

Who knows, maybe he was tired of being associated with people who think religious belief is the only way to achieve a good life.

rumborak

[Omega]

I am a 100% non believer, but I live the life that my catholic schools said god wanted me to live. I help others, I donate to charity, I volunteer for various events, I treat others with respect, basically everything but the having faith part.

Why choose to continue living this way?

Who knows, maybe he was tired of being associated with people who think religious belief is the only way to achieve a good life.

rumborak

I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.

Nevertheless, I was merely asking out of curiosity. I don't intend to follow this topic any further and risk moderator ire.

[Sigz]

I just don't see why someone needs a 'satisfying philosophical reason' to act in what they believe to be a moral way.

[rumborak]

I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.

Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development, most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.

rumborak

[Omega]

I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.

Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development, most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.

rumborak

So what, is this the old "well atheists act more morally than theists because we do good things without the selfish mentality of doing it merely to get to heaven"?

Besides, color me apathetic to assigning a particular moral ranking on this worldview or that. The problem here isn't what persons can act more morally than others; it's why should we act morally given either worldview.

[tofee35]

I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.

Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development, most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.

rumborak

That can be true. It depends on what your definition of religious is too. I know plenty of people that use religion as an excuse to be asses. But, the folks I know that live by their religious morals are the most giving and fantastic people.

[rumborak]

I'm not saying that atheists can't live as morally as theists. They can be act just as moral or even more so than some theists. It's simply that a satisfying philosophical reason to live morally cannot be given under such a worldview empty of moral truths.

Speak for yourself. I find more religious people live a morally infantile and decrepit life than agnostics/atheists I have met. In fact, if one believes in the Kohlberg classification of moral development, most religiously motivated morals are based on the lowest two levels, 1 and 2.

rumborak

So what, is this the old "well atheists act more morally than theists because we do good things without the selfish mentality of doing it merely to get to heaven"?

Buddy, I wasn't the one accusing other people of not having a moral foundation worth leading one's life by. If you're gonna start dishing it out like that, you might have to live with the stark truth that many of "your kind" lead morally decrepit lives. If it comes to morals, in my humble opinion what counts is walking the walk, not talking the talk. You can have the best moral book ever (maybe even with pictures!), but if you're gonna beg for money at a subway station, and when getting some handed to you you give the person back a flyer that says he will go to hell lest he repent (that actually happened to me in Boston), clearly the book isn't as good as you make it out to be.
So, I'd rather stick to my "invented" morals, because if I turn out to be an ass, at least I'm forced to take full responsibility for it, I can't just roll it off to some "higher authority". (like many do with their nasty stance to homosexuality)

rumborak

[Omega]

You're missing the real issue here.

The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?

The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?

The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?

The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?

The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?



Rather the issue is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?

[rumborak]

Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.

Jeez.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

You're missing the real issue here.

The issue is not: Which persons act the most morally?

The issue is not: Does Christian hypocrisy towards morality invalidate it?

The issue is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?

The issue is not: Can we recognize moral duties without believing in God?

The issue is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God?



Rather the issue is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?

What is your purpose in this line of questioning?

[Omega]

Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.

Jeez.

rumborak

This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.

There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.

1.) It is unintelligible.

What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.

2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.

 For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?

3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?

It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.

[Chino]

Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.

Jeez.

rumborak

This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.

There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.

1.) It is unintelligible.

What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.

2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.

 For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?

3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?

It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.

Aristotle would strongly disagree.

[rumborak]

Not only that, number 3 also shows a utter lack of understanding evolution and its implications for morals.

Omega, believe what you want. I can say I don't need the training wheels provided by some supposed higher being to justify being a moral person. I can "stand upright" on my bike on my own.
It always strikes me that the people so desperately defending "objective morals" are somehow so insecure in their own moral founding that they need to convince themselves.

rumborak

[Omega]

Sure they do. As much as you're obliged to carry out the trash. It's a contract between people. They exist objectively every time two people interact with each other, just like any other contract in this world.
Because, and that might blow your mind, the natural state of a human being is to not have a concept of a God. And believe it or not, those cultures are still moral as you and I.

Jeez.

rumborak

This is mere Atheistic Moral Platonism, that objective moral values exist without any sort of foundation.

There are at least three distinct problems with Moral Platonism, though.

1.) It is unintelligible.

What does it man to say, for example, that the moral value "justice" just exists? It's understandable to say that some person is just, but it's astonishing to posit that in the absence of any people, justice itself exists. Moral values are properties of persons and its problematic to comprehend how justice can exist merely as an abstraction.

2.) It provides no basis for moral duties.

 For the sake of the argument, let's suppose moral values simply exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to, for example, be charitable? What or who lays such an obligation upon me? In this worldview, too, moral vices like hatred, lethargy, selfishness, greed, etc, presumably also exist on their own as abstractions. So why align ourselves with one set of these abstractly existing entities and not others?

3.) It's cosmically improbable that an blind evolutionary process would discharge exactly the sort of creatures who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values?

It's almost as if the moral realm knew we were coming. It's fantastically more probable to posit that both the natural realm and the moral realm are under the supremacy of a God who provided us both the moral law and the laws of nature than to believe that these two independent realms just so happened to complement each other so fully.

Aristotle would strongly disagree.

Disagree with Moral Platonism?

Yes.

But please, elaborate

[Omega]

Not only that, number 3 also shows a utter lack of understanding evolution and its implications for morals.

Rumborak, please, I'll ask you to further elaborate on this.

Omega, believe what you want. I can say I don't need the training wheels provided by some supposed higher being to justify being a moral person. It always strikes me that the people so desperately defending "objective morals" are somehow so insecure in their own moral founding that they need to convince themselves.

rumborak

I'm not sure where to even begin addressing this.

[rumborak]

Maybe you want to begin at explaining why you are so desperately trying to convince us that our moral foundation is inferior to yours?

riumborak

[Omega]

Maybe you want to begin at explaining why you are so desperately trying to convince us that our moral foundation is inferior to yours?

riumborak

Atheism has no moral foundation.

And please, I don't mean to pry, but I'd appreciate a full reply.

[rumborak]

Atheism has no moral foundation.

Amazing. Despite all that, we're perfectly moral beings.

If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, it is a rose.

And please, I don't mean to pry, but I'd appreciate a full reply.

I would appreciate a full rsply what your problem is with atheist morals. Who are you trying to convince? Us, or rather yourself?

rumborak

[ehra]

Atheism has no moral foundation.

This is true, because atheism has nothing to do with moral views period.

To then extrapolate from there that a lack of existence of a "God" or "objective" morality means that there'd be no reason for anyone to ever do anything for anyone else is just faulty logic and shows a lack of understanding of how societies work. But this has been shown pretty clearly in the last 2 threads that you also dragged into some aimless argument over morals.

[Omega]

Atheism has no moral foundation.

Amazing. Despite all that, we're perfectly moral beings.

If it looks like a rose, and it smells like a rose, it is a rose.

You keep misunderstanding the argument (either willfully or out of sincere ignorance). Again, the argument is not that atheists can't act morally without belief in God; atheists are perfectly capable of committing morally good acts in the absence of beliefs in a God or in the absence of recognition of its philosophical foundations (or lack thereof). The argument is that there is no good reason to act morally in the absence of existence of transcendent, anchored objective moral values.

I've already provided three logical reasons as to why Moral Platonism is unfeasible. Please don't bring this up again unless you plan on providing reasonable refutations of the reasons it is unfeasible an then providing arguments for why it should be feasible.

In my experience, it is usually at this point that the atheist recants that morality is objective and asserts that morality is, rather, subjective.

[Omega]

Atheism has no moral foundation.

This is true, because atheism has nothing to do with moral views period.

To then extrapolate from there that a lack of existence of a "God" or "objective" morality means that there'd be no reason for anyone to ever do anything for anyone else is just faulty logic and shows a lack of understanding of how societies work. But this has been shown pretty clearly in the last 2 threads that you also dragged into some aimless argument over morals.

Deja vu, but - to make clear yet again - you assert that morals are subjective, yes?

And, please, my arguments were not aimless. I'm going to cry now.

[Adami]

Omega you seem to have quite a dillema here

1. You do not believe atheists have any REASON to act morally
2. Atheists are acting morally.
3. You don't believe their reasons.
4. Atheists still acting morally.



So why do you think they act morally? And don't say you don't know, or else you wouldn't shoot down every argument, you clearly have an idea.

[orcus116]

Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.

[Adami]

Just look up the last, closed thread on morality for a sneak peek on what the answer is going to be.

Hence my original response of "I have a feeling this will end badly"

[orcus116]

I missed the word "objectively" being introduced that early. You were on the mark.