The source of morality for theists and atheists

[ewmon]

When, exactly, did the second coming occur? When, exactly, did the world end? Because Jesus said quite explicitly when he would fulfill the Law. And that time was "when heaven and Earth pass". So, ewmon, when did that happen?

 

Please cite your reference.

[ydoaPs]

Please cite your reference.

The same freaking passage I've quoted several times, dude. In this thread, even. Come on. You know exactly what I'm talking about. But, hey, let's copypasta:

 

"THINK NOT THAT I COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)

 

That's pretty explicit. The Law applies in its entirety until ALL is fulfilled. Has ALL been fulfilled? Has the second coming happened yet? Luckily for us, in this very explicit passage, he told us when ALL will be fulfilled: when heaven and Earth pass away.

 

*looks around*

 

 

Yep, still here. So, the Law still applies in full.

[PeterJ]

I'd agree with the point about theists, Christians and Muslims and so forth, being sometimes more inclined to follow the morality of their culture than their professed religion. But then, we should be careful who we call Christians. Christians do not start unnecessary wars, for instance, so when they do we have a choice between saying that they are disobeying their own teachings on morality, or that they are not Christians. I prefer the second interpretation, but either seems justified.

 

The point about the gospels being untrustworthy because they were written many years after the death of Jesus, assuming he was an historical figure, may not be very relevant. The morality of the NT is what it is, regardless of any historical Jesus, and the non-cannonical gospels do not present a different morality. We can examine the moral teachings without worrying about where they came from or when they were written.down.

 

 

 

,. . .

[John Cuthber]

You ignore empirical data in front of you. I seem unable to help you to understand what Christ said and to see the empirical data in front of you, and this is the last time I will respond to this sad mantra chanting.

Were you talking to yourself there?

The empirical data ( if you want to call it that) shows that Christ said that the old laws still stand and would do so for ever.

You seem unable to understand that Christ (is reported to have) said that.

And, since this is the last thing you are going to say about it, I presume that you have now understood it, and accepted that, according to the accounts in the Bible, Christ made it clear that the Old Testament laws still stand, and will do so until the end of time.

So, since you now accept this, why are you not calling for the death of prostitutes and homosexuals in line with Christ's teachings?

 

Is it because you realise that such action, in spite of being declared in the OT and reinforced in the NT would actually be immoral?

[LaurieAG]

The empirical data ( if you want to call it that) shows that Christ said that the old laws still stand and would do so for ever.

 

Robert Graves had some good comments about the old laws in his Greek Myths.

 

http://www.24grammata.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Robert-Graves-The-Greek-Myths-24grammata.com_.pdf

[ewmon]

I added paragraph numbers.

 

1. Western morality is derived from law approved by the people, it's based on inherent human rights, not religion...

 

2. Way to side step the issue, your religion teaches we will burn in hell for ever end ever no matter how small or large our crimes are.

 

Every child according to your religion is born with original sin because adam and eve sinned...

 

3. Where does it say this?

 

4. You ignore the fact that your morality is not the morality the bible teaches, you side step the issue every time...

 

5. The first mention of Christ occurred 70 or 80 years after his death, any text claiming to quote him directly is fiction. 400 years later there were 20 gospels, by popular vote it was winnowed down to the 4 we know today even though some of the deleted texts are references in the 4 left.

 

6. Yes i did you are blinded by the light and can't see them... go back and reread this thread...

 

1. This is probably the first reasonable response here regarding the source of atheistic morality. So, how does one discern our inherent human rights?

 

2. In other words, God does not give "partial credit". You've heard that before, right? You either "get it" or you don't "get it". Babies are born 100% selfish, and they must learn to "play with others", to "be good", etc ... right? So then, is 100% selfish okay? An apparent atheist on this forum said that babies must be this way, or in Christian words, that they must be born with "original sin". No mystery there.

 

Keeping with the idea of "sin" for a moment, complaining about going to hell for a tiny unrepentant sin is like complaining about being charged with a parking ticket when there's all sorts of serious crime going on in our society that the cops should pay more attention to instead of checking for expired parking meters. By paying attention to expired parking meters, is the government claiming that there's not enough child abuse, pedophilia, rapes, murders, robberies, burglaries, elder abuse, suicides by bullying, etc for them to focus on, but they have plenty of time and manpower to spend checking if I was a dime short on a lousy parking meter and then forcing me to go to court if I want to fight it? This is all for the good of society, right? A dime short? Hunt them down! Charge them! Punish them!

 

Is it not good enough to say, for example, that I'm having an extramarital affair, but at least I'm not a pedophile, rapist, murderer, thief, etc, therefore, having an affair is okay? For want of a nail, right? We can applaud the realization of the Butterfly Effect in Chaos Theory, but we can't applaud us living life down to the minutest detail of moral living.

 

And let me point out here that it's not a matter of sin that separates the Christian from the non-believer because we all sin. Did you know that Christians sin? It's a matter of repentance and being committed to working toward a more perfect life.

 

3. The Book of James 1:14-17

 

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

4. This is basically a closed issue. One atheist here even said that, not only do Christians not act according to how the atheists interpret the Bible, but even Christ didn't act as he should (ie, he should have stoned the prostitute). Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, the atheists got it wrong. Keep reading.

 

5. The claim that the gospels were written long after Christ's death is not true. On the idea of the many gospels that "by popular vote it was winnowed down to the 4 we know today", are you saying that all those writings were right or that it was wrong to try to determine which ones were right?

 

The determination wasn't really by "popular vote", although it may seem that way to an atheist who doesn't understand the powers of the Holy Spirit. However, you said that western morality is derived from law approved by the people — essentially, popular vote. So, you seem to say that it's okay that morality can be approved by popular vote, but that facts relating of a religious figure must not be.

 

Consider some "realities" floating around this forum and other scientific forums almost real time — the govt blew up the Twin Towers (and Bldg 7), the Pentagon was hit by a missile, the govt is keeping Nicolo Tesla's highly-advanced technology a secret, Area 51, etc. These things must be real because people have read books on these things, right? Tesla is a particularly good example here because he was a real person and of some well-earned fame but on whom people have piggybacked all sorts of wild claims.

 

6. Please read below.

 

The same freaking passage I've quoted several times, dude. In this thread, even. Come on. You know exactly what I'm talking about. But, hey, let's copypasta:

"THINK NOT THAT I COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)

That's pretty explicit. The Law applies in its entirety until ALL is fulfilled. Has ALL been fulfilled? Has the second coming happened yet? Luckily for us, in this very explicit passage, he told us when ALL will be fulfilled: when heaven and Earth pass away.

*looks around*


Yep, still here. So, the Law still applies in full.

 

And I keep saying that Jesus fulfilled all the laws and the prophets, which refers to the OT. The second coming is not in the OT. The term "Law" refers to the Torah, which are the first five books of the OT, and the term "Prophets" refers to the rest of the OT.

 

There are much bigger religious fish to fry than Christians. Try bashing those religious people who believe in female genital mutilation, throwing acid in women's faces, and honor killings. They are people who actually perform evil acts.

Edited March 24, 2013 by ewmon

[John Cuthber]

Ewmon,

Here,once again, is the line from the Gospel quoting Jesus' words on the issue of changing the OT laws

to make it easier for you, I have highlighted the bit that says that those laws stand till the end of time.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law".

 

Now please stop ignoring it.

Either explain why he was saying they stand until the end of time but meant that they were changing.

Also, if you plan to do that (which is absurd but...) you will need to explain why and infallible God got the rules wrong in the first place and needed to change them.

 

Since Christ's own words tell you that the old laws (all of them, as you point out, not just the Torah) still stand, you, if you wish to follow Christ's teachings must follow those laws including all the ludicrous bits.

Since you don't accept, for example, the Bible's idea that prostitutes should be stoned to death, you must have got that idea from somewhere else.

So the Bible isn't your moral guide.

So even the theists (such as yourself) have some other source of morality.

 

". Try bashing those religious people who believe in female genital mutilation, throwing acid in women's faces, and honor killings. They are people who actually perform evil acts."

You do realise they are actually following the same "Holy" book as you, don't you?

[ewmon]

It seems some here miss the point that Christ died (that is, was the punishment) for all sins, by both Christians and non-Christians. There's no more punishments by those who accept Christ. Christ preached forgiveness, and Christians live it. If people would set aside this Christian-bashing mantra for the moment and read the rest of the Bible, they would understand this. Anyone who harms does not follow what the Christian Bible teaches, and again, you would know this if you read it.

Edited March 24, 2013 by ewmon

[John Cuthber]

Stop trying to change the subject, and answer the points raised.

What Christ explicitly taught was that the OT laws still stand, and that they will do so forever.

(He could hardly say anything else because it would mean that God got the laws wrong in the first place.)

Those laws include many things that are, by today's standards immoral.

So Christ clearly taught immorality.

 

Stoning people to death is doing people harm but that's what Christ advocated.

Ignoring this won't make it go away, not least because others who follow the same book use it as a justification for murder.

[Prometheus]

There's no more punishments by those who accept Christ.

 

By absolving us of our sins he is also taking from us our responsibility for our actions and ability to learn from our mistakes. Well intentioned, and maybe once useful, but we're simply moving on.

 

The problem with Christianity, and all religions, is that they are static. What was once a boon to humanity has outlived its usefulness and now keeps us chained to the past. Jesus might have been a step up from his stone age war god of a father but now we can do better.

 

Not to mention it's all obviously allegory, yet people take it as literal truth.

[Moontanman]

Ewmon. what would you do if you knew someone was a witch? What do you do to teenagers who refuse to behave?

 

What do you do to someone who wears a garment made of different types of fibers?

 

Jesus said the old laws still apply so what do you do?

 

I know lots of witches or pagans and Wiccans as they like to call themselves... should I be rounding them up for a good old fashioned witch fry?

 

Not too far back in the history of the US witches were burned at the stake, in Europe I think drowning them was the preferred solution.

 

Go back a three hundred years and various protestant denominations were killing each other over who was worshiping their version of god the right way...

 

In recent history Catholics and Protestants were killing each other but go back a couple centuries and you would probably be the guest of honor at a burning at the stake due to your modern beliefs.

 

The Christianity you follow has been gelded by secular laws, the morals you follow are secular morals ewmon...

 

I suggest you watch this video, 10 minutes out of your life to see the truth. While It's mostly aimed at creationists it is relevant to this conversation.

 

[ewmon]

John Cuthber

 

Ewmon

 

 

Stop trying to change the subject, and answer the points raised.

What Christ explicitly taught was that the OT laws still stand, and that they will do so forever.

(He could hardly say anything else because it would mean that God got the laws wrong in the first place.)

Those laws include many things that are, by today's standards immoral.

So Christ clearly taught immorality.

 

The "laws" do not change in the sense that those acts are still wrong/sinful. You need to understand that Christ's sacrifice was the propitiation for all sins. Anyone who lives their life and does not accept this (ie, Christ) will be punished on judgment day. You guys can't have it both ways — punishment on earth and punishment on judgment day. Make up your minds, should Christians punish non-believers now, or should Christ punish non-believers in the afterlife? Or is it "kill them all, and let God sort them out"?

 

Stoning people to death is doing people harm but that's what Christ advocated.

Ignoring this won't make it go away, not least because others who follow the same book use it as a justification for murder.

 

Empirical evidence: Again, Christ did not advocate stoning people (and why am I having to repeat myself again and again and again), and he did not stone the prostitute (or anyone). Please cite chapter and verse where Christ said something like, "I've come to take away the sins of the world, so forgive one another ad infinitum, but keep stoning people, especially prostitutes." And once again (and again and again), I'm not responsible for those few who somehow justify their acts of murder etc. What if some wacko murdered people based on the writings of John Cuthber on scienceforums.net? Would that make you responsible? Or, more accurately, would those people who agree with your writings on scienceforums.net (especially those who click on your green reputation arrows, ) be responsible/answerable for what the wacko does? I think not.

 

 

 

 

Promethius

 

Ewmon

 

 

By absolving us of our sins he is also taking from us our responsibility for our actions and ability to learn from our mistakes. Well intentioned, and maybe once useful, but we're simply moving on.

 

As stated above, people who don't repent from sinning will be punished on judgment day, and their punishment is eternal. If eternal punishment isn't painful, I don't know what is.

 

The problem with Christianity, and all religions, is that they are static. What was once a boon to humanity has outlived its usefulness and now keeps us chained to the past. Jesus might have been a step up from his stone age war god of a father but now we can do better.

 

Chained to the past? No, not in the least. Wrong direction. Christians look forward, anticipating the future/eternity. Talk to some Christians sometime, they should be able to set you straight.

 

Not to mention it's all obviously allegory, yet people take it as literal truth.

 

To each his own — again, I'm not evangelizing here.

 

 

 

 

Moontanman

 

Ewmon

 

 

Ewmon. what would you do if you knew someone was a witch? What do you do to teenagers who refuse to behave?

 

What do you do to someone who wears a garment made of different types of fibers?

 

Jesus said the old laws still apply so what do you do?

 

I know lots of witches or pagans and Wiccans as they like to call themselves... should I be rounding them up for a good old fashioned witch fry?

 

Not too far back in the history of the US witches were burned at the stake, in Europe I think drowning them was the preferred solution.

 

Go back a three hundred years and various protestant denominations were killing each other over who was worshiping their version of god the right way...

 

In recent history Catholics and Protestants were killing each other but go back a couple centuries and you would probably be the guest of honor at a burning at the stake due to your modern beliefs.

 

The Christianity you follow has been gelded by secular laws, the morals you follow are secular morals ewmon...

 

I suggest you watch this video, 10 minutes out of your life to see the truth. While It's mostly aimed at creationists it is relevant to this conversation.

 

To answer your own questions, I suggest you look around and scientifically accept the empirical data you see from Christians — they love their neighbors and their enemies, and they turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. We already had this conversation, remember? I shouldn't be having to tell you again and again that Christians don't burn witches or stone children. Or is it stone witches and burn children? I do have a hard time keeping track of other people's fantasies? But I did meet a young man whose entire back was one extensive piece of scar tissue that someone had burned, apparently with cigarettes, little by little. The religious affiliation, if any, of the perp is unknown to me. Seeing as how s/he were a cigarette smoker, s/he was most probably not a Christian.

As for garments, I personally would criminalize polyester and spandex (spandex should be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony for people with a BMI over 30 or who have "curdled milk" butts ), and when I even think of wearing linsey-woolsey underwear, I get the hives. Wool shorts? Yikes! Honestly, Moontanman, you should read about these old Jewish prohibitions, then you would understand them better.

"Not too far back in the history of the US ... Go back a three hundred years ... In recent history ... go back a couple centuries". Some people in this forum might be able to time travel (although I very seriously doubt it), but not me, so all these points are useless. And, once again and again, I'm only responsible for myself. Please read what Promethius says above about being chained to the past. According to him, only Christians are chained to the past. Could you two atheists please get into lockstep (read below) on this issue. Thanks for cooperating.

C'mon Moontanman, you must get your fantasies straight — I either believe in burning people at the stake or my beliefs have been gelded by secular laws — your fantasies can't have it both ways unless, maybe, if Christians can somehow time travel, which I very seriously doubt.

You focus on witches, but they have a supernatural belief system too. But that's okay with you? I knew a witch who threw evil hexes on people (right in front of them), who wrote supposedly anonymous hate letters to her "enemies" (who collectively realized that they came from her — the handwriting and subject matters were the giveaways), and who sexually molested little children (and attempted to murder the witness who caught her). Is she okay with you just because she's a witch, or what would you do with her? Hmm?

As for the video, do you claim that, because all the world's religions don't march in a moralistic lockstep, all atheists do? Because if there's anything written by men that is really, really, really hard to believe, it would be that all atheists always have and always will march in a moralistic lockstep. The atheists on this forum can't even do that. Including the funny Monty Python clips in the video was a nice touch.

[John Cuthber]

"Empirical evidence: Again, Christ did not advocate stoning people (and why am I having to repeat myself again and again and again),"

Oh yes he did.

And that's why you keep repeating yourself.

He said the old laws still stand, and those laws advocate stoning.

"Please cite chapter and verse where Christ said something like, "I've come to take away the sins of the world, so forgive one another ad infinitum, but keep stoning people, especially prostitutes.""

Already did, several times, but you keep trying to pretend that it means something more or less the opposite of what it actually says.

 

"What if some wacko murdered people based on the writings of John Cuthber on scienceforums.net? Would that make you responsible? Or, more accurately, would those people who agree with your writings on scienceforums.net (especially those who click on your green reputation arrows, ) be responsible/answerable for what the wacko does? I think not."

Total strawman, but the answer is no, they would be responsible for their actions.

Among the reasons that it's a strawman is that such hateful writings would usually be banned here.

However if I wanted to suggest that people should kill eachother I can probably get away with quoting the Bible.

For example I can probably get away with saying "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." as long as I cite is as Exodous 22:18

See, religion lets me getaway with hate speeches: cool!

[Prometheus]

 

As stated above, people who don't repent from sinning will be punished on judgment day, and their punishment is eternal. If eternal punishment isn't painful, I don't know what is.

Eternal punishment is not my idea of learning from mistakes and growing as a person. Begging for forgiveness from a perceived higher power is quite the opposite of moral maturity.

Chained to the past? No, not in the least. Wrong direction. Christians look forward, anticipating the future/eternity. Talk to some Christians sometime, they should be able to set you straight.

 

The only future I understand that Christians see is an eternal afterlife, and that is where their energies go. The rest of us would rather put our energies towards trying to be better people, for our own sake rather than carrot and stick morality, and build towards a better future, even if we won't see it.

 

If you have half your mind on the kingdom of heaven you will not be able to contribute as much to humanity.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman

 

Ewmon

 

 

Ewmon. what would you do if you knew someone was a witch? What do you do to teenagers who refuse to behave?

 

What do you do to someone who wears a garment made of different types of fibers?

 

Jesus said the old laws still apply so what do you do?

 

I know lots of witches or pagans and Wiccans as they like to call themselves... should I be rounding them up for a good old fashioned witch fry?

 

Not too far back in the history of the US witches were burned at the stake, in Europe I think drowning them was the preferred solution.

 

Go back a three hundred years and various protestant denominations were killing each other over who was worshiping their version of god the right way...

 

In recent history Catholics and Protestants were killing each other but go back a couple centuries and you would probably be the guest of honor at a burning at the stake due to your modern beliefs.

 

The Christianity you follow has been gelded by secular laws, the morals you follow are secular morals ewmon...

 

I suggest you watch this video, 10 minutes out of your life to see the truth. While It's mostly aimed at creationists it is relevant to this conversation.

 

To answer your own questions, I suggest you look around and scientifically accept the empirical data you see from Christians — they love their neighbors and their enemies, and they turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile. We already had this conversation, remember? I shouldn't be having to tell you again and again that Christians don't burn witches or stone children. Or is it stone witches and burn children? I

do have a hard time keeping track of other people's fantasies?

Your gelded version of Christianity doesn't do those things ewmon but your religion once not only did those things but made that the law of the land or are recent Christians the only true Christians?

 

But I did meet a young man whose entire back was one extensive piece of scar tissue that someone had burned, apparently with cigarettes, little by little. The religious affiliation, if any, of the perp is unknown to me. Seeing as how s/he were a cigarette smoker, s/he was most probably not a Christian.

Feel free to explain how this is relevant to this conversation ewmon, obfuscation is the same as lying ewmon...

 

As for garments, I personally would criminalize polyester and spandex (spandex should be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony for people with a BMI over 30 or who have "curdled milk" butts ), and when I even think of wearing linsey-woolsey underwear, I get the hives. Wool shorts? Yikes! Honestly, Moontanman, you should read about these old Jewish prohibitions, then you would understand them better.

If you had actually read your own holy book you might understand them...

 

"Not too far back in the history of the US ... Go back a three hundred years ... In recent history ... go back a couple centuries". Some people in this forum might be able to time travel (although I very seriously doubt it), but not me, so all these points are useless. And, once again and again, I'm only responsible for myself. Please read what Promethius says above about being chained to the past. According to him, only Christians are chained to the past. Could you two atheists please get into lockstep (read below) on this issue. Thanks for cooperating.

I should have known you would not be able to under stand what an analogy is..

 

C'mon Moontanman, you must get your fantasies straight — I either believe in burning people at the stake or my beliefs have been gelded by secular laws — your fantasies can't have it both ways unless, maybe, if Christians can somehow time travel, which I very seriously doubt.

More obfuscation ewmon, i am disappointed in you...

 

You focus on witches, but they have a supernatural belief system too. But that's okay with you? I knew a witch who threw evil hexes on people (right in front of them), who wrote supposedly anonymous hate letters to her "enemies" (who collectively realized that they came from her — the handwriting and subject matters were the giveaways), and who sexually molested little children (and attempted to murder the witness who caught her). Is she okay with you just because she's a witch, or what would you do with her? Hmm?

I don't believe their system is any better than yours ewmon and most cases of child abuse is done by professed Christians sometimes they use the bible to justify it... In fact i would ask where is your god when children are being sexually brutalized by adults and all they have to do is repent and go to heaven while someone who lived a decent life burns forever in a lake of fire.. .one punishment for all crimes is immoral, allowing someone who has committed horrendous crimes to live forever in heaven is immoral as well...

Being a Wiccan doesn't give you free reign to do bad things any more than being Christian does... no wait, actually the Christian holy book does say you can do such things and be moral while Wiccans believe that anything you do comes back to you three fold so most Wiccans, if they follow their own teachings would avoid such things, are you sure you are not talking about a Satanist...?

BTW, I suggest you do a little research of Wiccans, often labeled as Satanists by ignorant Christians who think they worship Satan.

 

As for the video, do you claim that, because all the world's religions don't march in a moralistic lockstep, all atheists do? Because if there's anything written by men that is really, really, really hard to believe, it would be that all atheists always have and always will march in a moralistic lockstep. The atheists on this forum can't even do that. Including the funny Monty Python clips in the video was a nice touch.

 

 

No one has suggested that atheists march in lock step to anything but a lack of belief in deities.

 

your constant equivocating in this matter is tire some, you believe in following your Christian religion and yet you do not follow the holy books of your religion.... so where do you get your morals ewmon?

 

"edited due to my misunderstanding of wicca"

Edited March 24, 2013 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

I suspect I'm about to get a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy here but, re

", I suggest you look around and scientifically accept the empirical data you see from Christians"

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_abuse

 

There doesn't seem to be a wiki page for cases of abuse done in the name of atheism.

[ewmon]

The matter of the source of morality for theists and atheists was settled many posts ago. We all know the source for Christians is the Christian Bible, and as best as I can see, the source for atheists is secular laws and inherent human rights.

 

The last couple of pages here has become polarized and non-productive. I could claim the reason for this is because atheists don't understand the Bible or Christians, but then they could claim that they understand both all to well. As I already said, to each his own.

 

Anyone can post what they want here after this. I'm done here. This discussion has helped me understand the atheist perspective more. Thank you one and all.

[John Cuthber]

1 The matter of the source of morality for theists and atheists was settled many posts ago.

2 We all know the source for Christians is the Christian Bible, and as best as I can see, the source for atheists is secular laws and inherent human rights.

 

The last couple of pages here has become polarized and non-productive.

3 I could claim the reason for this is because atheists don't understand the Bible or Christians, but then they could claim that they understand both all to well. As I already said, to each his own.

 

4 Anyone can post what they want here after this. I'm done here. This discussion has helped me understand the atheist perspective more. Thank you one and all.

1 No it was not, obviously, if it had been the debate would have stopped there.

2 Nope, we know that the source of Christian morality is definitely not the Bible.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians were using it to prove the morality of keeping slaves.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians were using it to justify the crusades.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians used it to justify the death penalty.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians used tit to justify the persecution of homosexuals.

So , if the Christians got their morals from one fairly stable source, how come their morals changed?

It's obvious that they didn't get changing morals from a largely static guide.

An it's absurd to claim that they did.

 

 

Also, in accepting that atheists get their ideas of morals from "inherent human rights" you tacitly accept that there are such rights and that these rights exists independently of the Bible.

I contend that those are where at least some atheists get their morals.

It's also misleading to say that atheists get their morals from the law.

The law gets its morals from the people who enact and enforce it; you seem to have got it backwards.

 

3"Each to his own, is a fine thing to say about opinions, but not about facts.

So you shouldn't have said "The matter of the source of morality for theists and atheists was settled many posts ago." because it clearly wasn't.

 

4 it seems to me that you are running away from this because you can't face the fact that the evidence is entirely at odds with you rbeliefs.

You can run from the thread, but not from your own self- knowledge nor from reality.

[DevilSolution]

1 No it was not, obviously, if it had been the debate would have stopped there.

2 Nope, we know that the source of Christian morality is definitely not the Bible.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians were using it to prove the morality of keeping slaves.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians were using it to justify the crusades.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians used it to justify the death penalty.

The Bible is much the same as it was when Christians used tit to justify the persecution of homosexuals.

So , if the Christians got their morals from one fairly stable source, how come their morals changed?

It's obvious that they didn't get changing morals from a largely static guide.

An it's absurd to claim that they did.

 

 

Also, in accepting that atheists get their ideas of morals from "inherent human rights" you tacitly accept that there are such rights and that these rights exists independently of the Bible.

I contend that those are where at least some atheists get their morals.

It's also misleading to say that atheists get their morals from the law.

The law gets its morals from the people who enact and enforce it; you seem to have got it backwards.

 

3"Each to his own, is a fine thing to say about opinions, but not about facts.

So you shouldn't have said "The matter of the source of morality for theists and atheists was settled many posts ago." because it clearly wasn't.

 

4 it seems to me that you are running away from this because you can't face the fact that the evidence is entirely at odds with you rbeliefs.

You can run from the thread, but not from your own self- knowledge nor from reality.

 

That was harsh, you are given morals by the law because you didnt vote or make 1 (i presume) you fail to neglect the fact that the law makers might infact have religious morals .............british history is no prettier than christian ............

Edited March 25, 2013 by DevilSolution

[John Cuthber]

I am quite sure that the law in the UK is immoral on a number of points, so I clearly don't get my morals from it. I might conceivably get arrested and jailed because my view of morality differs from that of the law makers.

It really doesn't matter where the law makers got their ideas from: they don't influence my morality so this"the source for atheists is secular laws" is incorrect.

 

Also, since it explicitly says secular laws it logically (though not practically) excludes those drawn up because " the law makers might in fact have religious morals"