According to who? You might be of the 'lower rank' of religious minds, but there are those vastly more religious that would disagree and indeed go to lengths to 'do gods will'. (We can argue over whether a sky being really wills it or cares less but that doesn't impact the point). Such is the inherent problem with using an openly interpretable ancient manuscript as a guide to life.
As opposed to using human judgement as a guide to life?
Further than that, every atrocity is justified when god says so personally. While theists will be the first to label them mad, who is to deny and argue against, (for instance), that woman that stoned her children to death because god told her to? I remember at the time the only argument from the theists was that god would never command such thing. I then felt compelled to point out Deuteronomy where god does indeed command that exact thing. The place then went silent save for a few personal insults.
It's ridiculous that they would insult you for making a point. That is not good Christian behavior, actually.
Could you please tell me the verse in Deuteronomy where that occurs?
The woman is most likely crazy. If there is evidence to suggest interference by God, then a second look should be taken at the issue. But if there is no evidence, you can do nothing but assume she is insane. She may as well have heard a voice from a little green lephrecaun on her right shoulder.
Just because a person claims God talked to them is no reason for a theist to accept that claim. This would give people (pseudo)control over the voice of God.
Let me ask you honestly. If god communicated with you and told you to remove the world of homosexuals.. Would you not undertake that activity with zeal? I guess this part is all about your personal faith.. The issue is that some people have that faith in bucketloads.
Wouldn't you? If God, the Almighty perveyor of the universe, told someone to do this, no one in their right mind would disobey him. I would certainly do whatever God told me to. Of course all this goes against His teachings, so I can't imagine that He would. But if He did, I mean, He's freakin God, wanting me do it for some purpose. Who am I to disobey the being who created the Universe?
We need to look at what you stated originally. To put it basically: my lack of belief in zeus means I have no reason to be moral.
Can you not see why I have issue with such a statement?
No, because Zeus is different god than the Abrahamic one. They encompass completely different concepts of who and what God is. Let's for one second entertain the idea that there is but one truth. This would mean that one religion is correct, and the others are wrong. The reason they are wrong is because they are different.
You cannot lump all Gods or religions into one category, as they have very distinct differences.
You show me what doctrine or philosophy Zeus presented that would give a basis for morality.
Why?
An "atheistic phase" heh? Lol. So what happened, one day you woke up and just didn't believe in gods anymore? Seems more pertinent to state that you woke up one day and decided to rebel against your own beliefs. You conducted your immorality - still a theist, but now try to blame it on something you clearly never were. It's ok to rebel against the system every now and then but don't for one second think it fair to blame the innocent for your own crimes. I will state right now for the record: you were never an "atheist", you were a theist in disguise.
I know that I was an atheist at one point. I learned more about atheism a few years ago and thought it sounded pretty logical since there isn't any *obvious* interaction of God with the world. I started questioning my religion when I was around 12 - I was confused by many aspects of the religion(Religion can be a baffling thing, with all of it's different sects and infomercials - people distort the hell out of things - I can understand why it's unappealing to so many; I myself have found and still do find aspects of what people do to it completely unappealing). For a while, I thought I was more logically justified in being an agnostic/atheist(kinda a fine line, eh?). I argued many times for the logical merits of atheism/agnosticism. But I've been changing. As people do. You laugh at the possibility of change in worldview?
Why, a most prominent, respected atheist - Antony Flew - did just this in the last few years of his life, after decades of adamently propagating the atheistic model.
Oh I dunno, if you survive the event you'll be a hero. The woman will put you in her will, the family will love you for your deeds, you'll be worshipped by women, admired by men.. yada yada. You know, when people daydream they often image being a hero, saving the day, saving the world, saving a stranded woman and reaping enormous benefit through doing so.
So, as an atheist with that viewpoint, you are not commiting a moral act by saving her, but a selfish one.
Even the benefits regarding simple 'feeling' can outweigh the risks as seen with those conducting extreme sports - (why did you jump off that cliff, you could have died? "Yeah, but what a rush")
Curious: Why have people like this survived the process of evolution?
Ask those that have murdered someone.. It seems apparent to state that, (aside from heat of the moment killing), they thought they could get away with it. In general most people realise they can't - and thus resist the temptation.
This highlights my point. The person, the atheist, who lacks a belief in an entity who knows their actions and wants them to obey His commandments, will be more likely to commit crimes they could get away with.
But you cannot hide from the face of eternity. This is what religious people believe. They have an extra check on their natural inclinations.
History shows us otherwise.
Really? Christians, more than anyone, were the people who showed the Jews the most kindess in the face of extreme danger to themselves. Schindler, for instance. He valued and loved these people because he valued and loved God. Christians I've known in my own life - not the ones that just claim to be Christian, but follow Christ's teachings, what is described in the Bible(as "actions speak louder than words," you know - because there ARE people who claim to be Christians that don't ACT Christian) are the kindest and most open people that I've ever met. Kind, open, and loving are three words that describe Christ perfectly. He dined with prostitutes and spoke seriously with drunkards, when the religious figures of the day completely rejected them and looked down on Jesus for interacting with them. Jesus loved people. People that love Jesus and follow what he teaches will also, in essence, love people.
Well, kindly define what you mean by "perfectly moral" and then tell me one instance in the history of mankind that has adopted this be it from theists or atheists. What exactly are you trying to advocate here?
Maybe I shouldn't have said "perfectly" moral as no society can be so, but I find it hard to believe that a society in which everyone accepts and believes that there is no God will have the ability to be stable for any extended period of time.
An atheist or theist can be moral, they can be immoral they can be many things. Them being an 'atheist' is of no relevance to the issue.
Atheism = Lack of belief in God(and therefore purpose for existence). Purpose = reason(for living), some destination to work towards. The destination of existence in the atheist worldview is death, nothing more. All the pain, suffering, beauty, and love percieved were just illusions, lacking any purpose in the end. We're a flicker in the darkness, just the universe batting it's eye.
People that believe their lives or actions have no ultimate purpose place less value on their own lives than people who do, and therefore place less value on the lives of others. It's logical to look at life in this way when you are an atheist. These are the facts of a worldview that believes the only reason we're here is to fulfill a few very mechanical desires and then snuff it.
I'm not saying all atheists are like this, but when an atheist person truly delves into what their worldview really means, this is the result. Non-purpose. Non-value. Pretty depressing stuff - which is why atheists are always saying they're so much more "brave" than theists for accepting the cold, hard "facts" of reality.
First you need to ascertain that this violence is immoral. That's a hard thing to do. I distinctly remember when god zapped onan for spilling his semen on the floor instead of up his dead brothers wife. That is clearly immoral and yet you would seemingly justify it. On the other hand you would seemingly go against a man that comes home and kills a guy that is busy raping his wife and children because... what? It's violent? Do me a lemon.
I would again request that you would give me the verse in which this happens.
I agree that the means in which we may employ violence in a specific situation are ambigious. I know that if I were in that man's position, I probably would hurt or kill the man raping my wife and children. If it is wrong or right, I don't know, but I think I would do it.
In situations that are less ambigious is where the meaning of the worldviews comes into play. For instance, if a man is tempted to kill a co-worker because she has accidently stumbled upon a secret of his that could ruin him, and he is in a position where he could do so with no one finding out, which worldview would lead the man to sparing his co-worker's life: the one in which he believes that humanity is not ultimately valuable and that there is no God who cares about his behavior, or the one in which he does believe that humans are ultimately valuable and that God is actively invested in his behavior? The latter would seem to be the more logically conclusion.
Would I consider a woman killing a paedophile that has just abused and killed her child as immoral? Certainly not. You tell me whether that's a bad thing or not.
Would you consider the woman immoral if she killed the pedophile a decade later, after the person had completely changed his ways and became a good person who contributed to his society?
This happens, you know. People change for the better, and often because of religion. What reason would that pedophile have to change his sexual fetishes if it were not for religion? The only motivation he has is a jury of his peers who will jeer at and punish him. They scorn him and show him no acceptance or forgiveness. God, however, loves this man. He hates his actions, but loves the man. He shows him forgiveness and acceptance if he would accept and follow the ways of Christ. The man is able to repel is desire because he believes he is wholly loved and accepted, that there is true REASON to try to be a better person.
Certainly, although it's always worth weighing up the benefit vs the possible harm first.
How is this "moral"? Being "moral" is not "doing what is most advantageous for yourself." Morality is an exercise in clarifying the distinctions between right and wrong. When you're making decisions based on your subjective views of what is most advantageous for you, this can hardly be construed as moral.
Not atheists, "everyone" - unless you would contend that you have never done anything questionable in you life and considered it justified - such as lying to your girlfriend to try and make her feel better about herself, ("No, your bum doesn't look big in that") etc etc. You see, what we have here is an immoral/negative act, (lying), fully justified: "but I was just trying to make her feel better".
You have a brother that's addicted to cocaine. You steal that cocaine in order to help him. You have done a negative act, (stealing), and yet it is fully justified by you.
I doubt God would have us believe that "stealing" in this context is the same way as he says "stealing" in "Thou shalt not steal." The Bible says that a person's body is a temple and they should treat it as such(I.E., they should not do drugs) and to love people. In this case, the act of "stealing" the cocaine would be an act of love. Most instances of stealing are an act of selfishness.
Following the teachings of God is not like following a recipe, there is gray area in the guidelines for the behavior of man.
I didn't even try to do so, and nor would I. What I meant by my statement was that the more important someone views something and the more purpose he sees in that something, the more likely others are going to suffer because of it.
A person who emphatically loves other people would not intentionally cause other people suffering.
And are also condoned in that very same text dependant upon circumstance. You'll once again probably argue that these instances were time specific and god would no longer condone such a thing - but then the weird thing is you'd go on to tell me that "god never changes", (a biblical statement). In saying, gods statements saying one should stone naughty kids to death must stand. His opinion on the matter couldn't have changed, because he doesn't change.
We actually have no idea what that statement means. To assume we know that he "does not change" would mean we presume to understand something of his eternal nature, which is impossible. I think it is more of a poetic, mysterious statement than something that is said to be taken literally. Perhaps it's kind of akin to saying "Eternity never changes." How are you supposed to wrap your head 'round that?
The Bible actually shows many, many instances where God "changes," - his mind, his tone, whatever. I will again appeal to the "instance" case, but not with the subject you were referring to. God never stated that he "never" changes, for instance in v. 14, Ezekiel writes:
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD.
Is this a general statement, or specific decision? God is saying that the final judgment and fall of Jerusalem has come about, and that there is no turning back. He will not change His mind about this, but will allow Nebuchadnezar to destroy Jerusalem. Fini. The End. No reprieve. This is not a general statement that God will never change His mind, but a statement about a specific situation.
http://pelajus.com/godrepent.html
This is used a lot by theists but is worthless. I shall state for the record, (as the prime example of an atheist), that to be an atheist one must lack belief in gods and be moral. Now.. the very second you tell me you met an immoral atheist I'll just say "nope, he wasn't an atheist.. look, he didn't act like one".
What a copout.
I would like to reiterate the point of my musings - that a person who believes that the only reason humanity exists is to proliferate the species and do whatever is most advantageous for the themselves has virtually zero basis for behaving morally(because their reason for living is to behave selfishly!). This isn't to say they necessarily DON'T behave morally, but that their justification for it is moot.
The Christian, on the other hand, has the Bible and specifically the Gospel as a firm, rock-hard basis for their morality. Jesus tells us to be kind to one another, to love one another, to "turn the other cheek." His complete and total love for us is motivation to behave accordingly. This isn't to say that everyone who claims to be a Christian behaves morally, because you can say that you are Christian but behave alternately. Many are raised as Christians, say they are Christians, but don't do much investigating into what their religion really calls for. As I said before, "Actions speak louder than words." If everyone behaved how Christ wishes us to behave, do you think there would be any more hate, poverty, or cruelty in the world?
If everyone behaved as an ATHEIST is supposed to behave...they'd do whatever's best for them. And whatever's best for the individual varies greatly. Some people consider what's best for them to murder another human being, some people think it's best to be cruel to weaker people in order to seem stronger. Some assuredly even think it's best to treat others fairly. But nothing will be a strong, justified conviction, because life's about doing what's best for yourself.
All humans are fallible, you're right about that. Christians will sin, as will atheists. But my point is that the human who has a basis for believing that love is not just as a robotic flurry of feel-good chemicals in the brain, but an objective truth and existing force in the universe, will value his life and the lives of others more than a person who is absent these beliefs. And therefore have more of an inclination to be moral than a person who fervently believes that life has no ultimate purpose and that we're here to do what's most advantageous for us.
Whew *wipes brow* I don't know how many times more I can rephrase that idea.
You said earlier that "that the more important someone views something and the more purpose he sees in that something, the more likely others are going to suffer because of it."
The overarching message of that statement is actually: "that the more important someone views something and the more purpose he sees in that something, the more fervently he will live by these beliefs." =)
Which is exactly my point, mdear.
Accurately according to whos interpretation?
If you're a Christian, Jesus'. It's pretty hard to misconstrue His message of love and acceptance.
