Reasons for unbelief...

Yet without accountability the atheist generally does the right thing because it is the right thing whereas the Christian does the right thing out of fear of punishment. Who has the higher moral ground?
Click to expand...

Define the "right thing" for me. You guys keep refering to morals and right and wrong without establishing what you base your morals on. Once you answer that question, I'll elaborate some more. And as far as the Christian doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, I'd like to ask you where you got that from. I don't do the right thing out of fear of punishment. I love the author of Salvation wholeheartedly, therefore I want to worship Him and honor Him in every way possible. It isn't a taxing activity for me to help someone out, loan money, counsel a friend, or lay down my life for another. In the Bible it even talks about a regenerate heart [one changed by saving, genuine faith in Christ] wanting to serve the Lord. You may say I'm lying just to protect Christianity, but I'm not. You can go ahead and undermine me and say there's no way I could enjoy serving the Lord and doing the "right thing" as you call it out of desire on my part, but it's true. Some things you can only know from experience.

And some of you should really research Christianity before you throw false accusations up my alley. And I don't mean research as in commentaries on it - they're usually innaccurate. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Bible and read what we practice, read it teaches. A lot of disbelief comes from ignorance, from baggage people carry with them into what should be an open-minded honest approach.
Just a suggestion.
 
I can't make myself believe something no matter what beneficial reasons there might be for believing it. I can't make myself love if I don't love.

Christianity is like the rule of law in society and served the same function, only the policeman is put inside your head.

Morals are what we collectively agree is good for society. On some small islands in the Pacific where excessive population would lead to massive starvation, infanticide was a moral value.
 
God sees the heart, the intentions
Click to expand...

And do not even atheists have good intentions? Do they not sometimes tell the truth when they wrong as Christians?

God holds sinners accountable for sin by sending them to Hell for their unrepentance.
Click to expand...

Everyone sins. The ones who know no God can't repent, therefore, the burden of saving others is placed upon the ones who know God. So if one brother falls, so do you. If you do not bend to help him up, than you have only saved yourself. Even if you spend your whole life just to show another the way, it's good. It is not what you do but how you do it. I see no need to ask forgiveness. In your view, we are already forgived and do not need to ask for it. If my child sins against me, I feel no need to make him/her ask forgiveness, I've been there in their shoes as a child. I know how it is. Understanding needs no forgiveness. If I can harbor no hate or dislike for anyone or don't need anyone to ask forgiveness to me for sinning against me, then how much would God understand our sins?

About the Catholic part however, doctrinal Catholocism really isn't 100% Biblical
Click to expand...

Do you follow the bible 100%? And do Catholics not intend on doing God's work also? A wise man of God needs not forgiveness because he will understand a man's actions and the reasons behind them, he's been there, done that, and felt that. It is just the way of man to wrong against another. But I say a wise man is good to accept forgiveness if asked.

The Catholic church seems to put her on the same level as Jesus when this is simply not necessary or Biblical.
Click to expand...

If Jesus is forgiveness, is Mary not the birther of forgiveness then as God is the birther of us? Jesus himself asked not to be put on a pedestal, so to speak, that glory should be given to God. We are all equal under God, one is not above or below the level of another.

And I base my standards of wrong and right on what is good for all God's children, not just the self, and for murky decisions, what action will cause more good than harm. It goes without saying, some decisions aren't easy.
 
It's strange that zeebra doesn't ask the reasons for unbelief in the thousands of other deities besides the Christian God.

If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, why does He go through the formality of making reality actually happen? In the words of William S. Burroughs, "Why does control need to control?". You only need to control things if they are out of control, which, by your definition, never happens to God.
 
On some small islands in the Pacific where excessive population would lead to massive starvation, infanticide was a moral value
Click to expand...

That wasn't the morally correct decision. That showed each other that life is expendable. It cheapened life. Because we need food, you gotta die. Is that the best motto? Why not just stop producing as many children or producing more food, better yet, give the kid a chance. Make use of what you got. Don't say, 'I can't handle you so I'm killing you'. We all know good and well that is not the correct decision no matter how you play the words. Did God not put us here under sometimes troubling condition to give us a chance at life and to succeed, no matter what we think the outcome is? So too should others deserve that chance. You might make it through life but you may not, so I should kill you. That is not reason, and God is reason. That is illogical. If you have no chance to refute my statement, should we ban you off the board and not give you a chance? Man will find some way to even take logic and make it illogical.
 
To the peoples practicing it, it was a respect for life. The population needed limits or everyone would die, they learned these limits from experience. Morals are relative to the society that practices them, I think it's called moral relativism and Christians hate it, although they practice it, too. For instance, in the bible eating shellfish is an abomination, but most Christians eat shrimp, especially Cajun ones.
 
Mercy killings, huh? So who are we to say that someone is 100% going to be in pain, emotional or physical, in the future and we should kill them? Should we kill people when America becomes overpopulated? That's different, right? I could go on, it's easy for me to see the wrong in that. But I'm not a believer in relative morals. We are all humans and all have feelings. I've not seen or heard a person yet that I could kill and not feel bad about it. No matter what society they're from or I'm from. Even if I was raised in that kind of society, I could see no use in killing someone else. No matter the culture, everyone's life is worth just as much. I was raised in an atheist society in a non-religious household and still don't follow my family's more liberal moral views. It's a matter of intelligence. To be able to be as aware of others and their feelings as your self. I am not perfect myself but I do try to uphold those standards. It is known less intelligent creatures are less self aware and aware of the feelings of others. So let's not act like animals or condone that attitude. Let's be as scientists, and logical here. No human is worth any less than another, no matter who sees it that way.
 
zeeebratracks said:
Define morality for me.
Click to expand...

no one can define morality for you, you have to define it for yourself. it is often a complex definition based on a framework that allows a person to evaluate actions, thoughts, and behaviors as either "right", or "wrong". there is no such designation in biological terms. you have allowed a book to define your ability to evaluate what is right and what is wrong. what the book says is right, you believe is right, what it says is wrong, you believe is wrong. for someone who does not accept this ready made set of instructions or another similar one, it is up to them to define the boundaries of right and wrong through the available experiential, anecdotal, and empirical evidence.
in a society where the laws are not directly based on religion, legal right and wrong are defined by the positive or negative effect that a particular behavior or action is thought to have on the functioning of society and its ability to progress. ie: legalized murder would cause society to unravel because it would become impossible to compel collective action, property sharing, privacy...etc. many cultures and religions have different views on the rightness or wrongness of specific acts, and because of this, the morality of any particular one varies depending on where you are and who is judging the act. there is no such thing as true "right" or "wrong" in any real sense.
 
One problem with law is it doesn't put forth the notion that the self is part of society and has hardly any laws to govern what you do to yourself other than basic drug laws mostly. Law doesn't enforce the idea that when you wrong yourself, it's not good for you which in turn can be bad for society, that's what religion does. Religion governs the self, and law governs society, or so it roughly happens anyway. But it goes without saying, a rotten tomatoe can spoil the soup. Law doesn't realize this to the extent religion does. So religion, whether some think or not, is good for society. Of course, if enforced on someone, is bad. It comes through understanding.
 
zeeebratracks said:
Define morality for me.
Click to expand...

Well we can start out with the golden rule treat others the way you would want to be treated. Don't do anything that harms others if it is avoidable. Try and help people if you can and there is real need. I could go on but my understanding of basic morality is all really common sense stuff. It is really down to human history, of living in a societal group, such a group cannot function without an understanding of behavior which minimizes conflict in the group. Behavior which is beneficial or detrimental to the group will quickly become apparant.
 
Last edited:
Zeeeb,

Define morality for me.
Click to expand...
You first need to define the object you wish to achieve. Morality then becomes a set of rules to achieve that goal.
 
zeeebratracks said:
Define the "right thing" for me. You guys keep refering to morals and right and wrong without establishing what you base your morals on. Once you answer that question, I'll elaborate some more. And as far as the Christian doing the right thing out of fear of punishment, I'd like to ask you where you got that from. I don't do the right thing out of fear of punishment. I love the author of Salvation wholeheartedly, therefore I want to worship Him and honor Him in every way possible. It isn't a taxing activity for me to help someone out, loan money, counsel a friend, or lay down my life for another. In the Bible it even talks about a regenerate heart [one changed by saving, genuine faith in Christ] wanting to serve the Lord. You may say I'm lying just to protect Christianity, but I'm not. You can go ahead and undermine me and say there's no way I could enjoy serving the Lord and doing the "right thing" as you call it out of desire on my part, but it's true. Some things you can only know from experience.
Click to expand...

So you concern yourself with the reward rather than the punishment, ie you love jesus so you wish to gain his favor (like I said carrot on a stick)

And some of you should really research Christianity before you throw false accusations up my alley. And I don't mean research as in commentaries on it - they're usually innaccurate. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Bible and read what we practice, read it teaches. A lot of disbelief comes from ignorance, from baggage people carry with them into what should be an open-minded honest approach.
Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

As I said I had 11 years of catholic schooling, and I was baptized episcopalian. when I graduated grammer school I recieved a medal for religious studies (I was the best in my class). I have read the bible and am not ignorant to it's message or content. Still here I am.
 
This all seems moot to me. Without evidence (which ZT convieniently disposd of in his first sentnce - quite telling if you ask me) there is nowhere to go for a rational entity (we've proven in threads long ago that theism is inherently irrational). So why even discuss "other" reasons for non-belief?
 
Aren't morals based on the conscious awareness of a right and wrong? You must establish those before you define your morals.

Gahh, I've gotta go right now, but I'll be back on to finish what I was going to say.
 
superluminal said:
This all seems moot to me. Without evidence (which ZT convieniently disposd of in his first sentnce - quite telling if you ask me) there is nowhere to go for a rational entity (we've proven in threads long ago that theism is inherently irrational). So why even discuss "other" reasons for non-belief?
Click to expand...

Great question... as Charles (I think) put it, it makes more sense to examine the reasons for 'belief'.
 
zeee,

Aren't morals based on the conscious awareness of a right and wrong? You must establish those before you define your morals.
Click to expand...
Pretty close, but what does it mean by conscious. That is too subjective. A better approach would be to use reason to determine what is right and wrong. But how do we define what is right and wrong? What is the goal first? What is it that establishing a moral code will achieve. To cut a long story short morality ends up as an issue of survival.

Religions are almost exclusively about survival. Simply put: Follow a set of rules and you will live for eternity, disobey and you will die.

Rational (non religious) moraility becomes an issue of avoiding harm, either to one self or a group. Here there are two major categories; (1) the protection of the group, or (2) the protection of the individual. The codes of morality will differ widely depending on which paradigm you choose. E.g. in group morality it is ultimately the species that is important rather than any individual. This can result in the acceptance of killing others if it will mean a greater number will survive. This in turn leads to warfare being an acceptable moral perspective. The alternative view is that the individual is paramount, and as yet I see no downside to that perspective. In most current societies the distinction is vague with a tendency more to the former. As longevity increases then the balance will shift more towards the indvidual since life will be seen as more valuable, and then the tendency to make war will subside.

I'm rambling...
 
Usp8riot, I like the way you argue your points. In spite of the fact I am an atheist I have never had a problem who believe in God, religions are another thing. You seem like a good person, and if there is a heaven I hope you get in. With that said where my views differ from you is that rather than seeing morals and good and wrong coming from the self I see it as society and survival of our species. When we evolved if we did posses the trait of killing our species would have died off very fast. So, rather than them coming from God, I think (who knows for sure) morals became a part of who were for our survival. When you were talking about less people needing to born was that not for our species survival (think you would agree on this). I think we are very similar, just key details we disagree on. As I said, the fact that you seem to be open minded and trying to bash others views is a great thing.
 
zeeebratracks said:
Aren't morals based on the conscious awareness of a right and wrong? You must establish those before you define your morals.

Gahh, I've gotta go right now, but I'll be back on to finish what I was going to say.
Click to expand...

why don't you read my post, i pretty much explained it. your conscious awareness of what is right and wrong comes from what other people tell you is right and wrong, and what you can evaluate as right or wrong with your own eyes based on the rules and understanding of your culture and society that have been imparted to you by other people. hence the disagreement cross-culturally about exactly what is right or wrong.
 
usp8riot said:
One problem with law is it doesn't put forth the notion that the self is part of society and has hardly any laws to govern what you do to yourself other than basic drug laws mostly. Law doesn't enforce the idea that when you wrong yourself, it's not good for you which in turn can be bad for society, that's what religion does. Religion governs the self, and law governs society, or so it roughly happens anyway. But it goes without saying, a rotten tomatoe can spoil the soup. Law doesn't realize this to the extent religion does. So religion, whether some think or not, is good for society. Of course, if enforced on someone, is bad. It comes through understanding.
Click to expand...

thats a load of trash. in some states, suicide is illegal. there are laws in almost every state that require a person to wear a seatbelt when they drive a car, or a helmet when they ride a bike or motorcycle. in addition to that, there are laws against the use and abuse of substances deemed harmful if ingested by humans. where does the bible provide for any of that? nowhere. religion and the law work on the same premise. deterrents. religious "law" says that if you commit a transgression, your soul is in jeopardy. you could experience eternal torment in another realm if you break that law. just like if i sell a kilo of cocaine to an undercover police officer, i will go to jail here for 25 years. both secular and religious laws use fear of punishment as a deterrent to the commission of "crimes". the only problem with religious rules are that if you break them, no one actually has any proof of what will happen to you, whereas there is plenty of proof that you will go to jail for a long time for selling drugs.
 
zeeebratracks said:
And some of you should really research Christianity before you throw false accusations up my alley. And I don't mean research as in commentaries on it - they're usually innaccurate. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Bible and read what we practice, read it teaches. A lot of disbelief comes from ignorance, from baggage people carry with them into what should be an open-minded honest approach.
Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

maybe you should study the bible a little more closely. in addition to that, maybe you should pick up the texts of some other ancient religions and study those closely so that you can see where every sentence and concept in the bible actually comes from. then after you are done with that, read the gospels in greek and hebrew and see if they agree with the bible that you have at home, or if in fact, they reveal an entire littany of disturbing discrepancies. then find more than one copy of any of the gospels dating from around the 3rd century up to the 13th and see if you can find all the places where scribes edited the words of the gospel to make them mean what they understood them to mean, or maybe they edited them because they thought someone else made a mistake and so they corrected the mistake, and then someone else did the same to them years later. after that, try to see if you can find a single original copy of ANY of the books of the bible or its apocrypha. you will not be able to.
what all of this means is that you have no idea what the original words of the bible were, or its original intentions. you are reading a 15th generation document full of additions and subtractions and erroneous corrections, and that's even before you begin to discuss the contradictory statements contained in the pages themselves. do you accept jesus's rules about adultery, or the ones that god told to moses? do you follow the exhortations of deutoronomy to kill non-believers, or do you turn the other cheek like jesus says? do you accept the commonly agreed upon 10 commandments, which were merely statements that god made to moses, or do you accept the original ten commandments that were written on the tablets that moses smashed? you know what, i bet you have no idea what's really in the bible, you are just so polluted with someone else's interpretation of it that you can't even see how it can be used against the very arguments you are claiming it would support.
now, please tell us about our ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top