In reading through this thread I've seen the phrase "Christian values" thrown around a lot... and how, if someone is not Christian they could eventually lose those values through generations...
But the "values" that we call "Christian values" have been around since long before Christianity haven't they? So that kind of knocks that point off doesn't it?
As you may know, I have a tendency to be verbose, so I am making a concerted effort to keep my responses here short and sweet, rather than so long no one has the inclination to read them. Hope I'm successful!
I thoroughly enjoyed the posts by johnj. They were very thought provoking and “put a name” to some things that had been stirring in my thinking.
I admit to knowing just a wee bit about other religions. I am aware of the “broad generalities” but, having never been motivated to study them in depth, am largely an “ignoramus” on them. I found the following statement very interesting.
I also think that one of the biggest needs we have is for grace. . . And I haven't seen a religion besides Christianity that is as severe in calling our "weaknesses" evil and sin while at the same time offering redemption and grace in Jesus Christ. God treats us better than we deserve.
We often hear of the similarities between the “major” religions and/or belief systems. I found this to be an interesting contrast.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the information he and George Aar presented about the care of the elderly, needy, and ailing in Japan. In American, these groups can find aid from family, friends, civic organizations, faith-based organizations, and the government (there may be other venues I have not considered). Of course, the need seems to always exceed the supply, so their problems aren’t solved, just helped to one degree or another. In Japan, it would seem these same resources are available, with the exception of maybe the faith-based organizations. To paraphrase Wikipedia, Confucianism is a belief system of secular ethics and secular morality directed towards the cultivation of a “civilized individual” who will contribute to the establishment of a “civilized society”or country with the ultimate goal of world peace. Confucianism does not have a deity but I would imagine that many of the morals and values it promotes are not dissimilar to those promoted by other religions, including Christianity. As Tom Strange so aptly noted:
But the "values" that we call "Christian values" have been around since long before Christianity haven't they? So that kind of knocks that point off doesn't it?
Indeed, Christianity does not have exclusive rights to morality and values. Similar values have been held by non Judeo-Christians throughout history. A great example is Aesop, a Grecian or African (up to debate which) who lived during the mid 6th century B.C.
From George’s accounts, the culture of Japan exceeds that of America in respect to its lack of slums and its overall cleanliness. And the society seems to do its best to serve the needy within it’s finite means. The Confucian morality and values of the Japanese people seem to contribute an equivalent of what the faith-based and civic organizations do in America.
I think atheism gives a poor answer in the area of morality, because it lacks two important things:
1. Standards. (As was said above) without God to give humans a benchmark, there are no unmovable standards because morals are human-made. You can make up your own. Nothing is right or wrong.
When I was in college the fashionable term was "values clarification." You should clarify your values, but nothing was right or wrong, only different. Humans can make up their own values (no standards) and change them at will. If standards are man-made, then you have no right to call another's choices wrong, even if they involve murder, stealing, incest, whatever. The result of this is that anyone can rationalize any behavior. And they do, whether dictator or skinhead.
Fortunately, atheists and a-moralists don't live consistently by this. Even people who consider there to be no right and wrong have favorite morals (a fashionable one these days is racism), at least when they're the victims of others' values.
2. Accountability. Without a God who pays attention, humans have very little accoutablity. Most of the things humans do to injure others are fully legal, and most crimes go unpunished. Moral religion says that God does hold people accountable even when society is unable or unwilling to do so. Atheism provides no ultimate accountability, tho it may provide some limited accoutability on the fashionable morals which evolve and change because nothing is really right or wrong, just different.
People need reasons to be "good" because being good is usually harder than being bad. Thieves find it's quicker to steal income someone else worked 6 months to get. Sudents find it's easier to steal answers (as the Newsweek article noted) than study. Many people think divorce or separation is easier than humility, admitting wrong and working through problems, etc.
There are two basic reasons to choose to do good even when it's harder: 1) reward ("if I'm nice to him, he'll be nice to me") and 2) penalty ("if I hit him he'll hit me back, and he's bigger than I am")
The weakness of atheism and a-moral thinking is that frequently humans aren't rewarded for doing good (The IRS doesn't reward you for paying taxes); and we are seldom punished for doing bad (eg the IRS seldom catches tax cheats). Little accountability and no firm standards.
What morals'based religion like Christianity does is to fill in the gaps. It provides complete stanards rather than make-up-your-own. For example, most of the 10 commandments prohibit things that are fully legal in America, because God wants to establish standards higher than human-made ones.
It also provides ultimate accountablity. God will reward and punish even when society can't or doesn't want to.
This is why Newsweek linked nonreligious students to a high rate of cheating. The students knew that accountabiluty was poor (teachers seldom catch them) and they lacked unmoving standards (their "values clarification" led them to "self-made" morals which allow cheating.) The religious students were linked to low rates of cheating because they personally accepted God's higher standards and believed they were accountable to him even when they weren't to other humans.
Suely there are hypocrites. But this doesn't mean that religion's standards and accountability are weak- it means people are weak or hypocritical. To criticize the standards because some people don't keep it is like criticizing American law against first degree murder because some people murder anyway. There will always be people who are or claim to be religious who don't live by God's standards and accountability, but that doesn't mean that they don't still provide a more reliable answer to morality than atheiism and a-moral thinking.
Please Mr. J. straw is abundant, but it IS a finite resource, let's not waste it all in one post.
Never mind that with The Bible, the likelyhood that it IS all manmade seems extremely high, I'll let that go entirely.
But the idea that there are clearcut standards of conduct (that are somehow superior to "manmade" systems) is ludicrous.
With somewhere in the tens of THOUSANDS of denominations - all claiming The Bible as their only rule for faith and practice - it seems that somehow a whole lot of folks are having more than a little trouble coming to the "clear" conclusions you claim are there.
Also, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, no spirituality involved, would it be so hard to hammer out a pretty thorough system of rules of conduct by simply employing a little empathy? That, and knowing that whatever you do to another can come back to haunt you in kind, I think a few moderately intelligent god-rejectors could forge a fairly good set of guidelines before lunch. (Yes, I know this is basic "golden rule" stuff, but stuff that The Bible did not originate, and hardly has a monopoly on)
And as for THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, uh, gee are they REALLY all that impressive? I mean 4 of 'em deal simply with religious tenets, nothing necessary for civil interactions between PEOPLE. And the other 6? Jeeze, no killing, stealing, murdering, bearing false witness, and some coveting stuff. Is this all that profound? We couldnt figure this out without Divine intervention? Nevermind that the Hammurabi code had this stuff covered centuries before.
I Do follow some of The Lord's statutes, though. Like, I NEVER eat a goat that's been boiled in it's mother's milk...
I don't know whether you are being arrogant or ignorant. Either way, you are seriously far from the truth with your posts, this one is no exception.
I think atheism gives a poor answer in the area of morality, because it lacks two important things:
1. Standards. (As was said above) without God to give humans a benchmark, there are no unmovable standards because morals are human-made. You can make up your own. Nothing is right or wrong.
When I was in college the fashionable term was "values clarification." You should clarify your values, but nothing was right or wrong, only different. Humans can make up their own values (no standards) and change them at will. If standards are man-made, then you have no right to call another's choices wrong, even if they involve murder, stealing, incest, whatever. The result of this is that anyone can rationalize any behavior. And they do, whether dictator or skinhead.
Fortunately, atheists and a-moralists don't live consistently by this. Even people who consider there to be no right and wrong have favorite morals (a fashionable one these days is racism), at least when they're the victims of others' values.
If you study history, you would see that even in the most religious of societies, even past Christian societies, there were things occurring that many if not all of us would find immoral. You mentioned slavery, which is sanctioned by Christianity depending on what part of the bible you read. In the old testament, Jehovah supposedly told the Israelites to go murder innocent men, women, and children. Today it would be considered immoral to kill people that pose no threat to you, but back then there were supposedly commandments from god to kill every living thing in a city that the Israelites would go to war with. Doesn't this violate pretty much any interpretation of "thou shalt not kill?"
Additionally, most non-Christian religions have the same set of morals as Christianity. Most atheists also live by the same morals. There are core values that are inherent in humanity. Things like "thou shalt not kill" are just written versions of what every single person already knows.
2. Accountability. Without a God who pays attention, humans have very little accoutablity. Most of the things humans do to injure others are fully legal, and most crimes go unpunished. Moral religion says that God does hold people accountable even when society is unable or unwilling to do so. Atheism provides no ultimate accountability, tho it may provide some limited accoutability on the fashionable morals which evolve and change because nothing is really right or wrong, just different.
Nonsense. Human nature includes empathy, and empathy is what prevents people from hurting others. This is a natural trait in human beings and many animals. Your dog doesn't need "jesus" in order to start crying when they hear another dog cry. It's a natural instinct. However, there are people who are either born with a mental illness that robs them of empathy or go through harsh experiences that cause their mind to become damaged and restrict their empathy.
Atheism provides GREATER accountability than Christianity does. As an atheist, I have no fall back, I am responsible for all of my actions and must face the consequences as a result. Also, since this is the only life I have, as well as the only life that the people I interact with have, it is more important for me to help others. For example, it is my duty to society to help those that are in need because if there is no heaven, they have to be helped immediately so they can be ok in this life.
People need reasons to be "good" because being good is usually harder than being bad. Thieves find it's quicker to steal income someone else worked 6 months to get. Sudents find it's easier to steal answers (as the Newsweek article noted) than study. Many people think divorce or separation is easier than humility, admitting wrong and working through problems, etc.
This is a lie. Being good is the default, while being bad comes from ignorance, mental illness, or suffering. Thieves find it to be quicker to steal because they don't see a legitimate way to make money, and they often live in poverty or have a problem that causes them to steal. It is not natural for people just to steal and not feel guilt about it.
Many divorces of non-religious people happen because a woman is abused or treated badly. In a strict Christian household, the woman would continue putting up with the abuse because she is supposedly a subject to her husband and inferior somehow. Divorce rates are a symptom of bigger problems, and we should address those problems rather than focusing on the end result.
There are two basic reasons to choose to do good even when it's harder: 1) reward ("if I'm nice to him, he'll be nice to me") and 2) penalty ("if I hit him he'll hit me back, and he's bigger than I am")
The weakness of atheism and a-moral thinking is that frequently humans aren't rewarded for doing good (The IRS doesn't reward you for paying taxes); and we are seldom punished for doing bad (eg the IRS seldom catches tax cheats). Little accountability and no firm standards.
What morals'based religion like Christianity does is to fill in the gaps. It provides complete stanards rather than make-up-your-own. For example, most of the 10 commandments prohibit things that are fully legal in America, because God wants to establish standards higher than human-made ones.
It also provides ultimate accountablity. God will reward and punish even when society can't or doesn't want to.
It's very offensive that you conflate atheism and amorality. It is a sign of your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow human beings. In your examples, you also show your lack of thought concerning other aspects of life. The IRS does reward you for paying taxes -- the money goes to build freeways, maintain national parks, maintain the military to defend us, etc. Just because you expect them to personally thank you doesn't mean that you don't benefit.
This is why Newsweek linked nonreligious students to a high rate of cheating. The students knew that accountabiluty was poor (teachers seldom catch them) and they lacked unmoving standards (their "values clarification" led them to "self-made" morals which allow cheating.) The religious students were linked to low rates of cheating because they personally accepted God's higher standards and believed they were accountable to him even when they weren't to other humans.
I think your analysis is nonsense, but since you didn't provide a link to the article the rest of us have nothing to base our opinions of it on.
Suely there are hypocrites. But this doesn't mean that religion's standards and accountability are weak- it means people are weak or hypocritical. To criticize the standards because some people don't keep it is like criticizing American law against first degree murder because some people murder anyway. There will always be people who are or claim to be religious who don't live by God's standards and accountability, but that doesn't mean that they don't still provide a more reliable answer to morality than atheiism and a-moral thinking.
So in your mind, we atheists have to ignore the fact that "sinners" don't live up to what you believe the standards are, despite the fact that according to the bible we are all guilty of "sin." So a translation of what you are saying is that we should ignore all the evil that the followers of Christianity have done because it supposedly doesn't reflect on Christianity itself, right? You don't want us to judge Christianity based on it's "fruit", yet you judge everything else based on even stricter criteria.
A big problem with your views is that you seem to believe atheism is a belief system. It is not. It is not amoral, it is not a lack of values. It is simply and only the fact that we don't believe in gods. You can't honestly extrapolate anything further out of that. Atheism is not the polar opposite of Christianity. Christians and Satanists are the polar opposites competing against each other (if real satanists even exist is debatable), where atheists are not even in the game you all are. Don't try to demonize us based on your own ignorance and prejudice because it's clear you don't know us.
You mentioned slavery, which is sanctioned by Christianity depending on what part of the bible you read.
In this you are in error. The stongs concordance mentions the word slavery twice (I believe, I am not going to go re-check) The relationship you are referring to is the Master-Servant relationship. perhaps you could recite some instances of an employer-employee relationship that existed at that time, replete with timecards and employer law, to prove your theory that this relationship was anything but that.
In the old testament, Jehovah supposedly told the Israelites to go murder innocent men, women, and children. Today it would be considered immoral to kill people that pose no threat to you, but back then there were supposedly commandments from god to kill every living thing in a city that the Israelites would go to war with. Doesn't this violate pretty much any interpretation of "thou shalt not kill?"
Of course war is always murder in atheists mind, but only when it comes to war in context with the you know who of the Old Testament. What about the Redcoats of England in the revolutionary war, or those from Mexico that attacked the Alamo. Or those Canadians who provided safe harbor for the redcoats. Certainly the atheistic movement must have some document calling for all out war on Mexico, Canada and England for the atheistic peace movement would certainly not let these scoundrels and their countrymen live in peace for what they did. (These wars happened in the last approx 200 some years and directly effected us. Where is the outrage and power outage of atheists over this stuff/) While your at it, where is the cat call for war against the sharks of the ocean for being monarchists and not good Democrats? I mean why didnt they nip at the Redcoats when they were sailing over?
Never of course do they mention the following:
1) That God did not attack the Amorites because their inquity was not yet full.
2) That Israel tried to make peace with Og and other Kings who were not in there land and where attacked.
3) That God used bees to chase some people out of the land.
4) that King Davids soldiers were as much Hittite and from other countries of the land as they were Judean.
5) That David's war's were rather evangelical in that he circumcised or converted his enemies to Israeli faith,
Where is the atheistic cat calls against the countries of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus and English monarchists who were expanding their Empires? Oh thats right Richard Dawkins is English whatever will they do? Of course never mentioned by atheists is that God never sanctioned any as in not one, expansion of the country of Israel beyone a strip of land 75 by 200 miles, unlike the ones listed above who had real estate and where plundering other countries You would think atheists everywhere would be so angry at every person who engaged in war, yet never one cat call against all ethnicities everywhere for doing what God never did. What gives? Murder only applies for atheists in war in buggery towards religion, otherwise its just another rainy day. Seriously, if athiests applied the same amount of reasoning power they do to the God of the Old Testament, they would proclaim Patton's order's and attack everyone everywhere and in all directions.
Atheism provides GREATER accountability than Christianity does.
Utter non-sense. Jesus said there is nothing done in secret that shall not be shouted abroad and there would be judgement in the hereafter. This is without question greater accountability than atheism provides.
Many divorces of non-religious people happen because a woman is abused or treated badly. In a strict Christian household, the woman would continue putting up with the abuse because she is supposedly a subject to her husband and inferior somehow.
Again nonsense, and you do not know scripture. The Apostle Paul provides provision for seperation of husband and wife in such cases to have 'peace" with no guilt associated, it simply does not sanction divorce.
It's very offensive that you conflate atheism and amorality. It is a sign of your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow human beings.
It is not difficult to do in some cases. Please note I used the word some. For example, when Greta the angry atheist goes into a diatribe against God, I must take note that she is a Lesbian and that perhaps her demeanor is more effected because of the Biblical view on homosexuality, then say her embracing of atheism. Same screw holds true for Richard Dawkins, who somewhat sanctions homosexual behavior in his comments. Thus, we Christians at times wonder if the cart isnt pulling the horse, rather than the way atheists explain themselves as the horse of evolution pulling the cart. I think for this reason it is unfair of you to say to him that he is ignorant and lacks empathy for this reason.
And right from Greta's mouth why I think she is really angry: The following is a direct quote from Greta:
"I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified. "
I think your analysis is nonsense,.
I feel the same about your analysis too.
So in your mind, we atheists have to ignore the fact that "sinners" don't live up to what you believe the standards are, despite the fact that according to the bible we are all guilty of "sin." So a translation of what you are saying is that we should ignore all the evil that the followers of Christianity have done because it supposedly doesn't reflect on Christianity itself, right? You don't want us to judge Christianity based on it's "fruit", yet you judge everything else based on even stricter criteria.
What is it about the science of evolution which is the dogmatic formula for atheism, that is sooooo must concern itself with Biblical values. Depending on the author it seems that 40 to 90 percent of the science concerns itself with brow beating people of faith. It would be akin to the science of going to the moon and rocket technology, insisting that automobiles everywhere get rid of piston technology and replace auto's with rockets to help space technology. If atheism has a "science" why the need to rip tear and gouge upon those of faith?
A big problem with your views is that you seem to believe atheism is a belief system. It is not. It is not amoral, it is not a lack of values. It is simply and only the fact that we don't believe in gods.
It is in fact a belief system. Athiests tenants are: Any type of thiesm is bad and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them. The sceince of it, is nostagically poor. It's like watching a group of people who like to pout and spout off at God, and dang it all, you have the pseudo-science of evolution to prove it. Evolution, however is not without its virtues, after reading Richard Weikerts book (a historical masterpiece) I think it (evolution) has done a real nice job of getting God, Jesus and people off faith off the hook for the Holocaust.
...and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them.
I think you'll find that most atheists do, in fact, follow "moraility principles" that are indistinguishable from those in the bible, with the exception of those that tell people to worship God
The difference is that they act ethically and morally because that's what they want to do, not because they believe God wants them to.
Not any moreso than we have to worry about Catholic priests raping little boys.
yeah, ok Belle, perhaps you can refresh my mind (since we are talking about what the bible says) where the bible sanctions this activity? HINT: You will not find it in the talk about Sodom and Gommorah, a city God destroyed for homosexual rape.
Or folks like vee pee, craig, jal and benny hinn taking advantage of "the flock"[/color]
Well when i first heard that all one had to do was "renew their tired mind" in order to sanction adultry, I kind of ran for cover from the Pee Wee Vee Pee's and Craig's of the world. Not that this was the only trouble, the MOGFAT was a little to dingy for my taste. Dont know who JAL is, dont care either. Are you picking on good old Benny? Well ok, he does have a tendency to "lay hands suddenly on everyone" but at times seems like a pretty good feller. I would have been more impressed if you had said Jim Baker, a guy I looked at before he fell over backwards, and said what gives with this guy?
Here are some interesting things I learned about atheism from the link provided by Oakspear in his post #33. I put them in quotes as I copied directly from the source. Highlighting and underlining is quoted as provided by the source. Any emphasis I have added is both highlighted and italicized.
Beware also that because the word “atheist” has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.
“Is there such a thing as atheist morality?”
If you mean “Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?,” then the answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality which are at least as strong as those hold by religious people.
If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?," then the answer is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists, but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some religions.
There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.
Be especially skeptical of positive claims.
If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.
Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.
Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.
Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
And finally (and most importantly):
All beliefs should be open to question.
Garth’s link in post #43 provided invaluable information on the thoughts of some atheists. Here is one I found particularly insightful.
And so it has when free-thinking men and women have followed their consciences and fought and died for their innate curiosity and used their intellect (and emotions) to improve their lives and the lives of their fellow man (not to mention their fierce independence in discovering the answers to so many “mysteries” of science, medicine and technology and even coming up with new questions). Without sounding too dramatic, have not the greatest strides in human development come from men and women who have refused to buckle under to the church and challenged the status quo?
In reading through the conversion stories, it seemed that many atheists rely on their study of logic, reason, philosophy, other religions, and science to formulate their "code of conduct" or determine the values, morals, and ethics they live in accordance with. Therefore, it is not surprising that they share similar values, morals, and ethics with people of religious faiths.
An "ah ha, now I get it" moment for me was when I understood the following. To me as a Christian, God and the belief (including values, morals, and ethics) system of Christianity is an "all-in-one" package. By accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior and choosing to make him Lord of my Life, I accept the teachings of the Bible as my guidebook for living. I strive to live my life in the way that would please God and Jesus Christ. I fall short, but continue to strive.
An atheist rejects the existance of God or gods. However, most are of the opinion that in order to live in a civilized world, values, morals, and ethics are required. But instead of accepting a pre-set "code of conduct" from an external source, they consider a wide variety of "suggestions" from a wide variety of sources, and independently choose those that they feel are applicable and necessary. Most often, their choices reflect those of the "society at large" in which they live.
To a Christian, God-religion-morality are an all inclusive package. The atheist does not feel a need for a spiritual guide, and thus does not base his morality on a diety-proscribed system of beliefs.
It seems that trying to compare Christianity and Atheism can be a bit like comparing apples to oranges, because of the lack of a proscribed “code of conduct” for atheists. This lack leaves a lot open to speculation, and the “fear of the unknown” is what I think many Christians, including myself, had an emotional reaction to. Bolshevik’s quote below gives what many people fear. Given the Christian belief that the sinful nature of man needs a savior, those who reject the savior are often seen in the worst case scenario of :
"Morality" distills down to preserve yourself and preserve your offspring. Helping others around helps with that, but only so much. I can see a desire for a supernatural in order to resolve this conflict.
But when I finally understood Oakspear’s posts below, it diffused that fear.
Theists see morality and ethics deriving from a deity.
Atheists see morality and ethics deriving from the mind of man.
Both are just as free as the other to follow or ignore morality and ethics.
Most ethical system seem to end up being about the same, no matter what religion or philosophy they come from.
And
Atheism is an absence of theism, not an opposition to theism.
At first I did not understand George Aars comment below. From my Christian perspective, the portion I highlight below seemed contradictory. After reading about atheism I could see where he was coming from. Big step for Suda!
George Aar: Funny, but I fail to see a connection between belief and morality. In fact, the most debauched bastards I've ever known personally were also the most ardent in their faith. Maybe I just knew the bad ones?
Jim’s comment further clarified this for me.
I bear no ill to the true believer. In some ways I envy him/her. Life is simpler with a defined code of conduct and a set of pre-made friends.
Bramble’s post gives further insight:
There really are more than two choices of belief. It really doesn't have to be fundamentalist Bible Literalist Christian or athiest.
Black and white thinking. That would be an interesting topic of discussion.
I sorta look at it this way now. The "black and white" are the far points on the continuum, the boundaries. Individual choices make up the great expanse of grey area between those points. You can profess a religious faith and be moral, profess a religious faith and be immoral, profess no religious faith and be moral, or profess no religious faith and be immoral. Your "degree" of morality comes from your individual choices, decision by decision. Few people will be black "completely immoral" or white "completely moral". Most of us are grey.
Having spent 99% of my life living in the "Bible Belt" I have had limited exposure to atheists, and have developed friendships with only a dozen or so (which accounts for almost 100% of those with whom I am acquainted). All of them are good, moral people that I am pleased to have as friends. There's not a bad one in the lot. My role model for the "perfect manager" is an atheist. Since having the privilege of working under and with him, I have strived to emulate his human relations and communications skills (in my professional and private life), because, imo, he's simply the best there is.
I am glad to be shedding my fear of the unknown, and feel that I will no longer be surprised in the future in finding out that someone I admire is atheist. A life without God for me would be empty, directionless, and without hope. For them it is not. And we have both made the choices that are best for us individually. I can live peaceably with that.
Kudos to you, girl!! I just saved your latest post to my archive of memorable statements. You have gained a HUGE increase of intelligent understanding of atheism/atheists as depicted in real life.
You cut my quote short...indistinguishible other than the worshipping God stuff was my point - but you knew that, right?
Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist? I didn't know that. Can you provide me a link to where you got your info?
There are (at least) two discussions going on here. One is about whether atheists are any more or less likely than theists, specifically bible adherants, to be moral. In that discussion, whether or not the bible condones or encourages immorality is irrelevant, since we are talking about the behavior of those who claim certain standards of morality. The second discussion is about whether the bible in fact ascribes immoral acts to God. A good case can be made that it does, unless "morailty" is defined as "whatever the bible says that God says it is" It seems like you are confusing the two discussions. For example, Belle's example of Catholic priests raping kids is part of the first discussion, P-Mosh's list of immoral acts in the bible is part of the second.
Nonsense. Human nature includes empathy, and empathy is what prevents people from hurting others. This is a natural trait in human beings and many animals. Your dog doesn't need "jesus" in order to start crying when they hear another dog cry. It's a natural instinct. However, there are people who are either born with a mental illness that robs them of empathy or go through harsh experiences that cause their mind to become damaged and restrict their empathy.
. . .
I would call this a religion.
not that a god is involved, but it sounds very i dunno, not real. Some animals kill for fun. Yes, there's evidence for what you're saying, like when that wild lion raised a baby impala. But why do killer whales sometimes play catch with seal before killing it? There's no need. Maybe they're retarded? Lot's of male animals kill the young of their own species, because it ain't theirs. (and the chimp warfare I mentioned already)
And dogs are beta wolves. The genetic followers of the pack. Are alpha wolves as empathetic?
empathy is natural sure, but so is "hey, let's go kill something."
Atheism doesn't mean "no religion" yes? Is there another word for this?
In this you are in error. The stongs concordance mentions the word slavery twice (I believe, I am not going to go re-check) The relationship you are referring to is the Master-Servant relationship. perhaps you could recite some instances of an employer-employee relationship that existed at that time, replete with timecards and employer law, to prove your theory that this relationship was anything but that.
That relationship was often slavery. The most obvious example I can think of is how Exodus 21 basically lays out the rules for slavery according to the bible.
Of course war is always murder in atheists mind, but only when it comes to war in context with the you know who of the Old Testament. What about the Redcoats of England in the revolutionary war, or those from Mexico that attacked the Alamo. Or those Canadians who provided safe harbor for the redcoats. Certainly the atheistic movement must have some document calling for all out war on Mexico, Canada and England for the atheistic peace movement would certainly not let these scoundrels and their countrymen live in peace for what they did. (These wars happened in the last approx 200 some years and directly effected us. Where is the outrage and power outage of atheists over this stuff/) While your at it, where is the cat call for war against the sharks of the ocean for being monarchists and not good Democrats? I mean why didnt they nip at the Redcoats when they were sailing over?
Are you on drugs? Seriously, I never said anything that you're talking about, and you are contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say atheists are always against war and consider it murder, then you expect atheists to call people to war, then you talk about sharks. The only thing the sharks are doing is being jumped over by you.
Atheism has nothing to do with war. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. What you're talking about doesn't have anything to do with anything else I was talking about so I won't respond to nonsense.
Never of course do they mention the following:
1) That God did not attack the Amorites because their inquity was not yet full.
2) That Israel tried to make peace with Og and other Kings who were not in there land and where attacked.
3) That God used bees to chase some people out of the land.
4) that King Davids soldiers were as much Hittite and from other countries of the land as they were Judean.
5) That David's war's were rather evangelical in that he circumcised or converted his enemies to Israeli faith,
So you are saying that Numbers 31:17 is false? It's a verse that states, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Somehow I don't think that they "killed" them by evangelism. Did they use biblical humor and they said, "STOP! HAHAHA! THAT'S TOO FUNNY, YOU'RE KILLING ME!" Does that term originate from biblical times?
Where is the atheistic cat calls against the countries of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus and English monarchists who were expanding their Empires? Oh thats right Richard Dawkins is English whatever will they do? Of course never mentioned by atheists is that God never sanctioned any as in not one, expansion of the country of Israel beyone a strip of land 75 by 200 miles, unlike the ones listed above who had real estate and where plundering other countries You would think atheists everywhere would be so angry at every person who engaged in war, yet never one cat call against all ethnicities everywhere for doing what God never did. What gives? Murder only applies for atheists in war in buggery towards religion, otherwise its just another rainy day.
Again with your apparent halucinatory rants that don't make sense or fit in with what I wrote. I really don't know how to respond because what you're saying is just gibberish.
Utter non-sense. Jesus said there is nothing done in secret that shall not be shouted abroad and there would be judgement in the hereafter. This is without question greater accountability than atheism provides.
Only if you believe it to be true. However, if you can't be held accountable to yourself, then you have some major issues. Part of being an adult is being responsible for your own actions. If your belief is that you have to be afraid of going to hell in order to be responsible, then you have some problems.
Again nonsense, and you do not know scripture. The Apostle Paul provides provision for seperation of husband and wife in such cases to have 'peace" with no guilt associated, it simply does not sanction divorce.
Then if you're such a biblical scholar, why don't you "educate" me. I don't remember anything about that, and if it's as accurate as the rest of your biblical knowledge then I won't count on it.
It is not difficult to do in some cases. Please note I used the word some. For example, when Greta the angry atheist goes into a diatribe against God, I must take note that she is a Lesbian and that perhaps her demeanor is more effected because of the Biblical view on homosexuality, then say her embracing of atheism. Same screw holds true for Richard Dawkins, who somewhat sanctions homosexual behavior in his comments. Thus, we Christians at times wonder if the cart isnt pulling the horse, rather than the way atheists explain themselves as the horse of evolution pulling the cart. I think for this reason it is unfair of you to say to him that he is ignorant and lacks empathy for this reason.
I feel the same about your analysis too.
I'm not sure what homosexuality has to do with anything here. If you watch the news lately, all the famous people turning out to be gay are the staunch Christian conservatives. The percentage of gay atheists is probably similar to the percentage of gay Christians. Also, as an atheist I don't say anything about evolution pulling any carts and have no idea what you're talking about.
As far as empathy and ignorance, you and johnj are still wrapped up in your TWI brainwashing and are unable to see reality and understand other people. That's why both of you go off on delusional rants and talk at people rather than with them. Both of you have a "holier than thou" attitude and offer nothing but insults, lies, and strawman arguments that make no sense. You both think you're better than everyone else and that you know more than everyone else and that egotism is something I despise in people.
What is it about the science of evolution which is the dogmatic formula for atheism, that is sooooo must concern itself with Biblical values. Depending on the author it seems that 40 to 90 percent of the science concerns itself with brow beating people of faith. It would be akin to the science of going to the moon and rocket technology, insisting that automobiles everywhere get rid of piston technology and replace auto's with rockets to help space technology. If atheism has a "science" why the need to rip tear and gouge upon those of faith?
Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You might as well be comparing the horses and the 839th digit of Pi. You don't know what you're talking about and don't make sense. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. It's not science, evolution, or a conspiracy against you.
As far as being concerned with biblical values, only people like you who are always out to attack non-Christians get attacked back. If you come here acting like an @$$ people will act like one back to you. Read the comments prior to you and johnj's posts. Things were pretty calm and people were sharing ideas rather than crapping all over everything and stirring arguments.
It is in fact a belief system. Athiests tenants are: Any type of thiesm is bad and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them. The sceince of it, is nostagically poor. It's like watching a group of people who like to pout and spout off at God, and dang it all, you have the pseudo-science of evolution to prove it.
Who are you to tell me what I believe? I've stated over and over what atheism is, yet you reject that and continue to build lies in order to tear people like me down. You are free to believe what you wish, but you will always be wrong and I hope someone will always be there to contradict you, lest you be able to trick innocent people into hatred with your lies.
I am glad to be shedding my fear of the unknown, and feel that I will no longer be surprised in the future in finding out that someone I admire is atheist. A life without God for me would be empty, directionless, and without hope. For them it is not. And we have both made the choices that are best for us individually. I can live peaceably with that.
Suda (hoping this post isn't too long!)
Suda, you have amazed me. Not only are you getting it, you're understanding it well and you are able to respect those of us that differ from you. Thanks for trying to understand even though you have come to a different conclusion in your life.
In TWI we were taught so often that those outside the True Household were spiritually suspect/possessed etc. Heck, even those in offshoots who believed nearly every point of doctrine with us were so off we couldn't fellowship with them. If we did happen to have contact with a gay person, or a Roman Catholic etc, we might witness to them, but if they didn't want our doctrine, they were out of our lives. Even family, often.
Even if we had only ever seen them do good, they would be spiritually dirty because they were not 'us.' In our minds we attributed evil to them, even if they had done none.
I suspect a similar doctrinal viewpoint of 'not us' might play into all the attributions of immorality etc laid at the athiest's door. Somehow or other, some religious can't seem to separate themselves out without declaring others as evil.
Yet if you live life getting to know a wide variety of people, not just the 'like us' ones, you find that there are good people in all walks of life. And those of us from the TWI daze probably have actual experience with the angry bullies who threw Bible verses at people to cut them down, not build them up, and know that a born again, speaks in tongues label might not mean a good guy.
That relationship was often slavery. The most obvious example I can think of is how Exodus 21 basically lays out the rules for slavery according to the bible.
The text calls it master-servant relationship, and there are also Levitical rules and other regs that govern it. Obviously, you did not respond to the employer-emloyee relationship, because the word slavery more fits the neccesary diatribe. That's real convient for you isnt it, to add words of slavery which denote the abuses that took place around a 150 years ago in our country, and slap this word on you know who. Then, in the end you call me a deciever and a liar. How bout fessing up and admiting that you slandered the Bible by using an inapprobriate term?
Are you on drugs? Seriously, I never said anything that you're talking about, and you are contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say atheists are always against war and consider it murder, then you expect atheists to call people to war, then you talk about sharks. The only thing the sharks are doing is being jumped over by you..
Nope not on drugs, which is a tad over the edge I might add. The "contradiction" is not mine. It is a contraction when atheists make you know who a look like a war monger, but never say a disarming word about scores of nations that have had conquest laden wars, unlike the God of the Old Test.
So you are saying that Numbers 31:17 is false? It's a verse that states, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Somehow I don't think that they "killed" them by evangelism. ..
the quote of evangelism was about David not Moses so quit confusing the issue. Also , I looked up the passage, which was said by Moses not God. Futhermore, you fail to understand the scriptures at all. The Israelis were woefully unable to follow the commandments of God, so God gave them a divorce concept for the hardness of there hearts. With respect to the woman in conquered lands, real reasonable to infer the same thing. (Which you would never do however because you have a point to make) Furthermore, what should Israel have done with these virgins, packaged them off to Eygpt in some make shift deal? Perhaps you have a better alternative?
Again with your apparent halucinatory rants that don't make sense or fit in with what I wrote. I really don't know how to respond because what you're saying is just gibberish..
These are the predictable things that you people always say. When confronted with logic and reasoning and you feel cornered, just degrade the author by calling them "on drugs" halucinatory and gibberish. Its so childish, to degrade someone through PeeWee Herman level dialogue. Congratulations.
If your belief is that you have to be afraid of going to hell in order to be responsible, then you have some problems...
Who ever said anything about hell I didnt. You know you accuse me of ranting off topic, then proceed to discuss hell something I never mentioned. Since you asked, I am not doing anything to make reservations in hell so I dont concern myself with it.
Then if you're such a biblical scholar, why don't you "educate" me. I don't remember anything about that, and if it's as accurate as the rest of your biblical knowledge then I won't count on it.
Bible 101 I Corinthians 7:15, a seperation clause for difficult situations.
As far as empathy and ignorance, you and johnj are still wrapped up in your TWI brainwashing and are unable to see reality and understand other people. That's why both of you go off on delusional rants and talk at people rather than with them. Both of you have a "holier than thou" attitude and offer nothing but insults, lies, and strawman arguments that make no sense. You both think you're better than everyone else and that you know more than everyone else and that egotism is something I despise in people...
First of all you are in error, I never was a member of TWI. I do not think anything I said differed at all in tone than your statement to JohnJ, and the rants and insults and strawman arguements are coming at this moment from your pen, not mine. I mean I am better than someone else? Really? Well ok then I will take that as a compliment, you said it must be true.
You are free to believe what you wish, but you will always be wrong and I hope someone will always be there to contradict you, lest you be able to trick innocent people into hatred with your lies.
1) Thank you for agreeing with the constitution of the United States, that I am free to believe as I wish.
2) I certainly would think that that I will not always be wrong. That seems a tad excessive, even for anyone to say about anyone.
3) I did not know until today, that agreeing with sound Biblical principals made anyone think this way towards mwaaaa. I am now a 'trickster" trying to deceive innocent people. Whew, somebody really blew there top. Aparently according to you I now possess 'hatred" and am filled with "Lies" um errr, slow down there fella, I wasn't at all degrading your personal character like you just did to me.
Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You might as well be comparing the horses and the 839th digit of Pi. .
Please share with us all the different views on origins and creation that atheists want to pledge allegiance to, other than evolution. I am really interested in "the Giant Racoon Flatulence Theory" and other assorted myths to add to my collection of humor. You said they have absolutely no relation, PROOVE IT.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
16
29
Popular Days
Oct 27
29
Oct 21
28
Oct 26
23
Oct 23
20
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 15 posts
Belle 17 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Suda 29 posts
Popular Days
Oct 27 2007
29 posts
Oct 21 2007
28 posts
Oct 26 2007
23 posts
Oct 23 2007
20 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I came to Wayworld as an agnostic. I had spent some 20 years or so of my youth in either a Lutheran Church or the Methodist Reformed (now ask me if I could tell the difference) and was pretty much tir
Tom Strange
In reading through this thread I've seen the phrase "Christian values" thrown around a lot... and how, if someone is not Christian they could eventually lose those values through generations...
But the "values" that we call "Christian values" have been around since long before Christianity haven't they? So that kind of knocks that point off doesn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
So much to respond to and so little time in which to do so!
I'm really enjoying all the input and learning alot. Thanks for the links! They take quite a while to read through.
I'll be posting again soon I hope.
Thanks again for all the input.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
As you may know, I have a tendency to be verbose, so I am making a concerted effort to keep my responses here short and sweet, rather than so long no one has the inclination to read them. Hope I'm successful!
I thoroughly enjoyed the posts by johnj. They were very thought provoking and “put a name” to some things that had been stirring in my thinking.
I admit to knowing just a wee bit about other religions. I am aware of the “broad generalities” but, having never been motivated to study them in depth, am largely an “ignoramus” on them. I found the following statement very interesting.
We often hear of the similarities between the “major” religions and/or belief systems. I found this to be an interesting contrast.I also thoroughly enjoyed the information he and George Aar presented about the care of the elderly, needy, and ailing in Japan. In American, these groups can find aid from family, friends, civic organizations, faith-based organizations, and the government (there may be other venues I have not considered). Of course, the need seems to always exceed the supply, so their problems aren’t solved, just helped to one degree or another. In Japan, it would seem these same resources are available, with the exception of maybe the faith-based organizations. To paraphrase Wikipedia, Confucianism is a belief system of secular ethics and secular morality directed towards the cultivation of a “civilized individual” who will contribute to the establishment of a “civilized society”or country with the ultimate goal of world peace. Confucianism does not have a deity but I would imagine that many of the morals and values it promotes are not dissimilar to those promoted by other religions, including Christianity. As Tom Strange so aptly noted:
Indeed, Christianity does not have exclusive rights to morality and values. Similar values have been held by non Judeo-Christians throughout history. A great example is Aesop, a Grecian or African (up to debate which) who lived during the mid 6th century B.C.
From George’s accounts, the culture of Japan exceeds that of America in respect to its lack of slums and its overall cleanliness. And the society seems to do its best to serve the needy within it’s finite means. The Confucian morality and values of the Japanese people seem to contribute an equivalent of what the faith-based and civic organizations do in America.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I think atheism gives a poor answer in the area of morality, because it lacks two important things:
1. Standards. (As was said above) without God to give humans a benchmark, there are no unmovable standards because morals are human-made. You can make up your own. Nothing is right or wrong.
When I was in college the fashionable term was "values clarification." You should clarify your values, but nothing was right or wrong, only different. Humans can make up their own values (no standards) and change them at will. If standards are man-made, then you have no right to call another's choices wrong, even if they involve murder, stealing, incest, whatever. The result of this is that anyone can rationalize any behavior. And they do, whether dictator or skinhead.
Fortunately, atheists and a-moralists don't live consistently by this. Even people who consider there to be no right and wrong have favorite morals (a fashionable one these days is racism), at least when they're the victims of others' values.
2. Accountability. Without a God who pays attention, humans have very little accoutablity. Most of the things humans do to injure others are fully legal, and most crimes go unpunished. Moral religion says that God does hold people accountable even when society is unable or unwilling to do so. Atheism provides no ultimate accountability, tho it may provide some limited accoutability on the fashionable morals which evolve and change because nothing is really right or wrong, just different.
People need reasons to be "good" because being good is usually harder than being bad. Thieves find it's quicker to steal income someone else worked 6 months to get. Sudents find it's easier to steal answers (as the Newsweek article noted) than study. Many people think divorce or separation is easier than humility, admitting wrong and working through problems, etc.
There are two basic reasons to choose to do good even when it's harder: 1) reward ("if I'm nice to him, he'll be nice to me") and 2) penalty ("if I hit him he'll hit me back, and he's bigger than I am")
The weakness of atheism and a-moral thinking is that frequently humans aren't rewarded for doing good (The IRS doesn't reward you for paying taxes); and we are seldom punished for doing bad (eg the IRS seldom catches tax cheats). Little accountability and no firm standards.
What morals'based religion like Christianity does is to fill in the gaps. It provides complete stanards rather than make-up-your-own. For example, most of the 10 commandments prohibit things that are fully legal in America, because God wants to establish standards higher than human-made ones.
It also provides ultimate accountablity. God will reward and punish even when society can't or doesn't want to.
This is why Newsweek linked nonreligious students to a high rate of cheating. The students knew that accountabiluty was poor (teachers seldom catch them) and they lacked unmoving standards (their "values clarification" led them to "self-made" morals which allow cheating.) The religious students were linked to low rates of cheating because they personally accepted God's higher standards and believed they were accountable to him even when they weren't to other humans.
Suely there are hypocrites. But this doesn't mean that religion's standards and accountability are weak- it means people are weak or hypocritical. To criticize the standards because some people don't keep it is like criticizing American law against first degree murder because some people murder anyway. There will always be people who are or claim to be religious who don't live by God's standards and accountability, but that doesn't mean that they don't still provide a more reliable answer to morality than atheiism and a-moral thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Please Mr. J. straw is abundant, but it IS a finite resource, let's not waste it all in one post.
Never mind that with The Bible, the likelyhood that it IS all manmade seems extremely high, I'll let that go entirely.
But the idea that there are clearcut standards of conduct (that are somehow superior to "manmade" systems) is ludicrous.
With somewhere in the tens of THOUSANDS of denominations - all claiming The Bible as their only rule for faith and practice - it seems that somehow a whole lot of folks are having more than a little trouble coming to the "clear" conclusions you claim are there.
Also, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, no spirituality involved, would it be so hard to hammer out a pretty thorough system of rules of conduct by simply employing a little empathy? That, and knowing that whatever you do to another can come back to haunt you in kind, I think a few moderately intelligent god-rejectors could forge a fairly good set of guidelines before lunch. (Yes, I know this is basic "golden rule" stuff, but stuff that The Bible did not originate, and hardly has a monopoly on)
And as for THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, uh, gee are they REALLY all that impressive? I mean 4 of 'em deal simply with religious tenets, nothing necessary for civil interactions between PEOPLE. And the other 6? Jeeze, no killing, stealing, murdering, bearing false witness, and some coveting stuff. Is this all that profound? We couldnt figure this out without Divine intervention? Nevermind that the Hammurabi code had this stuff covered centuries before.
I Do follow some of The Lord's statutes, though. Like, I NEVER eat a goat that's been boiled in it's mother's milk...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I have probable posted this before, buuut.
It is Mr. Carlin's boiling down of the Ten Commandments. (As usual, he uses adult language.........)
HERE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I don't know whether you are being arrogant or ignorant. Either way, you are seriously far from the truth with your posts, this one is no exception.
If you study history, you would see that even in the most religious of societies, even past Christian societies, there were things occurring that many if not all of us would find immoral. You mentioned slavery, which is sanctioned by Christianity depending on what part of the bible you read. In the old testament, Jehovah supposedly told the Israelites to go murder innocent men, women, and children. Today it would be considered immoral to kill people that pose no threat to you, but back then there were supposedly commandments from god to kill every living thing in a city that the Israelites would go to war with. Doesn't this violate pretty much any interpretation of "thou shalt not kill?"
Additionally, most non-Christian religions have the same set of morals as Christianity. Most atheists also live by the same morals. There are core values that are inherent in humanity. Things like "thou shalt not kill" are just written versions of what every single person already knows.
Nonsense. Human nature includes empathy, and empathy is what prevents people from hurting others. This is a natural trait in human beings and many animals. Your dog doesn't need "jesus" in order to start crying when they hear another dog cry. It's a natural instinct. However, there are people who are either born with a mental illness that robs them of empathy or go through harsh experiences that cause their mind to become damaged and restrict their empathy.
Atheism provides GREATER accountability than Christianity does. As an atheist, I have no fall back, I am responsible for all of my actions and must face the consequences as a result. Also, since this is the only life I have, as well as the only life that the people I interact with have, it is more important for me to help others. For example, it is my duty to society to help those that are in need because if there is no heaven, they have to be helped immediately so they can be ok in this life.
This is a lie. Being good is the default, while being bad comes from ignorance, mental illness, or suffering. Thieves find it to be quicker to steal because they don't see a legitimate way to make money, and they often live in poverty or have a problem that causes them to steal. It is not natural for people just to steal and not feel guilt about it.
Many divorces of non-religious people happen because a woman is abused or treated badly. In a strict Christian household, the woman would continue putting up with the abuse because she is supposedly a subject to her husband and inferior somehow. Divorce rates are a symptom of bigger problems, and we should address those problems rather than focusing on the end result.
It's very offensive that you conflate atheism and amorality. It is a sign of your ignorance and lack of empathy for your fellow human beings. In your examples, you also show your lack of thought concerning other aspects of life. The IRS does reward you for paying taxes -- the money goes to build freeways, maintain national parks, maintain the military to defend us, etc. Just because you expect them to personally thank you doesn't mean that you don't benefit.
I think your analysis is nonsense, but since you didn't provide a link to the article the rest of us have nothing to base our opinions of it on.
So in your mind, we atheists have to ignore the fact that "sinners" don't live up to what you believe the standards are, despite the fact that according to the bible we are all guilty of "sin." So a translation of what you are saying is that we should ignore all the evil that the followers of Christianity have done because it supposedly doesn't reflect on Christianity itself, right? You don't want us to judge Christianity based on it's "fruit", yet you judge everything else based on even stricter criteria.
A big problem with your views is that you seem to believe atheism is a belief system. It is not. It is not amoral, it is not a lack of values. It is simply and only the fact that we don't believe in gods. You can't honestly extrapolate anything further out of that. Atheism is not the polar opposite of Christianity. Christians and Satanists are the polar opposites competing against each other (if real satanists even exist is debatable), where atheists are not even in the game you all are. Don't try to demonize us based on your own ignorance and prejudice because it's clear you don't know us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
In this you are in error. The stongs concordance mentions the word slavery twice (I believe, I am not going to go re-check) The relationship you are referring to is the Master-Servant relationship. perhaps you could recite some instances of an employer-employee relationship that existed at that time, replete with timecards and employer law, to prove your theory that this relationship was anything but that.
Of course war is always murder in atheists mind, but only when it comes to war in context with the you know who of the Old Testament. What about the Redcoats of England in the revolutionary war, or those from Mexico that attacked the Alamo. Or those Canadians who provided safe harbor for the redcoats. Certainly the atheistic movement must have some document calling for all out war on Mexico, Canada and England for the atheistic peace movement would certainly not let these scoundrels and their countrymen live in peace for what they did. (These wars happened in the last approx 200 some years and directly effected us. Where is the outrage and power outage of atheists over this stuff/) While your at it, where is the cat call for war against the sharks of the ocean for being monarchists and not good Democrats? I mean why didnt they nip at the Redcoats when they were sailing over?
Never of course do they mention the following:
1) That God did not attack the Amorites because their inquity was not yet full.
2) That Israel tried to make peace with Og and other Kings who were not in there land and where attacked.
3) That God used bees to chase some people out of the land.
4) that King Davids soldiers were as much Hittite and from other countries of the land as they were Judean.
5) That David's war's were rather evangelical in that he circumcised or converted his enemies to Israeli faith,
Where is the atheistic cat calls against the countries of Napolean, Alexander the Great, Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus and English monarchists who were expanding their Empires? Oh thats right Richard Dawkins is English whatever will they do? Of course never mentioned by atheists is that God never sanctioned any as in not one, expansion of the country of Israel beyone a strip of land 75 by 200 miles, unlike the ones listed above who had real estate and where plundering other countries You would think atheists everywhere would be so angry at every person who engaged in war, yet never one cat call against all ethnicities everywhere for doing what God never did. What gives? Murder only applies for atheists in war in buggery towards religion, otherwise its just another rainy day. Seriously, if athiests applied the same amount of reasoning power they do to the God of the Old Testament, they would proclaim Patton's order's and attack everyone everywhere and in all directions.
Utter non-sense. Jesus said there is nothing done in secret that shall not be shouted abroad and there would be judgement in the hereafter. This is without question greater accountability than atheism provides.
Again nonsense, and you do not know scripture. The Apostle Paul provides provision for seperation of husband and wife in such cases to have 'peace" with no guilt associated, it simply does not sanction divorce.
It is not difficult to do in some cases. Please note I used the word some. For example, when Greta the angry atheist goes into a diatribe against God, I must take note that she is a Lesbian and that perhaps her demeanor is more effected because of the Biblical view on homosexuality, then say her embracing of atheism. Same screw holds true for Richard Dawkins, who somewhat sanctions homosexual behavior in his comments. Thus, we Christians at times wonder if the cart isnt pulling the horse, rather than the way atheists explain themselves as the horse of evolution pulling the cart. I think for this reason it is unfair of you to say to him that he is ignorant and lacks empathy for this reason.
Here is Greta the Angry athiests link: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_ch...sts-and-an.html
And right from Greta's mouth why I think she is really angry: The following is a direct quote from Greta:
"I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified. "
I feel the same about your analysis too.
What is it about the science of evolution which is the dogmatic formula for atheism, that is sooooo must concern itself with Biblical values. Depending on the author it seems that 40 to 90 percent of the science concerns itself with brow beating people of faith. It would be akin to the science of going to the moon and rocket technology, insisting that automobiles everywhere get rid of piston technology and replace auto's with rockets to help space technology. If atheism has a "science" why the need to rip tear and gouge upon those of faith?
It is in fact a belief system. Athiests tenants are: Any type of thiesm is bad and the morality prinicipals established in the Bible in atheists view are not good and atheists will never follow them. The sceince of it, is nostagically poor. It's like watching a group of people who like to pout and spout off at God, and dang it all, you have the pseudo-science of evolution to prove it. Evolution, however is not without its virtues, after reading Richard Weikerts book (a historical masterpiece) I think it (evolution) has done a real nice job of getting God, Jesus and people off faith off the hook for the Holocaust.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The difference is that they act ethically and morally because that's what they want to do, not because they believe God wants them to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oakspear, no I dont think so, because that would mean they are believers
I am glad to hear that also Oakspear, now I really know that we dont have to worry about any more Jeffery Dahlmer feeding frenzines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Not any moreso than we have to worry about Catholic priests raping little boys.
Or folks like vee pee, craig, jal and benny hinn taking advantage of "the flock"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
yeah, ok Belle, perhaps you can refresh my mind (since we are talking about what the bible says) where the bible sanctions this activity? HINT: You will not find it in the talk about Sodom and Gommorah, a city God destroyed for homosexual rape.
Well when i first heard that all one had to do was "renew their tired mind" in order to sanction adultry, I kind of ran for cover from the Pee Wee Vee Pee's and Craig's of the world. Not that this was the only trouble, the MOGFAT was a little to dingy for my taste. Dont know who JAL is, dont care either. Are you picking on good old Benny? Well ok, he does have a tendency to "lay hands suddenly on everyone" but at times seems like a pretty good feller. I would have been more impressed if you had said Jim Baker, a guy I looked at before he fell over backwards, and said what gives with this guy?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Here are some interesting things I learned about atheism from the link provided by Oakspear in his post #33. I put them in quotes as I copied directly from the source. Highlighting and underlining is quoted as provided by the source. Any emphasis I have added is both highlighted and italicized.
Garth’s link in post #43 provided invaluable information on the thoughts of some atheists. Here is one I found particularly insightful.
In reading through the conversion stories, it seemed that many atheists rely on their study of logic, reason, philosophy, other religions, and science to formulate their "code of conduct" or determine the values, morals, and ethics they live in accordance with. Therefore, it is not surprising that they share similar values, morals, and ethics with people of religious faiths.An "ah ha, now I get it" moment for me was when I understood the following. To me as a Christian, God and the belief (including values, morals, and ethics) system of Christianity is an "all-in-one" package. By accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior and choosing to make him Lord of my Life, I accept the teachings of the Bible as my guidebook for living. I strive to live my life in the way that would please God and Jesus Christ. I fall short, but continue to strive.
An atheist rejects the existance of God or gods. However, most are of the opinion that in order to live in a civilized world, values, morals, and ethics are required. But instead of accepting a pre-set "code of conduct" from an external source, they consider a wide variety of "suggestions" from a wide variety of sources, and independently choose those that they feel are applicable and necessary. Most often, their choices reflect those of the "society at large" in which they live.
To a Christian, God-religion-morality are an all inclusive package. The atheist does not feel a need for a spiritual guide, and thus does not base his morality on a diety-proscribed system of beliefs.
It seems that trying to compare Christianity and Atheism can be a bit like comparing apples to oranges, because of the lack of a proscribed “code of conduct” for atheists. This lack leaves a lot open to speculation, and the “fear of the unknown” is what I think many Christians, including myself, had an emotional reaction to. Bolshevik’s quote below gives what many people fear. Given the Christian belief that the sinful nature of man needs a savior, those who reject the savior are often seen in the worst case scenario of :
But when I finally understood Oakspear’s posts below, it diffused that fear.
AndAt first I did not understand George Aars comment below. From my Christian perspective, the portion I highlight below seemed contradictory. After reading about atheism I could see where he was coming from. Big step for Suda!
Jim’s comment further clarified this for me.
Bramble’s post gives further insight:
I sorta look at it this way now. The "black and white" are the far points on the continuum, the boundaries. Individual choices make up the great expanse of grey area between those points. You can profess a religious faith and be moral, profess a religious faith and be immoral, profess no religious faith and be moral, or profess no religious faith and be immoral. Your "degree" of morality comes from your individual choices, decision by decision. Few people will be black "completely immoral" or white "completely moral". Most of us are grey.
Having spent 99% of my life living in the "Bible Belt" I have had limited exposure to atheists, and have developed friendships with only a dozen or so (which accounts for almost 100% of those with whom I am acquainted). All of them are good, moral people that I am pleased to have as friends. There's not a bad one in the lot. My role model for the "perfect manager" is an atheist. Since having the privilege of working under and with him, I have strived to emulate his human relations and communications skills (in my professional and private life), because, imo, he's simply the best there is.
I am glad to be shedding my fear of the unknown, and feel that I will no longer be surprised in the future in finding out that someone I admire is atheist. A life without God for me would be empty, directionless, and without hope. For them it is not. And we have both made the choices that are best for us individually. I can live peaceably with that.
Suda (hoping this post isn't too long!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Suda, that is a beautiful post!!
It's also extremely admirable that you took the time to look at information presented to you and to actually consider another's viewpoint.
Awesome, awesome synopsis!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I have an aunt and uncle who were atheists for a long time. They were so much fun.
then an angel visited my aunt, and they converted to christianity. Then they weren't so much fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Suda,
Kudos to you, girl!!
I just saved your latest post to my archive of memorable statements. You have gained a HUGE increase of intelligent understanding of atheism/atheists as depicted in real life.
Thank you! :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sky:
You cut my quote short...indistinguishible other than the worshipping God stuff was my point
- but you knew that, right?
Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist? I didn't know that. Can you provide me a link to where you got your info?
There are (at least) two discussions going on here. One is about whether atheists are any more or less likely than theists, specifically bible adherants, to be moral. In that discussion, whether or not the bible condones or encourages immorality is irrelevant, since we are talking about the behavior of those who claim certain standards of morality. The second discussion is about whether the bible in fact ascribes immoral acts to God. A good case can be made that it does, unless "morailty" is defined as "whatever the bible says that God says it is"
It seems like you are confusing the two discussions. For example, Belle's example of Catholic priests raping kids is part of the first discussion, P-Mosh's list of immoral acts in the bible is part of the second.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would call this a religion.
not that a god is involved, but it sounds very i dunno, not real. Some animals kill for fun. Yes, there's evidence for what you're saying, like when that wild lion raised a baby impala. But why do killer whales sometimes play catch with seal before killing it? There's no need. Maybe they're retarded? Lot's of male animals kill the young of their own species, because it ain't theirs. (and the chimp warfare I mentioned already)
And dogs are beta wolves. The genetic followers of the pack. Are alpha wolves as empathetic?
empathy is natural sure, but so is "hey, let's go kill something."
Atheism doesn't mean "no religion" yes? Is there another word for this?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That relationship was often slavery. The most obvious example I can think of is how Exodus 21 basically lays out the rules for slavery according to the bible.
Are you on drugs? Seriously, I never said anything that you're talking about, and you are contradicting yourself multiple times. First you say atheists are always against war and consider it murder, then you expect atheists to call people to war, then you talk about sharks. The only thing the sharks are doing is being jumped over by you.
Atheism has nothing to do with war. Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. What you're talking about doesn't have anything to do with anything else I was talking about so I won't respond to nonsense.
So you are saying that Numbers 31:17 is false? It's a verse that states, "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." Somehow I don't think that they "killed" them by evangelism. Did they use biblical humor and they said, "STOP! HAHAHA! THAT'S TOO FUNNY, YOU'RE KILLING ME!" Does that term originate from biblical times?
Again with your apparent halucinatory rants that don't make sense or fit in with what I wrote. I really don't know how to respond because what you're saying is just gibberish.
Only if you believe it to be true. However, if you can't be held accountable to yourself, then you have some major issues. Part of being an adult is being responsible for your own actions. If your belief is that you have to be afraid of going to hell in order to be responsible, then you have some problems.
Then if you're such a biblical scholar, why don't you "educate" me. I don't remember anything about that, and if it's as accurate as the rest of your biblical knowledge then I won't count on it.
I'm not sure what homosexuality has to do with anything here. If you watch the news lately, all the famous people turning out to be gay are the staunch Christian conservatives. The percentage of gay atheists is probably similar to the percentage of gay Christians. Also, as an atheist I don't say anything about evolution pulling any carts and have no idea what you're talking about.
As far as empathy and ignorance, you and johnj are still wrapped up in your TWI brainwashing and are unable to see reality and understand other people. That's why both of you go off on delusional rants and talk at people rather than with them. Both of you have a "holier than thou" attitude and offer nothing but insults, lies, and strawman arguments that make no sense. You both think you're better than everyone else and that you know more than everyone else and that egotism is something I despise in people.
Evolution and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You might as well be comparing the horses and the 839th digit of Pi. You don't know what you're talking about and don't make sense. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in gods. It's not science, evolution, or a conspiracy against you.
As far as being concerned with biblical values, only people like you who are always out to attack non-Christians get attacked back. If you come here acting like an @$$ people will act like one back to you. Read the comments prior to you and johnj's posts. Things were pretty calm and people were sharing ideas rather than crapping all over everything and stirring arguments.
Who are you to tell me what I believe? I've stated over and over what atheism is, yet you reject that and continue to build lies in order to tear people like me down. You are free to believe what you wish, but you will always be wrong and I hope someone will always be there to contradict you, lest you be able to trick innocent people into hatred with your lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I have effectively killed everyone in the Way International.
Except those that give birth to new things or rather let it happen.
Most of them hang out here at the cafe.
Some I've met other places, those who have not known man-the way-.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Suda, you have amazed me. Not only are you getting it, you're understanding it well and you are able to respect those of us that differ from you. Thanks for trying to understand even though you have come to a different conclusion in your life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
In TWI we were taught so often that those outside the True Household were spiritually suspect/possessed etc. Heck, even those in offshoots who believed nearly every point of doctrine with us were so off we couldn't fellowship with them. If we did happen to have contact with a gay person, or a Roman Catholic etc, we might witness to them, but if they didn't want our doctrine, they were out of our lives. Even family, often.
Even if we had only ever seen them do good, they would be spiritually dirty because they were not 'us.' In our minds we attributed evil to them, even if they had done none.
I suspect a similar doctrinal viewpoint of 'not us' might play into all the attributions of immorality etc laid at the athiest's door. Somehow or other, some religious can't seem to separate themselves out without declaring others as evil.
Yet if you live life getting to know a wide variety of people, not just the 'like us' ones, you find that there are good people in all walks of life. And those of us from the TWI daze probably have actual experience with the angry bullies who threw Bible verses at people to cut them down, not build them up, and know that a born again, speaks in tongues label might not mean a good guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
you snipped my quote, I snipped yours, figured you wouldnt mind.
Yeah, Dahlmer was an atheist, it is in his only interview he gave on MSNBC, if you look for it you might find it aired sometime.
With respect to your last paragraph, I shall try to keep my commentary limited to the "alleged" immoral conduct recitations. Thank you and
Regards
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
The text calls it master-servant relationship, and there are also Levitical rules and other regs that govern it. Obviously, you did not respond to the employer-emloyee relationship, because the word slavery more fits the neccesary diatribe. That's real convient for you isnt it, to add words of slavery which denote the abuses that took place around a 150 years ago in our country, and slap this word on you know who. Then, in the end you call me a deciever and a liar. How bout fessing up and admiting that you slandered the Bible by using an inapprobriate term?
Nope not on drugs, which is a tad over the edge I might add. The "contradiction" is not mine. It is a contraction when atheists make you know who a look like a war monger, but never say a disarming word about scores of nations that have had conquest laden wars, unlike the God of the Old Test.
the quote of evangelism was about David not Moses so quit confusing the issue. Also , I looked up the passage, which was said by Moses not God. Futhermore, you fail to understand the scriptures at all. The Israelis were woefully unable to follow the commandments of God, so God gave them a divorce concept for the hardness of there hearts. With respect to the woman in conquered lands, real reasonable to infer the same thing. (Which you would never do however because you have a point to make) Furthermore, what should Israel have done with these virgins, packaged them off to Eygpt in some make shift deal? Perhaps you have a better alternative?
These are the predictable things that you people always say. When confronted with logic and reasoning and you feel cornered, just degrade the author by calling them "on drugs" halucinatory and gibberish. Its so childish, to degrade someone through PeeWee Herman level dialogue. Congratulations.
Who ever said anything about hell I didnt. You know you accuse me of ranting off topic, then proceed to discuss hell something I never mentioned. Since you asked, I am not doing anything to make reservations in hell so I dont concern myself with it.
Bible 101 I Corinthians 7:15, a seperation clause for difficult situations.
First of all you are in error, I never was a member of TWI. I do not think anything I said differed at all in tone than your statement to JohnJ, and the rants and insults and strawman arguements are coming at this moment from your pen, not mine. I mean I am better than someone else? Really? Well ok then I will take that as a compliment, you said it must be true.
1) Thank you for agreeing with the constitution of the United States, that I am free to believe as I wish.
2) I certainly would think that that I will not always be wrong. That seems a tad excessive, even for anyone to say about anyone.
3) I did not know until today, that agreeing with sound Biblical principals made anyone think this way towards mwaaaa. I am now a 'trickster" trying to deceive innocent people. Whew, somebody really blew there top. Aparently according to you I now possess 'hatred" and am filled with "Lies" um errr, slow down there fella, I wasn't at all degrading your personal character like you just did to me.
Please share with us all the different views on origins and creation that atheists want to pledge allegiance to, other than evolution. I am really interested in "the Giant Racoon Flatulence Theory" and other assorted myths to add to my collection of humor. You said they have absolutely no relation, PROOVE IT.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.