| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2007 09:33:38 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why do so many "believers" equate atheism with amorality? |
Not offering an answer for the Dr., just trying to address the question. The reason that "many" believers equate atheism with amorality is due (in my opinion) to the coincidence that some atheists also live a more "Coligulus" lifestyle. I have suspected that some sexually liberal citizens choose an atheist believe to avoid confrontation with the "moral" code associated with "christ like" behaviour. Certainly you could counter with many examples of "christians" behaving immorally and I would agree it is a bit of hipocracy. That though, does not change the answer as to why "many" may equate atheism with amorality or even immorality.
edited to add...even immorality |
So, perhaps it's a case of using the extremes to define the center?
It also answers the question why there's a perception that equates people of faith with the religious nutcases out there. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:35:31 AM · #277 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
I can tell you plan on meeting him one day. ;)
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:37:08 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:42:39 AM · #279 |
I am certainly no scholar, however I was under the impression that the New Testament replaced the Old Testament as it applied to requirements of followers. I have believed that the teachings/practices of the jews was in preparation for the coming of the Mesiah, and that actually the Old testament was fullfilled with the birth of Jesus the Christ.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 09:52:17 AM · #280 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:09:20 AM · #281 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I am certainly no scholar, however I was under the impression that the New Testament replaced the Old Testament as it applied to requirements of followers. I have believed that the teachings/practices of the jews was in preparation for the coming of the Mesiah, and that actually the Old testament was fullfilled with the birth of Jesus the Christ. |
Some people believe that. It is an *interpretation* of the Bible. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:14:57 AM · #282 |
I seem to recall Christ himself being quoted as saying that he fulfilled the "old law", however I will have to verify.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:20:34 AM · #283 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Not offering an answer for the Dr., just trying to address the question. The reason that "many" believers equate atheism with amorality is due (in my opinion) to the coincidence that some atheists also live a more "Coligulus" lifestyle. |
Where's your evidence for that? This is as patently offensive as if I were to tell you that the reason you believe in god is because you're too stupid to do otherwise. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:24:55 AM · #284 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I will assume you find no value whatsoever in the pledge, perhaps in part because you aren't even from the country whose pledge it is, and that your issue is not the manner in which it is presented but the fact that it is presented at all.
Maybe you and GeneralE can share a room. |
I frankly couldn't care less if you recited the Oscar Meyer song every morning. But to compare learning mathematical tables by rote alongside chanting a nationalist hymn by requirement of the state, and to say the exact same thing is going on in the mind of the kid, is beyond absurd. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:28:30 AM · #285 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
... show me one scrap a papyrus in Jesus' own writing and I might be more impressed (after I learn Aramaic, that is) than with who knows how many (mis-)translations and copying errors the version you subscribe to has experienced. |
I present for your consideration that generally the writings of Homer, Plato, and Josephus (plus many many others) are translations. Yet we do not typically here criticism about the errors inherent in their works. Likewise, one can take multiple Bibles (as I have done), each translated by different scholars, and each read with amazing similiarity. These examples for me; are enough evidence that current translations are "reasonably" accurate. Certainly accurate enough for my needs.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:35:24 AM · #286 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Not offering an answer for the Dr., just trying to address the question. The reason that "many" believers equate atheism with amorality is due (in my opinion) to the coincidence that some atheists also live a more "Coligulus" lifestyle. |
Where's your evidence for that? This is as patently offensive as if I were to tell you that the reason you believe in god is because you're too stupid to do otherwise. |
Are you claiming that no atheists lives an immoral/Coligulus lifestyle? If not, then how can you equate "my opinion" on why "many" believers feel a certain way to me bing too stupid to not believe in god.
Again I believe this is an example of your presumptions.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:42:32 AM · #287 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
The Old testament doesn't offer up ANYTHING as "Christian law"; it predates Christianity.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 10:48:24 AM · #288 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you claiming that no atheists lives an immoral/Coligulus lifestyle? |
Who said that? Why do you make such sweeping generalizations? That's not at all what I said, any more than you are claiming that there are no lecherous, perverted god-believers (remember Jimmy Swaggart?).
My problem comes in your delivery, which is yet another generalization, where you said: "Many believers equate atheism with amorality [think all atheists are amoral] because, in my opinion, some atheists think they are Caligula." Despite the fact that you offer this up as an opinion, it is outrageous generalizing. You have no evidence that people who choose a hedonistic lifestyle also choose atheism. Even if this nonsensical conclusion were true, you have no evidence that they do this in order to avoid thinking about the consequences of believing in god at the same time as practicing hedonism. As if the choice to be atheist is some autonomic response, devoid of meaning, and really just a way to say "I don't believe in god because I really do believe in god, but it's more convenient for me not to right now."
It might make sense to tell you why, in fact, people are atheist. People don't believe in god because for those people, it makes no sense to believe in it. For those people, it's a fairy story. It's nonsense. The universe makes absolutely no sense with a semitic paternal superhero at the helm, or any other sky-god, or a many-armed blue guy, or whatever the flavour of the day is. Atheism is a rejection of a fallacy, not an escape from responsibility. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:02:06 AM · #289 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Are you claiming that no atheists lives an immoral/Coligulus lifestyle? |
Who said that? Why do you make such sweeping generalizations? |
If I were to go to Key West or San Francisco, or a host of other locations where more sexually liberal citizens live, and I were to poll them on on how many were christians or atheists which do you think the higher number would be? Likewise, if I were to go to the bible belt and ask the same quaetions, what would the numbers be.
If I were to ask you, your religious beliefs and your partner preferences, what would your answer be. If I were to research the posts in Rant that dealt with homosexuality and those dealing with atheism, do you think I would find the same posters sideing in with each other? The answer is Yes I would and that is my evidence.
And, so that you do not PRESUME too much, do not pretend you know my personal position on sexually liberal citizens, because I promise you, that you do not.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:16:02 AM · #290 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
Before you agree to live under Mosaic Law, please address the following:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies only to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know I'm not allowed contact with a woman during her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I tried asking, but got biffed across the chops for my trouble.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. The odour annoys the hell out of them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that although eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, he feels it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but can I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:16:03 AM · #291 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
The Old testament doesn't offer up ANYTHING as "Christian law"; it predates Christianity.
R. |
Nonsense. Scholarly debates aside, it is still referenced with equal weight as the New Testament in countless 'christian' churches today. To that end, it is used as a source of religious law. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:17:33 AM · #292 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
Before you agree to live under Mosaic Law, please address the following:
|
That is Levitical law, still argued and followed by a subset of Orthodox Jews. What does it have to do with the code of Hammurabi? |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:21:40 AM · #293 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I will assume you find no value whatsoever in the pledge, perhaps in part because you aren't even from the country whose pledge it is, and that your issue is not the manner in which it is presented but the fact that it is presented at all.
Maybe you and GeneralE can share a room. |
I frankly couldn't care less if you recited the Oscar Meyer song every morning. But to compare learning mathematical tables by rote alongside chanting a nationalist hymn by requirement of the state, and to say the exact same thing is going on in the mind of the kid, is beyond absurd. |
Well, I disagree. Trying to keep the fabric of society together is on equal footing with the more mechanical aspects of education. Given that US society is pretty much all about consumerism, I see value and no harm in at least giving a perfunctory nod to teaching children what the ideals of their country are and beating that message into them each morning after the first bell rings for 12 years straight.
After which they can go about hating it. Or move to another country. Or join the millitary and fight for those ideals (yeah I know this is a big joke, their all fools fighting under false pretenses). Freedom is a lovely thing.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:29:41 AM · #294 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If I were to go to Key West or San Francisco....[etc] The answer is Yes I would and that is my evidence. |
Then you would be guilty of an egregious error. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:32:54 AM · #295 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
I think there have been studies shown that religion skew peoples moral barometer rather than helping.
How can you get morals when - âThe God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.â |
Let me think for .037 seconds and formulate a response:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
Before you agree to live under Mosaic Law, please address the following:
|
That is Levitical law, still argued and followed by a subset of Orthodox Jews. What does it have to do with the code of Hammurabi? |
So what? It's in the Bible as law, direct from God. Where is it written that people are allowed to pick and choose which of God's laws they follow?
As for the "eye for an eye"/Code of Hammurabi being in the bible, look here Ex 21:23â25, Lv 24:18â20, Dt 19:21
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 11:37:45. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:35:08 AM · #296 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The old testament contains the 10 commandments, a morals-for-dummy list of do's and don'ts featuring such hits as 'thou shalt not kill', 'don't be jealous', etc. |
It also contains the code of Hammurabi (i.e. eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth). It's in direct conflict with Jesus' teaching to "turn the other cheek" and the "golden rule" to "do unto others". |
What? The old testament from the Bible doesn't offer up Babylonian law as 'christian' law, not that I can remember. If you provide chapter/verse I'd be happy to concede the point but I don't think this is accurate. |
Before you agree to live under Mosaic Law, please address the following:
|
That is Levitical law, still argued and followed by a subset of Orthodox Jews. What does it have to do with the code of Hammurabi? [/quote]
So what? It's in the Bible as law, direct from God. Where is it written that people are allowed to pick and choose which of God's laws they follow? [/quote]
Sorry, just thought you might answer my question and stick to your original comment rather than going off on a tangent.
edit: fuck this stupid quoting system, impossible to edit a post down to a reasonable size and still maintain the quote lines.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 11:35:33. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:41:52 AM · #297 |
Ex 21:23â25, Lv 24:18â20, Dt 19:21
Law of Hammurabi (eye for an eye) in the Bible.
Message edited by author 2007-12-05 11:42:56. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 11:58:15 AM · #298 |
I'm not sure why my quote above got us off onto this rabbit trail. I never equated atheism with amorality (perhaps someone else did).
I'm a little amused that some atheists are "patently offended" in a rant thread. How do you think all the Christian's feel for being accused of "indoctrinating" their children and subscribing to a belief system that has been nothing but a scourge of evil to the human race?
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. I think this is the root of any belief that atheism is amoral. I'm not arguing for or against, I'm just explaining why I think this belief can arise. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:16:30 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm not sure why my quote above got us off onto this rabbit trail. I never equated atheism with amorality (perhaps someone else did). |
You asked why atheists are so "anti-believer" and I asked the opposite question, why "believers" are so anti-atheist. |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 12:19:35 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If I were to go to Key West or San Francisco....[etc] The answer is Yes I would and that is my evidence. |
Then you would be guilty of an egregious error. |
Precisely why "many" christians are wrong when they equate atheism with amoralality/immorality.
|
|
