Atheism in Christian societies - DPChallenge Forums

12/17/2007 02:06:02 AM · #601

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I highly doubt atheists do not wish to change the world to their viewpoint. That's human nature and your creed is just as guilty. Maybe your poster child could be Phillip Pullman or Richard Dawkins.

Just as guilty? When did Pullman or Dawkins try to set laws governing people's actions, culture, proper sexual behavior, etc? Perhaps even athiests with high personal standards of morality don't feel the need to change the world to their viewpoint, but merely resist having someone else's mandated for them. ;-)

Methinks you are looking through rose colored glasses. While I easily admit the Christian Right infuses politics, I'm quite sure atheists are there as well. Maybe they aren't as organized, that's likely because there is not flag to rally to, but they are moving as well.

Take Stalin. While he didn't operate "in the name of atheism", he certainly took Marx's idea that religion was a crutch and opiate to heart and wiped out organized religion as best he could. I would at least submit that as an example of someone not "merely resisting having someone else's (viewpoint) mandated for them."

I'm not impuning atheism with any more ambition and evil than religion. My argument is it is human nature that is to blame. The creed is merely the tool.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 02:06:45.

12/17/2007 10:05:36 AM · #602

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But unless atheists have no morality (something I've argued, but you guys don't seem to accept...

Because it's a false argument. Demonstrate how atheists have no morality. Be sure to carefully define morality first.

What has been argued here time and again, and which you don't seem to accept, is that morality is not the pervue of the religious. Thinking that only those who believe in gods have a claim to moral behaviour merely shows outrageous hubris.

12/17/2007 10:28:32 AM · #603

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Take Stalin. While he didn't operate "in the name of atheism", he certainly took Marx's idea that religion was a crutch and opiate to heart and wiped out organized religion as best he could. I would at least submit that as an example of someone not "merely resisting having someone else's (viewpoint) mandated for them."

Stalin was looking out for his dictatorship only, and wiped out organized ANYTHING that might threaten his power. It had nothing to do with Atheism itself. People historically exert power over other people with I'm-better-than-you arrogance: either by divine right (kings, pharaohs and religious organizations) or military might. Atheism doesn't feature a "chosen" group that's better than any other, and I don't think there's a single example of anyone trying to dictate others on the basis of lack of belief in a god (except in favor of another god).

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 10:29:01.

12/17/2007 12:10:38 PM · #604

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But unless atheists have no morality (something I've argued, but you guys don't seem to accept...

Because it's a false argument. Demonstrate how atheists have no morality. Be sure to carefully define morality first.

What has been argued here time and again, and which you don't seem to accept, is that morality is not the pervue of the religious. Thinking that only those who believe in gods have a claim to moral behaviour merely shows outrageous hubris.

yes, sorry Louis, that was very poorly worded. What I've argued before is that an atheist cannot claim any moral authority when faced with a moral code that disagrees with their own. I have no doubt atheists follow some code. There are very few truly amoral people in the world and those are likely mentally ill.

12/17/2007 12:20:41 PM · #605

Originally posted by scalvert:

Potentially true, but you'll have to provide some evidence for that. At least you'll have to provide some evidence that Stalin did not buy into Karl Marx's distate for organized religion:

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

EDIT: That quote came from Marx in The Communist Manifesto.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 12:30:21.

12/17/2007 01:05:28 PM · #606

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...all major world religions, with the exception of Christianity tie good works into your salvation.

James 2:17-26... "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

So much for not tying good works into your salvation. You might also note in there a parent killing his child because God said so... exactly the same situation I mentioned earlier that you labeled a snide remark. If Abraham were put on trial for murdering his son in 2007, I wonder how you might handle that as a juror?

1. Faith plus works = salvation
1a. Faith (acceptance of Christ as savior = must for salvation)
2. Works without faith = no salvation
3. Faith with no works = no salvation
4. This was intended to address those that felt once they accepted Christ as messiah/savior, that then they could "sin" without care, which was not the intent. The intent was to receive forgiveness for all sins, BUT then you actually try to adhere to the teachings. Realizing that you will fall short - every day - your "heart" is what will be judged. As your actions, stem from your heart, thus works are a part of your salvation, not required for it.
5. Abraham did not kill/murder his son. You have referenced it a couple of times. It is not a direct analogy. Abraham's obedience to that of today's child killer. It was intended to show the "price" required, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, the scarifice of Jesus and ultimately his resurection, as illustrated in Abraham's son raising from the alter.

12/17/2007 01:14:22 PM · #607

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What I've argued before is that an atheist cannot claim any moral authority when faced with a moral code that disagrees with their own.

If I understand this correctly (and I'm not sure I do), I disagree with it. I suppose it depends on your definition of "moral authority". But faced with the moral code of, say, Christianity, I believe I can claim moral authority easily, in pointing out the many lapses, atrocities, and so on committed in the name of religion, as trite a clichÃ© as that may be, and I can claim they are all committed as a result of believing in God. I understand that you can easily turn this around and use what is known as "the Hitler and Stalin clichÃ©" to argue the reverse. I wonder about the usefulness of arguing moral authority in that case.

12/17/2007 01:21:16 PM · #608

Originally posted by scalvert:

Without exception, the most devout believers I know are also the most miserable and desperate in their respective situations.

I wonder what you mean by "devout believers" here? I think you may mean "devout followers" and more specifically devout followers of a particular doctrine. Personal accountability was and is a requirement to Christ's message. Solely relying on help (aka prayer), with no personal action to help yourself, is a mis-understanding. Exemplified in nearly every hospital where some "believers" intentionaly refuse treatments based upon their doctrine, grounded in a literal interpretation of a verse(s). "To those who are given much; much will be expected". If you are a devout believer, then you would recognize the assistance that prayer can provide, but not without responsible action on your part. You can pray every night, but if you somke 3 packs a day, drink 1-2 fifths a day, have unprotected sex 7 days a week with multiple paretners, then you are going to have some problems. Prayer alone is not enough. Believeing and doing are intertwined. 1st you must believe. Then, you must do.

12/17/2007 01:28:24 PM · #609

Originally posted by Flash:

5. Abraham did not kill/murder his son. You have referenced it a couple of times. It is not a direct analogy. Abraham's obedience to that of today's child killer. It was intended to show the "price" required, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, the scarifice of Jesus and ultimately his resurection, as illustrated in Abraham's son raising from the alter.

Shall we give attempted murderers a nice pat on the back for a job well done if their intended victim isn't actually killed? As long as God told them to try, it's OK. You've referenced intent many times. How exactly can you know what an author (or deity) intended 2000 years ago?

12/17/2007 01:42:15 PM · #610

Originally posted by scalvert:

Shall we give attempted murderers a nice pat on the back for a job well done if their intended victim isn't actually killed? As long as God told them to try, it's OK.

You can parse it anyway you want. Shall we begin by defining "murder" and then move on to what constitutes a "victim"?

[quote=scalvert] You've referenced intent many times. How exactly can you know what an author (or deity) intended 2000 years ago?[/qoute]

1. you read the message.
2. you compare the message within context.
3. you affirm the context/message is consistent.

12/17/2007 02:11:13 PM · #611

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Shall we give attempted murderers a nice pat on the back for a job well done if their intended victim isn't actually killed? As long as God told them to try, it's OK.

You can parse it anyway you want. Shall we begin by defining "murder" and then move on to what constitutes a "victim"?

Sure. Sacrificing your son on an altar = murder (attempted murder, in this case). The person being sacrificed = victim.

Originally posted by Flash:

3. you affirm the context/message is consistent.

...with want you want it to say.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

12/17/2007 02:17:41 PM · #612

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Shall we give attempted murderers a nice pat on the back for a job well done if their intended victim isn't actually killed? As long as God told them to try, it's OK.

You can parse it anyway you want. Shall we begin by defining "murder" and then move on to what constitutes a "victim"?

Sure. Sacrificing your son on an altar = murder (attempted murder, in this case). The person being sacrificed = victim.

You define murder with the an example; is this the entire spectrum of the definition? Is this the only definition of a victim?

You have a tendency to mix and match to suit your snideness. So before you start this, I will require definitive definitions. Without those definitions, you are wasting my time.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

12/17/2007 02:23:25 PM · #613

Originally posted by Flash:

Prayer alone is not enough. Believeing and doing are intertwined. 1st you must believe. Then, you must do.

The old man got on his knees and prayed "Please, God, let me win the lottery."

The next day, he again prayed "Please, God, let me win the lottery!"

And again the next day, it was an even more fervent "PLEASE, God, let me win the lottery!"

Finally after six days of this, the voice of God thundered forth from the heavens: "Alright already! But you gotta help me out -- at least buy a ticket."

12/17/2007 02:34:14 PM · #614

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What I've argued before is that an atheist cannot claim any moral authority when faced with a moral code that disagrees with their own.

If I understand this correctly (and I'm not sure I do), I disagree with it. I suppose it depends on your definition of "moral authority". But faced with the moral code of, say, Christianity, I believe I can claim moral authority easily, in pointing out the many lapses, atrocities, and so on committed in the name of religion, as trite a clichÃ© as that may be, and I can claim they are all committed as a result of believing in God. I understand that you can easily turn this around and use what is known as "the Hitler and Stalin clichÃ©" to argue the reverse. I wonder about the usefulness of arguing moral authority in that case.

It's a matter of the logical outcome of each worldview. Theism allows for the logical possibility of a moral pole, ie. all morality is defined by the supreme being; he is the absolute authority of morality and all activity can be judged compared to him. Materialism (and atheism) does not logically allow for a moral pole. While it certainly can be true that materialists have moral codes, there is no reference standard to judge the fitness of the code. The result, like I said earlier, is that one atheist can not claim a more fit moral code than another. If one atheist's code allows for female circumcision, another atheist cannot claim authority to say that such an action is "wrong" or "less fit". They can merely say they disagree with it.

EDIT: I add that this is pretty far from what I wrote (an atheist has no morality) and I'm fairly embarassed that my internal editor did not catch it when I wrote it, I am going back to change it to reflect what I meant.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 14:36:31.

12/17/2007 02:42:01 PM · #615

Originally posted by Flash:

You have a tendency to mix and match to suit your snideness. So before you start this, I will require definitive definitions. Without those definitions, you are wasting my time.

AHAHAHA! Pot>Kettle>Very Black. When I stated earlier that the most devout believers I know lead the most miserable lives, the first thing you questioned was "belief," and I've seen enough of your posts to know that any definition of belief would somehow fall short of your ideal. What if I said Murder with a capital M to separate that definition from plain old ordinary murder? Tell ya what... you give me any plausible definition that makes Abraham's attempt to kill his son NOT [attempted] murder that wouldn't equally apply to a parent in 2007 claiming God told them to kill their child.

12/17/2007 02:49:40 PM · #616

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

all morality is defined by the supreme being; he is the absolute authority of morality and all activity can be judged compared to him.

Probably not a good idea, or I could tell my son not to touch a camera that I place in his room, and then when his sister comes along later and touches it on the advice of a talking stuffed animal that I also placed in the room, I could then damn their great great grandchildren to death based on a precedent of flawless morality. Hypothetically speaking, of course. I wonder how far you'd get explaining your current understanding of morality in AD 1000 Europe, 17th century Salem or 19th century Alabama... even though the standard supposedly hasn't changed.

Message edited by author 2007-12-17 14:56:15.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/17/2007 02:51:27 PM · #617

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem with that though, is that men then define what that 'supreme being' is defining the 'moral pole' to be. So in actual fact, there's no real difference.

Unless of course you believe that the supreme being previously defined itself and that code, which is the leap of faith.

12/17/2007 02:54:37 PM · #618

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What I've argued before is that an atheist cannot claim any moral authority when faced with a moral code that disagrees with their own.

If I understand this correctly (and I'm not sure I do), I disagree with it. I suppose it depends on your definition of "moral authority". But faced with the moral code of, say, Christianity, I believe I can claim moral authority easily, in pointing out the many lapses, atrocities, and so on committed in the name of religion, as trite a clichÃ© as that may be, and I can claim they are all committed as a result of believing in God. I understand that you can easily turn this around and use what is known as "the Hitler and Stalin clichÃ©" to argue the reverse. I wonder about the usefulness of arguing moral authority in that case.

It's a matter of the logical outcome of each worldview. Theism allows for the logical possibility of a moral pole, ie. all morality is defined by the supreme being; he is the absolute authority of morality and all activity can be judged compared to him. Materialism (and atheism) does not logically allow for a moral pole. While it certainly can be true that materialists have moral codes, there is no reference standard to judge the fitness of the code. The result, like I said earlier, is that one atheist can not claim a more fit moral code than another. If one atheist's code allows for female circumcision, another atheist cannot claim authority to say that such an action is "wrong" or "less fit". They can merely say they disagree with it.

I'm not so sure it's fair to equate materialism with atheism, first of all. It would be more accurate to describe most atheists as humanists, not simple materialists. There are plenty of intellectuals who are atheists.

I fail to see how it can be logically argued that humanists have no moral guide, when humanity invents morality. Morality is always defined by people. It's never defined by any god. If this were not the case, humanity would have had exactly one moral code from time immemorial. Only people, for example, could come up with a morality that allows for the sacrifice of weeping children on the altar of TlÃ¡loc, or that so narrowly defines acceptable sexual behaviour that certain long-term couples in a love-relationship must be denied access to the afterlife because of their genitalia. Or, to use the reverse analogy, only people could come up with a morality so heinous as to allow the persecution to the death of those who wish to practice a certain religion (read: Romans, crusading Christians). There is a real "flavour of the day" aspect to morality, irrespective of one's religious affiliation.

In your example, two atheists fight over the morality of female circumcision, neither winning, because no god has decreed the rightness or wrongness of the act in either case. This is exactly the case with religious factions; you only replace "no god" with "competing gods," or "competing dogma," or "competing intrepretation of doctrine," or what have you.

The "best" kind of morality is that which at the end of the day simply follows the golden rule, and rejects and seeks to alleviate suffering of all kind. If this code were universally applied, and we abolished gods interceding in human affairs and demanding child sacrifices (TlÃ¡loc, Abraham), or demanding that a patch of dirt be soaked with the blood of those who have an "ancestral right" to it, or demanding the death or displacement of millions of heretics, the world starts making a little more sense.

12/17/2007 03:05:34 PM · #619

Yes, we've been down this road many times. Leaving aside the application of such a moral code (and certainly Shannon can understand that a code can stay the same while various people over time can misinterpret it) it remains a possibility under theism that such a code exists the same as the gravity or probably more accurately mathematics.

Interpretation and application is certainly fraught with problems given human nature. I'm merely arguing the theoretical possibility exists in theism and does not exist in materialism.

You'll have to explain a little more to me Louis about materialists and atheists. I would assume that a materialist is required to be an atheist and vice versa.

12/17/2007 03:05:41 PM · #620

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
You have a tendency to mix and match to suit your snideness. So before you start this, I will require definitive definitions. Without those definitions, you are wasting my time.

AHAHAHA! Pot>Kettle>Very Black. When I stated earlier that the most devout believers I know lead the most miserable lives, the first thing you questioned was "belief," and I've seen enough of your posts to know that any definition of belief would somehow fall short of your ideal.

You stated the term "devout believers" when I think you really "followers"? Do you deny that is what you really meant? My clarification for accuracy was wrong?

Originally posted by scalvert:

What if I said Murder with a capital M to separate that definition from plain old ordinary murder?

Is a woman guilty of murder once a month, since she loses an egg? Is a man that "leaves his seed on the ground", guilty of murder? At what point does the sperm and egg result in a "victim", when aborted? You want to use a single example of "a man sacrificing his son" when the truth is that it was Abraham and his son representing God and Jesus for the purpose of illustration and teaching within the sacrificial context of the Israelites. Abraham/Isaac/death survived = God/Jesus/resurection. If you want to continue to use illustrations from the Old Testament, then it might be helpful to understand the feasts of Judiasm. I might suggest you look at the work of Joseph Good, who can present a keen insight into intrepreting the practices and customs of the Old Testament to teach and show the future evidence of the coming messiah.

Back to murder...define either "M" or "m", but at least be definitive.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

12/17/2007 03:10:02 PM · #621

I'm trying to avoid this thread but it's like a soap opera...

What the heck is a materialist? I make quilts... does that count?

12/17/2007 03:13:56 PM · #622

Originally posted by Louis:

[ Only people, for example, could come up with a morality that ... so narrowly defines acceptable sexual behaviour that certain long-term couples in a love-relationship must be denied access to the afterlife because of their genitalia.

Over and over and over, you bring up this same point. WHO, says that homosexuals don't go to heaven or can't be saved? Who!? Christ didn't say that. Christianity doesn't say that. Some christians do, but not Christ or christianity. Please get it straight. We ALL sin. Most of us every day. It is not the sin that keeps you from "heaven"/salvation. It is the absence of Christ's forgiveness. That forgiveness that can only be granted if one asks for it.

Period!!!!!

Ask and ye shall receive.

12/17/2007 03:13:57 PM · #623

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You'll have to explain a little more to me Louis about materialists and atheists. I would assume that a materialist is required to be an atheist and vice versa.

My understanding of materialism is that it's an outlook which rejects not just the supernatural or spiritual, but also the intellectual. So no intellectual pursuits for pure materialists. Atheists can't be blanketed with that accusation. ;-)

If moral codes are always subject to interpretation, and therefore always change, and the majority of followers holding any particular moral code define both the interpretation and the change, is that not irrefutable evidence that human beings are responsible for morality of every stripe, and nothing else? Never mind the sheer volume of moral interpretations.

12/17/2007 03:17:26 PM · #624

Originally posted by Flash:

Okey dokey. I hereby formally and with all due consideration rewrite that sentence to now read: "Only people, for example, could come up with a morality that so narrowly defines acceptable sexual behaviour that certain long-term couples in a love-relationship must be accused of 'sinning' or immoral behaviour because of their genitalia."