Why are you atheists so angry?

And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago

Why would you assume that, given there are significantly older extant texts?

The bible for one – 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God’s love for man.

If you were truely a scientist I doubt that you would accept testimony, written or otherwise, from people 1500 years remote from the events that they report. That’s before we even get to the number of languages that they have been translated through. It may be your idea of good evidence but it certainly isn’t mine.

To make that up would be impossible

No it’s not. Continuing to write about a topic so that you can maintain your power over a populous seems like a very sensible and practial thing to do if maintining the status quo is your ultimate aim. Again I would have thought that a scientist would only use the word “impossible” for things that are actually forbiden by the laws of nature.

its an evolutionary benefit to co-operate

Accepting that’s a justifiable hypothesis, that still doesn’t give you a ‘morality’ as such. For example, while it might offer a rationale for restoring the sick to full health and thereby their ability to contribute, it still wouldn’t justify expending finite resources keeping alive the weak and feeble, or terminally ill. Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?

It is through my belief in Jesus that I also have belief in God.

See, this is the bit I just don’t ‘get’.

I am more than happy to accept that a bloke called Jesus did exist. That there may be a god or many god’s, and if you choose to believe in him/her/it then I have respect for that and possibly even envy the ability to hold a belief that strongly.

But what I don’t get is the link between a bloke in a book Jesus and god. And how evidence for one existing leads to the belief in the other which in turn leads back to the belief in the first.

Essentially it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. b exists because a say’s so and a must be correct because b say’s a is the truth.

EDIT: sorry, ‘bloke in a book’ is not ment to be offensive. but reading it back I can see how it could be

It’s very probable that the appearance of emmaculate conception was simply a mistranslation from “young woman”. Either that or Jesus actually was the son of a woman and a god. I will let you decide which is the most probable explanation.

And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago
Why would you assume that, given there are significantly older extant texts?

Well first off it might be worth repeating the next part of the sentence-

“And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago, and based on edits and translations of various text”

And in answer to the question “Why would I assume this? Because I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek. I have met people who are fluent in English though. So as assumptions go it seems a reasonable starting point.

ditch_jockey – Member

I think the point he’s trying to make is that you have no objective basis for that moral code – it’s a social construct. It’s one of the problems with Kant’s de-ontological approach to ethics that it doesn’t stand robust scrutiny in a culture which favours pluralism

Can you elabortate?

(although it does suggest a clue as to why you are frequently so convinced your right).

Sorry TJ, but that is quite funny!! Your own categorical imperative!!

What a moral code is not is a set of rules handed down from a God. Indeed its the other way round – the religious took the existing moral code and took it for their own

TJ – where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?

that still doesn’t give you a ‘morality’ as such. For example, while it might offer a rationale for restoring the sick to full health and thereby their ability to contribute, it still wouldn’t justify expending finite resources keeping alive the weak and feeble, or terminally ill. Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?

So you are saying only a “morality” borne out of a belief in an invisible friend is the one “true” morality? all others are simply a means to an end.
I would argue that it is only your “morality” that apparently offers the kingdon of heaven as its “reward”. In reality this is the most selfish of “morality” imaginable.

Indeed a moral code is a social construct – its an evolutionary benefit to co operate.

What a moral code is not is a set of rules handed down from a God. Indeed its the other way round – the religious took the existing moral code and took it for their own

So, how do you propose that a consensus of such moral codes can be arrived at within a primitive society such as those which first formed the basis of Religion as we know it today? How, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, do you think it wooduv bin possible to ‘enforce’ such moral codes on a society, without the framework of a cohesive guiding institution such as religion?

And if you took away Religion, what institution would you entrust the ‘management’ of moral codes of conduct to? The police? A political party? A group of persons elected by their peers to perform such a task? Who?

Or should it just be a free for all; do what you as an individual think is ‘right’?

TJ – where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?

It’s a bloody good question you know. And I’d be interested in seeing an attempt at an answer actually.

Great discussion this one, tbh. And with less of the nastiness you usually get on threads of this nature…

To make that up would be impossible.

You’re happy to believe that it’s possible for a bloke to actually be the son of god, walk on water, heal the sick, etc… and yet it’s not possible to write a book?

It is through my belief in Jesus that I also have belief in God.

Isn’t that a little tenuous? I can see how the reverse would be true, that you believe in God and so by extension you believe in Jesus. But believing in something as huge as “god” as a concept because of some fables in a book about a bloke who, for all we know these days, could simply have been a consummate precursor to David Blaine, I find that logic harder to follow.

I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek.

How do we know they’ve been translated correctly?

Not read all this but how do god botherers choose which bit of the bible they will practice? Pretty sure there is a bit about killing men who shave. Surely it all should be adhered to. I’m all for love thy fellow man but when god wants people killed count me out.

TJ – where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?

if we’re talking Christians, they haven’t taken their morals from the bible; which condones rape, infanticide, and ownership of slaves, among many other unpleasant things.

there are plenty of good moral lessons in the bible, there are also lots of nasty ones.

yer average Christian listens to the nice bits, and ignores the bad bits, which is great, but how do they decide which is which?

Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?

No I wouldn’t. And yet I am not religious.
Turns out atheists can have morals too.

Or has your God forced his morals onto me?
What about free will?

FRed – religions subvert and adopt existing moral codes.

I would also like to see some evidence of the existance of moral superiority among the religious – I don’t see it. I see intolerance and bigotry all around from Religion – its not a force for good.

Child abuse in the Christian churches – systematic, covered up and longstanding. The religious justification for wars. The teachings on Condoms that have caused many deaths, the suicide bombers of the middle east, the treatment of the Palestinians, the caste system of India.

TJ – where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?

Evolutionary pressures and enlightened self interest.

Was there no moral code before the Christian religion?

Christ was just another jewish prophet after all – and the morals of the old and new testaments are rather different.

An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Can you elaborate?

Aye kind of (at the risk of massive oversimplification) – Kantian moral philosphy argues that the morality of an act is intrinsic within the act itself, rather than being defined by either the consequences of the act, or the intentions of the person who acts. From there Kant argues that there are underlying universal principles that govern morality – ultimately morality should be the same the world over, for everyone.

Kant’s philosophy (of which this is only a part) changed the rules of the game in terms of the way we try to understand the world, but his theories about universal moral principles have been pretty thoroughly critiqued, in part because there’s an implicit imperialism about them. For instance, Alistair McIntyre’s book “Whose Justice, Which Rationality” explores some of the problems raised by Kant’s theories on the way to formulating his own proposals.

I think the point he’s trying to make is that you have no objective basis for that moral code – it’s a social construct. It’s one of the problems with Kant’s de-ontological approach to ethics that it doesn’t stand robust scrutiny in a culture which favours pluralism

One of the other problems I have with Kant is that he seems to pluck the notion that human beings have some intrinsic value out of thin air – in common with a lot of secular philosophy, which seems to take it as read that human beings matter in some way. As far as I can see, if scientific determinism is indeed correct, then human beings have no intrinsic value whatsoever

I think you would agree that humans at least have the intrinsic value to survive (as an individual) and to do so as simply as possible, as this would ensure survival for the longest period.

This basic value is explains a ‘moral code’ as such that it allows people to live side by side with the least amount of conflict. While allowing people to full-fill their wants and needs.

There’s are balancing act in play between this wants/needs fulfilment and acting in a way that brings the least conflict.

As soon as this balance gets tipped in either way you see a break down in the morality of humans.

So the morals are not the intrinsic value and this is the key to understanding morals without religion.

Just like to point out at this juncture that I am following this interesting and reasonably good natured thread in the bath, in the nuddy. If anyone makes unpleasant comments, I can ridicule them by using my willy as a puppet…

No I wouldn’t. And yet I am not religious.

That’s commendable, but you’ve not bothered to indicate the objective basis for your moral choice – which was the point I was trying to make.

No one is trying to argue that secular ethics don’t exist – we’re trying to explore the objective, scientific basis for them.

Morality differs between the old and new testaments.

Eye for an Eye.

Turn the other cheek.

So, how do you propose that a consensus of such moral codes can be arrived at within a primitive society such as those which first formed the basis of Religion as we know it today?

It’s about survival, see my post above.

How, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, do you think it wooduv bin possible to ‘enforce’ such moral codes on a society, without the framework of a cohesive guiding institution such as religion?

Why do they need to be enforced. Suggesting they do is to suggest they are not to the benefit of the majority. As if they were why would you not follow them?

To make that up would be impossible

Tell L Ron Hubbard that.

Turn the other cheek.

i believe that’s aimed at crikey.

I can ridicule them by using my willy as a puppet…

Euugh.. You’ll go to Hell….ensburgh.

That’s commendable, but you’ve not bothered to indicate the objective basis for your moral choice – which was the point I was trying to make.

Okay: I’d rather someone didn’t do that to me or someone I love, so I don’t want to be the person doing it to someone else.

humans at least have the intrinsic value to survive

I’d not argue that humans have an impulse to survive, but that’s not the same as “phil.w has intrinsic value”.

As an attempt to clarify my point – I undertake informal education with young people. If we leave aside the arguments about the existence, or otherwise, of God, my own motivation for doing this comes from my convictions that the young people I work with are created ‘in the image of God’, which, as a consequence, imbues them with a certain intrinsic value, irrespective of their ability to contribute to the wider good.

The question I was asking – with a genuine interest in the reply – was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.

I’d rather someone didn’t do that to me or someone I love, so I don’t want to be the person doing it to someone else.

I think that leads us to the ‘karma’ reason for actions that have compunction and acting ‘morally’ to avoid this reversal of situation.

As silly as karma really is, it’s still a valid reason as to why we can have morals without religion.

i think people have potential value rather than intrinsic value.

if we’re talking Christians, they haven’t taken their morals from the bible; which condones rape, infanticide, and ownership of slaves, among many other unpleasant things.

I get the impression that people sometimes confuse descriptive passages with normative – but that does still leave some difficult passages to tackle.

As to how we choose which bits are which – there’s a generally accepted principle about interpreting the Old Testament in the context of the New. Somewhere in the loft, I have a folder from my OT classes which has notes relating to some of this, although our lecturer (who was fluent in Hebrew, koine and classical Greek, Aramaic and several other long-dead languages most people wouldn’t even know about) still struggled with some of the more brutal passages in the historical books of the OT.

Unfortunately, many people’s understanding of how Christians engage with the Bible is filtered through the lens of American fundamentalism’s obsession with inerrancy, which is fortunately much less widespread in this country.

i think people have potential value

Okay – but you still need to provide me with an objective basis for that value, potential or otherwise?

you still need to provide me with an objective basis for that value, potential or otherwise?

Can I perhaps answer that by turning it around? Ie,

my own motivation for doing this comes from my convictions that the young people I work with are created ‘in the image of God’, which, as a consequence, imbues them with a certain intrinsic value

… so without god, human life would have no value to you?

TJ – where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from? Evolutionary pressures and enlightened self interest.

Ok – but there must be some starting point or source?

do I? 😆

that wasn’t part of the plan, i’m just coming to terms with being a nihilist.

The question I was asking – with a genuine interest in the reply – was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.

Coming from a largly secular humanist viewpoint I think on the whole humans are imbued with certain intrinsic values. My basis for this would be that we have evolved as a social species, and to survive successfully as a social group we need certain innate qualities hard-wired. Of course the degree of this ‘hard-wiring’ varies from person to person and can be overridden by personal circumstances. I have no problem with the concept of these being provided by zero one of more gods with the proviso that it would be nice for people who do propose these concepts to try and examine them fairly. So for instance deciding that these qualities have come from a specific god, because that is the god your society prefers and denying that it’s possible that these could have come from another less familiar god seems a little odd, though perfectly understandable.

what cougar said. 😉

I pretended my willy was an angry Elf; purple with rage….

I’m out now.

interesting:

are morals hard wired?

The question I was asking – with a genuine interest in the reply – was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.

Personally, no – I don’t believe people have any “intrinsic value”, at least not in a universal sense. The world exists because it exists, not as some kind of plaything for an all-powerful being. That’s not to say that volunteering or leading a life of petty crime don’t have a positive or negative effect on your value to society, though. Morality, such as it is, is a natural consequence of living in society.

Ok – but there must be some starting point or source?

Why? It evolved as consciousness appeared and the tribes grew and prospered. Tribes that co operated were more successful – people that co operated were more successful.

I think that leads us to the ‘karma’ reason for actions that have compunction and acting ‘morally’ to avoid this reversal of situation.

Yep, or “reap as you sow”, “live by the sword; die by the sword”, “do unto others” and so forth.

Truth is that social pack animals develop a variety of techniques to avoid constant conflict and stress; it’s just that human techniques are slightly more advanced as we have a greater understanding of the consequences to our actions.

I’d not argue that humans have an impulse to survive, but that’s not the same as “phil.w has intrinsic value”.

The question I was asking – with a genuine interest in the reply – was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.

Ahh, I see. I was explaining where morals without religion can come from / why they can exist.

I’ve not been asked before if I think humans have an intrinsic value, so I don’t have a very detailed answer. On a simple level, no, I can see no reason why they are of any more ‘worth’ than other animals. Especially nothing to the level of the value you would place on them as being created in the image of god.

I guess we have some link through being the same species for whatever that is worth (if anything)?