Your Views On Morality, 'worldliness' And What's Right And Wrong After Deconverting?

[WonderPat]

Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias (my favorite Apologist, in fact) once brought up the scenario of a Christian having a public debate with an Atheist about right and wrong. Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong. It was all a matter of conditioning and survival. The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

 

So, how do all of you define right and wrong? Since the concept of 'sin' is out the window, how do you differentiate between what you should do and what you shouldn't? Naturally, things like premarital sex, homosexuality, getting drunk sometimes, occasional lying, gambling, swearing, dirty jokes, playing senselessly violent video games and being 'mean' when its warranted are probably okay in your minds (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not meaning to sound haughty). But, I'm sure most of you still feel uncomfortable with murder, rape, child exploitation, stealing, cheating on your partner, and just generally being malicious towards someone who isn't doing you any harm (if any of you are comfortable with these things, remind me not to give you any of my personal information ). So yeah, I'm just curious to hear about how everyone here deals with the morality issue, and how they view the 'evils' in the world, or if anyone believes that 'evil' can even exist outside of the possibility of their being a God.

 

Okay, talk away.

[Ouroboros]

Gosh... not again...

 

There are several approaches to get to this topic, first of all, even if atheism couldn't define morality, Christianity wouldn't be much better.

 

Morality and ethics has been debated and explained 1,000 ways, and back, since Socrates. It's not the Christians who invented "right and wrong." It existed before Christians, and even before Judaism. There are many problems with Christianity and Judaism to define morality. The 613 laws in the Old Testament contains laws about how you're supposed to drag your unruly son, outside the wall of the city, and stone him (no, not get him stoned on drugs, but throw rocks!) Is that morality?

 

Secondly, morality is fluid and does change with society and culture. Even Christianity has changed its view on many things. Slavery is one of them, but there are other areas. So Christianity does not offer a fixed morality.

 

Thirdly, morality is a set of different understandings of the world, social interaction, rights, and much more, and it is complex. I have no time to explain it all. Even self-preservation and self-pleasures play into peoples reasoning for "good" behavior.

 

Lastly, there is a center in the brain (in the pleasure center, not far from the sexual pleasures) which lights up when you give to someone else. So altruism is also a biological induced phenomenon, besides the rational arguments for what is correct in the view of personal/human rights.

 

I suggest you take some philosophy classes, and psychology, to study the basics for what the rest of the world (outside fantasy-land) know about morality.

 

I let other discuss this, and I'll join in later or a few days. It just gets boring to go over this again, and again, and again...

 

Okay, read up on the trolley dilemma, and tell me what the Bible or Jesus tells you to do.

 

---edit---

 

Btw, which theory do you subscribe to?

 

Divine Command, Natural Law, or Revealed/Innate Morality?

[Neon Genesis]

Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias (my favorite Apologist, in fact) once brought up the scenario of a Christian having a public debate with an Atheist about right and wrong. Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong. It was all a matter of conditioning and survival. The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

Last I checked, wasn't it King Solomon who said this was perfectly ok to do and the bible thought this man was the wisest man on Earth?

 

But, I'm sure most of you still feel uncomfortable with murder, rape, child exploitation, stealing, cheating on your partner, and just generally being malicious towards someone who isn't doing you any harm (if any of you are comfortable with these things, remind me not to give you any of my personal information ). So yeah, I'm just curious to hear about how everyone here deals with the morality issue, and how they view the 'evils' in the world, or if anyone believes that 'evil' can even exist outside of the possibility of their being a God.

 

Okay, talk away.

I follow my main philosophy in life

An it harm none do what ye will.

I love you Wiccan Rede. Basically, I treat others the way I want to be treated. I wouldn't want someone to kill me, so I don't kill others. I wouldn't want others to steal from me, so I don't steal from them. I wouldn't want somebody to rape me, so I don't rape others. Humans are sociable creatures that depend on each other to survive and all of these acts only produce hatred, malice, and distrust from others that cause more harm than good. I think ahead as to how my actions affect others and if my actions cause harm to others rather than good, than it's only common sense to love your neighbor as yourself and not do something that hurts others. Christianity didn't invent the golden rule, so it doesn't have a monopoly on morality and people have been moral before Christianity came along. To me asking why you shouldn't hurt others is like asking why you shouldn't jump off a cliff. It's common sense that you don't do things that hurt because you don't want to be hurt and you do things that are good because it makes you feel good.

[Kuroikaze]

Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias (my favorite Apologist, in fact) once brought up the scenario of a Christian having a public debate with an Atheist about right and wrong. Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong. It was all a matter of conditioning and survival. The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is my problem with Apologists. Ravi, didn't have a discussion with an actual atheist he just put words in some fictitious version of an atheist. I think there are much better ways of understanding morality than relying on religion.

So, how do all of you define right and wrong? Since the concept of 'sin' is out the window, how do you differentiate between what you should do and what you shouldn't? Naturally, things like premarital sex, homosexuality, getting drunk sometimes, occasional lying, gambling, swearing, dirty jokes, playing senselessly violent video games and being 'mean' when its warranted are probably okay in your minds (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not meaning to sound haughty). But, I'm sure most of you still feel uncomfortable with murder, rape, child exploitation, stealing, cheating on your partner, and just generally being malicious towards someone who isn't doing you any harm (if any of you are comfortable with these things, remind me not to give you any of my personal information ). So yeah, I'm just curious to hear about how everyone here deals with the morality issue, and how they view the 'evils' in the world, or if anyone believes that 'evil' can even exist outside of the possibility of their being a God.

 

It really depends on what you mean by evil. Ethics is a much more complex issue once god is no longer part of the equation.

 

First, I think the basis of moral behavior is found in the way humans evolved. We are a social animal, all social animals have a form of moral code. Any group must have moral standards or they will not be able to remain a group, and humans lack the ability to survive well outside of a group. So I would define morality, loosely, as a code of conduct that allows us function as a group with out self destructing.

 

So to understand if a particular action is moral or not, one needs to ascertain the results of the action, and then decide if the results are desired or not.

Morality can, therefore, evolve, because

 

1. the results we desire may change.

2. we may find that an action brings results we did not anticipate.

 

Generally, I think people should be allowed to do as they please, so long as it is not harming anyone. When someone harms another with their actions, the law intervenes to stop such behavior because it is not conducive to a stable society.

Of course I admit I cannot produce a standard with the force of "god says so," but a study of ancient cultures will show you that "god says so" isn't always very effective anyway.

 

I think that, perhaps, if people actually understood real moral philosophy instead of "god says so" people might actually behave more morally.

 

Edit: Some might ask at this point. What is to say that one desired result is good, and another bad? The answer is, of course, that bad behavior will cause a break down in the society or cause people to be unhappy...thus we know it is bad.

[WonderPat]

I can't 100% remember exactly what Ravi said. I'm pretty sure that he was telling a story of something that actually happened; an actual encounter between a Christian and an atheist. I know that he wasn't the Christian in the story, it was someone he must have known.

 

Ravi isn't one to just make things up. I think he and William Lane Craig are the most honest and respectable Christian apologists out there right now. I just have a fuzzy memory, is all.

[Spiderwire]

Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias (my favorite Apologist, in fact) once brought up the scenario of a Christian having a public debate with an Atheist about right and wrong. Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong. It was all a matter of conditioning and survival. The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

 

Well, that's nothing more than a scenario, isn't it? It's not true and it didn't happen. To say that since someone doesn't believe in Bible God they have no clear cut way to define what exactly is right and wrong is to make huge assumptions about everything from the time the scenario occurred to world cultures. It's clear that what was "right" and "wrong" 2,000 years or 200 years or 20 years ago is subjective - especially considering where one made their home. To state that an atheist would fumble with the question of slicing a baby in half being wrong is simply ludicrous. By the way, didn't King Solomon get off on entertaining thoughts of shit like that?

 

Naturally, things like premarital sex, homosexuality, getting drunk sometimes, occasional lying, gambling, swearing, dirty jokes, playing senselessly violent video games and being 'mean' when its warranted are probably okay in your minds (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not meaning to sound haughty).

 

Well, ya do sound haughty. In the US, teen pregnancy and STDs are at their highest in the Bible Belt. (Check it out if you don't believe me.) The divorce rate among conservative Christians are significantly higher than other faiths (again, check it out if you don't believe me) and these are the folks who hammer on everyone about the "sanctity" of marriage. Are you insinuating that Christians don't get drunk, lie, gamble, swear, tell dirty jokes, play senselessly violent video games, and act "mean"? Apparently, Christians have the market cornered on the knowledge of good and evil and yet they choose what they consider evil as frequently as they choose what they consider good. According to your book, your God reserves his harshest judgment for his church. It seems to me that asking us what we feel is right or wrong is pointless in light of the fact that Christians have the "truth", they disregard it with the greatest of ease, and if anyone is gonna get their ass kicked, your book says its gonna be Christians that are first up to bat.

[pitchu]

Ravi isn't one to just make things up.

 

 

Heaven forbid! The "good" apologists never just make things up. Not like the mediocre or bad apologists do. Right?

 

Tell me, WP, to rephrase a question of yours, "How do you differentiate between someone who makes things up and someone who doesn't, if god doesn't reveal it directly to you?"

 

I assume you use your best judgment. I assume this because I assume that god rarely directly communicates to you on the hundreds of minor but meaningful choices and decisions you make every day. I also assume there's no ready biblical reference to which you turn for making such quick decisions as holding the elevator door for someone rushing toward it, or for putting the three pennies of your change in the penny container on the counter, or for throwing away litter someone else just dropped on the sidewalk, or... well, the list is endless. You make a judgment, don't you, based on your fundamental character, the exigencies of the moment, whether you're in a euphoric or depressed state of mind, etc.

 

You may assume that using one's best judgment is pretty much at the root of ethical decisions made by most of us infidels.

[godlessgrrl]

Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias (my favorite Apologist, in fact) once brought up the scenario of a Christian having a public debate with an Atheist about right and wrong. Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong. It was all a matter of conditioning and survival. The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

 

You got an actual source for this story? Because until you do, it's just an urban legend - full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.

 

Let's see the conversation. None of this "somebody once said" stuff.

 

So, how do all of you define right and wrong?

 

The same way the religious do: experimentation, social conditioning, guesswork, and so on. We just don't claim the xian god is part of the equation. Oh yeah. And empathy. That's a big one.

 

We don't generally need the xian god to remind us that other humans share the same feelings we do. I take it as self-evident, myself. I also have the sense to realize that treating others decently is in my own self-interest. But that's just me.

 

Since the concept of 'sin' is out the window, how do you differentiate between what you should do and what you shouldn't?

 

I pay attention to things like how much damage a given action will do, to whom or to what and in what way, and what the overall circumstances are. In a nutshell, anyway.

 

Naturally, things like premarital sex, homosexuality, getting drunk sometimes, occasional lying, gambling, swearing, dirty jokes, playing senselessly violent video games and being 'mean' when its warranted are probably okay in your minds (correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm not meaning to sound haughty).

 

Interesting to see the list of what things you think are included as "okay" in the moral inventory of non-xians.

 

I could be a total pain in the ass and flip the question around by asking if you find genocide, offering your daughters up to be gang-raped, incest, slavery, or murdering rebellious children "okay".

 

You think your sacred text doesn't condone murder, rape, theft, or exploitation? Think again.

 

I'm not going to ask if you find any of those things "okay" or not, though, because I have the sense to realize that it really depends. It depends on the interpretation of the individual xian, whether or not such things are "okay" - in other words, you weigh your values through human agencies, just like everyone else.

 

But, I'm sure most of you still feel uncomfortable with murder, rape, child exploitation, stealing, cheating on your partner, and just generally being malicious towards someone who isn't doing you any harm.

 

I certainly feel less comfortable with all of those things than Yahweh apparently did, back in the day.

 

So yeah, I'm just curious to hear about how everyone here deals with the morality issue, and how they view the 'evils' in the world, or if anyone believes that 'evil' can even exist outside of the possibility of their being a God.

 

I suppose if one has a concept of god, that might include a connected standard for "evil", if said god is supposed to concern itself with such things.

 

But I am liable to think that ideas like "god" and "evil" are largely human inventions. "Because god says so" is what people come up with when they can't figure out that human empathy is enough.

[Jedah]

This is taken from: http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=331

 

I highly suggest that anyone interested in the whole objective vs subjective morality deal read this:

 

==============================================================

 

Here is an interesting thing to ponder when questioning whether or not religious people who believe in an absolute being that dictates right from wrong have a better grasp on ethics then those who do not believe...

 

The entire premise that to be ethical requires an absolute being rests on the idea that the answer to the euthyphro dilemma is that it is "right because God says so". This makes God an objective being- meaning that all he says is 100% truth and reality. If God were to say leprechauns exist, they would. In comparison, we are subjective beings. Reality is not bended to our will. If we believe that we see a leprechaun during an acid trip, it does not mean that leprechauns exist. It just means they exist in our mind. Our thoughts and opinions on reality are subjective and thus open to question.

 

To put it in simpler terms, think of God ( Objective ) as a game programmer and us ( Subjective ) as characters in his game ( Reality ). The programmer dictates reality and we have no choice but to go with it.

 

The thing about being a subjective being is that pretty much everything we experiance or think is subjective. For all we know, everything we hear, breath, touch, and know is an illusion via a system similar to "the matrix". We can "know" things for 99.9999 % but we can never reach 100%. Every piece of knowledge we come accross must first be comprehended by our subjective minds. Which explains why we humans have different opinions on what things mean - different ideals mean different things to two different subjective minds that have experienced reality through other perspectives. Ironically, this is why we even have different religions in the first place.

 

Now lets take it up a notch and look at the relationship between a subjective being and an objective being. If one of us was to talk to God and God was to tell us the meaning of life, would he then have objective knowledge regarding life's purpose ? Actually, he wouldn't. In order to understand the objective knowledge that is being transferred, the subjective being in question would go through a number of subjective walls.

 

First: acknowledge that they are talking to an objective being ( God ) - Subjective. How does the person know they are talking to God and not their own hallucination ? Even if He really was talking to God, it doesn't change the fact that his understanding of the situation is still subjective.

 

Second: Acknowledge and comprehend the wisdom that has been given to you by the objective being. Wake up ! You just got told the meaning of life. So now what do you do ? Simple, the first thing the subjective being would do is attempt to figure out what he has been told actually means to him. whether this is done subconsciously or consciously doesn't matter, if the subjective being has any hope of remembering what he has been told, he goes through this step.

 

This creates a problem: No matter what, a subjective being cannot gain access to objective wisdom even if it is told directly to you by the almighty one himself, because Just by comprehending what it is you have been told through a subjective mind, the objective wisdom you have gained becomes subjective to your own understanding and thus becomes subjective in the process. Its the same as pouring water into orange juice, no matter how much water is poured in their will still be some orange juice inside. its that barrier between 99.999999999999999% and 100% that we as subjective beings, by definition cannot ever cross.

 

 

In other words, even if an absolute objective being exists that dictates the reality behind ethics...as far as we are concerned and as far as we can comprehend, it doesn't matter. As subjective being's we will always find ourselves turning to our own reason at one time or another, because thats what we ultimately understand. Even if God were to give us Objective knowledge of morality we would still only be able to comprehend that objective knowledge through a subjective mind. Our ethical standards would still be subjective.

 

If God was to tell us that murder is in fact, morally good, how many of us would honestly just flat out stop thinking about what we feel is right or wrong and go kill everyone we know and love ? Except for the few extremely brainwashed individuals, most of us would try to protect our families from the inevitable onslaught to come. Personally, I would give God the finger. But thats just me.

 

In conclusion: absolute "Universal Laws" dictating what is right and wrong are as far as we're concerned, nonexistent.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

=================================================================

 

 

 

 

The point is that we essentially get our morals from the same place: our own understanding. To say that atheists have no morals because they have no objective source to base them on is ridiculous - and even if it did make sense it would mean that christians don't have any morals either.

 

If anything, atheists seem to have a better grasp on morality then fundies do since atheists know that their code of ethics is based on their own understanding...christians on the other hand will often attempt to follow suit with a moral standard they do not understand ( and may not even agree with ) which leads to a lot of cognitive dissonance. Homosexuality is a good example of this: most xians have absolutely no clue why its "bad to be gay" but promote it as wrong anyways because its in the bible. The situation is actually quite ironic when you think about it because by attempting to follow morals that they do not understand they think themselves to be morally superior since "its what God wants !" when the reality is that following a code you don't attempt to understand is nothing more or less then amoral.

[.god]

The situation is actually quite ironic when you think about it because by attempting to follow morals that they do not understand they think themselves to be morally superior since "its what God wants !" when the reality is that following a code you don't attempt to understand is nothing more or less then amoral.

 

So true, so true. well said!

[mwc]

The Christian asked the Atheist if, say someone took a fresh and beautiful young baby and mercilessly sliced it in half, would that qualify as something 'wrong?' The Atheist had to concede that though he would strongly dislike what had been done, he would not be able to say that it was a 'wrong' act.

You mean how the ultra-wise King Solomon wanted to do to an innocent baby in order to reveal who the baby thief was? Because we all know a women so distraught over the death of her own baby that she took someone else's would simply say "Fuck it. Ain't my baby."

 

Can you show me in the bible where it says "Don't hack up babies?" Because the OT god sure has his warriors cut open the bellies of women to make sure enemy babies can't come a'callin' later on in their (never to be) lives.

 

This is the same guy that is still overlording today, is it not? If so, then your moral ground is extremely poor and I'd be looking for another place to stand. Because, as is so popular in the xian community, the moral law was not abolished. If so, then if it's moral to snuff babies in those situations then your "black and white" world has suddenly turned gray. Some situations you can kill babies. Some you cannot. "God" will let you know and we're all aware how chatty he is these days.

 

So you have nothing more than atheists. I take that back. You have apologists that put fanciful thoughts in your head so you think you have a much more solid foundation through absolutism than you really do. I hope nothing comes along and reveals to you that you've truly built your house upon the sand. That's a harsh reality.

 

But I will answer your question. What makes you think that it wasn't wrong to kill that baby? No details were given. But maybe that baby was a carrier to some horrible disease and by killing you saved thousands or millions of lives? This is a hypothetical situation so we can make it up as we go, right? So then it is the right thing to kill the baby. What if the baby had a horrible illness and was in extreme pain and would live hours puking up blood and fluids and this was a "mercy" kill? Perhaps, then, it was right to kill the baby. Perhaps this was a time traveler and this was the baby Hitler (I doubt he always had that mustache)? There are lots of ways to turn this story to make it both good and bad. The fact is that the average atheist doesn't want to snatch babies and kill them (no matter how tasty they are...and they are tasty...damn tasty). But this example as given means nothing. A judgment call is being made with no information. Anyone should concede that they dislike it (even killing baby Hitler is unpleasant because it's a baby) but there simply isn't enough information to say much more.

 

mwc

[Spiderwire]

The fact is that the average atheist doesn't want to snatch babies and kill them (no matter how tasty they are...and they are tasty...damn tasty).

 

I literally laughed out loud when I read that. That's a magnificent sense of humor in action right there.

 

Great post, too.

[chefranden]

Pat,

 

Christians are good at talking about having the moral code. However, if you challenge a Christian to write it out for you will find that he can't do it.

 

You will be pointed to the 10 commandments, but strictly speaking Christians only keep 2. These 2 happen to be the ones that all people find that moral people will obey. Don't steal. Don't murder. The rest are either not kept or not enforced.

 

If you read the old Testament thoroughly you will find that God's primary concern in law keeping is to keep the sabbath. Keeping the sabbath is not going to Church, it is doing no work on that day. If you did work on the sabbath you were to be killed or driven out. Even if you argue that the sabbath is now Sunday instead of Saturday most Christians don't keep it, because they do work on that day. Whether you go to your job or you pick up sticks from the front lawn, or cook a meal, you have broken the Sabbath.

 

Even though Christians still frown on adultery they don't enforce the law. The biblical penalty for adultery is death. If you fail to honor your father and mother the penalty is also death. Graven images are forbidden, but I bet you have plenty of them. Christians soften this command by saying it means no idols, which it does but the intent is to have no graven images so that no own will be tempted to worship them. If you have a GI Joe, or if your mom has a cute ceramic squirrel on the end table you break this law. Your church may even have a statue of Jesus about somewhere. Penalty death.

 

Do you really think that the Jews had no morals before Moses went up on the mountain? If they didn't how could they live together?

 

Does God give you the law because the law is good, or is the law good because God gives it?

 

This is an important question because the answer determines God's behavior. If the law is good of itself then God must obey it too. It is clear that God does not keep the law, therefore the second choice must be the case. Adultery is a property law. A married woman is her husband's property just like his cows and his slaves. Adultery is a special case of theft. Mary was betrothed to Joesph. That made her Joesph's property even though they were not yet having sex themselves. By impregnating Mary, God committed adultery. Another example is that God has committed and commanded murder.

 

Therefore the law must be arbitrary and not fixed. That means you are just as up in the air about the law as any atheist. If God Commands adultery then adultery will be good. When God command's murder then murder is good. When God commands you to kill your children then killing your children is good. But your heart will tell you that these things are not good. And your heart will be right.

 

That's how an atheist tells what is right and wrong as well.

[Neon Genesis]

I don't understand why Christians think because they like an apologist that means they must be good. I thought Christian apologists existed to convince US to become Christians, not the people who already were Christians? Shouldn't we have a say in the matter, then? And if Ravi is so "honest", why are his apologetics full of lies and distorted facts about atheism? http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/22/mail...ered-visage.htm It should also be pointed out that just because someone doesn't believe in the bible doesn't mean they can't find value in its scriptures. Even though I don't believe in god and I find many of the scriptures in the bible to contain immoral teachings, I still find value in the positive teachings of Jesus, like loving your neighbor as yourself and turning the other cheek. But I don't see these teachings as "turn or burn" commandments like the majority of Christians do. Rather I see these teachings as universal ideals for humanity to strive for, not because they're the words of a divine god, but because these teachings are applicable to all cultures because all civilized cultures realize the importance of loving others because of common sense, not because of god. If we love each other as ourselves, wouldn't it stand to reason that the moral values that are truly moral would then logically follow? Again, this has nothing to do with the word of god and has everything to do with common sense. I also think Jesus is just one of many moral teachers out there and to limit yourself to "one true way" is spiritually stifling and intellectually limiting.

[Legion]

My Dad told me something when I very young. He had borrowed a lawn mower from a friend. He had finished using it and was about to put the mower in his truck and return it. But before he did that he was taking the time to clean it and oil it and stuff. I asked him why he was doing this. I’ll never forget what he said. He said, “When you borrow something always try to return it in a better condition than when you got it.”

 

This is a little slice of morality in my opinion. And I see no where that it involves religion. It was just another time among countless times where the mundane and trascendent touched.

[R. S. Martin]

I can't 100% remember exactly what Ravi said. I'm pretty sure that he was telling a story of something that actually happened; an actual encounter between a Christian and an atheist. I know that he wasn't the Christian in the story, it was someone he must have known.

 

Ravi isn't one to just make things up. I think he and William Lane Craig are the most honest and respectable Christian apologists out there right now. I just have a fuzzy memory, is all.

 

Good thing you qualified that with "Christian." If you had said "honest people" I would have called you on it. I have been researching Craig these past six weeks and he's anything but honest. However he may be honest as honest goes when it comes to evangelical Christians. Gotta qualify that with evangelical. In my experience, most Christians are lots more honest than evangelicals. Evangelical Christians are about the sneakiest batch of humans on the planet--right up there with lawyers and bank robbers and salespeople. In fact, scratch one of those people and don't be surprised if you find an evangelical. Just my guess.

[I Broke Free]

Since the Atheist did not believe there was a God, he did not have any clear cut way to define what exactly was right and what exactly was wrong

 

You are implying the Christians have a clear cut way to define right from wrong. I don’t recognize that at all. Until there is a consensus from all Christians on what defines sin, or even what defines a Christian, your point is meaningless to me. I have yet to meet a Christian that does not use the bible to support their own preconceived judgments on what is right and wrong. No matter what you want to do, you can find support in that book. From my point of view the basis for Christian morality is no more valid than my own.

[Ouroboros]

WonderPat,

 

The real issue isn't about if we are able to distinguish between right and wrong. I posit that both you and I have the same capacity and intelligence to know and understand what actions are mostly the correct ones in different situations. The core of your question isn't about morality at all, but about responsibility and accountability. Let me explain:

 

We pretty much would argue, logically and rationally, and come to the same answers for most moral conundrums, but the only real difference between your religious belief and my lack of it, is that you feel you have an accountability towards a higher power who will judge you and demand of you to make the best decisions in life. In other words, in a situation where you have a choice between doing right or doing wrong, you feel there is an obligation to do the right thing because God will call you on it. And an atheist does not have that kind of higher power, seeing my actions in daily life, or judging my actions and condemning me to torture if I fail. So the difference is really in that part, and not in the ability to see what is right or wrong. Do you follow? We have the same capacity to know right and wrong, but the problem you have with an atheist is rather, why would an atheist choose to do the right thing? Not that he doesn't know what is right, but rather, why would he even do it if he doesn't have to?

 

That leads us to the question: does an atheist have accountability towards some higher power? And the answer is actually: Yes, he does. But it's not a supernatural power or a God of some kind, but it lies on a totally different plane of understanding. The first one is the simple one, which is a power you also have to obey, which is society and the law. That's a simple one. But what about the actions that are not covered by law, and only goes into the simpler areas of life, like being honest and truthful to other people? Here, the responsibility is based on what I really want to do with my life. What kind of future do I want? What kind of person do I want to be when I pass away? Do I want people to keep me company at the last breath and say goodbye, or do I want to live a life in solitude and people around me hating me? What goes around, comes around, and if I love and cherish my own life, I have to play by the rules, which are: other people matter. The thing is, I have an accountability towards my future-self. In 10 years from now, I will (if I'm alive) look back and judge my own actions. I will carry the burden of guilt and shame if I do the wrong decisions, and I know this will happen, already now! So my choices and my decisions will affect ME. I will create my own Hell on Earth, if I choose to, or I can create my own Heaven here on Earth, if I choose to.

 

So you see, an atheist have a responsibility and an accountability as well, towards a "higher-being" (future-self) and a higher power (like the government and society). That means, most atheists decide to do the right thing, when they have a fork in the road, because they know they alone will pay the price for doing what's wrong. But we know this for a fact, and it is real. We don't have to believe in an imaginary friend to understand the consequences, and we don't need a powerful being threaten us with eternal fire to make us to be good people. We are good, because we are good people. How about you?

[par4dcourse]

Hans is much more verbally adept than I, and explained it quite well. My quick two cents worth:

 

Your ilk need the threat of hell and the promise of heaven to do "right." That's not morality, that's fear. A lab rat could learn to do "right" with a reward/punishment scenerio in a few minutes.

[sojourner]

the threat of hell and the promise of heaven to do "right." That's not morality, that's fear

 

very powerful two cents worth, par

 

So my choices and my decisions will affect ME. I will create my own Hell on Earth, if I choose to, or I can create my own Heaven here on Earth, if I choose to.

 

Absolutely true to me as well Hans, very insightful.

 

enjoyed reading your thoughts

[Ouroboros]

Good to have you back, Soj.

[Taphophilia]

Well, let's not forget the implication that people who don't believe in god have no reason not to go on a killing, raping or pillage spree. I think it's the fact that we, atheists, would rather just think about and discuss these things rather than actually do them. Plus, since we don't have a god to order us to do it, we don't have a reason to. We pretty much leave the killing, raping and pillage sprees to the Religious fanatics who are damn good at it as they have had centuries to practice.

[cslewissucks]

edit

[R. S. Martin]

Well, let's not forget the implication that people who don't believe in god have no reason not to go on a killing, raping or pillage spree. I think it's the fact that we, atheists, would rather just think about and discuss these things rather than actually do them. Plus, since we don't have a god to order us to do it, we don't have a reason to. We pretty much leave the killing, raping and pillage sprees to the Religious fanatics who are damn good at it as they have had centuries to practice.

 

I love that, Taph.

 

IBF, as I read your post and saw your avatar, I thought what an excellent visual to accompany the theory. The post might come across as an evil atheist. But then one sees a very decent man sitting in the yard working with the soil (I think). "God's good earth" for a Christian. For the life of me I cannot see any horns growing out of your skull. So where's the atheist???

 

Frankly, the strongest "witness" for me that atheism is okay has been the thorough-going decency I see among atheists on these forums. Not many people post their pictures but the good-heartedness, the frank honesty--all of this came through the posts. And now I'm looking again at WonderPat's title on this thread. I see the word "worldliness." Where I come from, clothing was a major item or symbol on worldliness. IBF is wearing blue dress shirt (if I see correctly) and dark blue pants. What can be more unworldly than that?

 

I continue to wear the traditional Mennonite cape dress--not because I have to but because I want to. It is who I am. I feel comfortable this way. I think comfort level is what guides most atheists on these forums. Christians seem to think they would do anything and everything if there were no law to stop them. I guess some of us have more confidence in ourselves and are mature enough not to be like that. We have learned self-discipline and to monitor our behaviour to fit into the social contract as agreed upon by the society in which we live. The details of our various countries and societies vary.

 

To use one's comfort level as a guide does require getting to know one's own feelings. This is not a familiar exercise for Christians. It might be uncomfortable for them at first.

[Guest YoungandBroken]

Well what we as humans perceive as right or wrong has alot to do with our feelings. If we feel attracted to someone we would have no problem getting close to them or being in their personal space, but if someone was in our personal space who we wern't attracted we would feel threatened, hence the term stalking. What's the difference between flirting and stalking, our feelings. Some people don't eat meat, while others do and feel just fine, their feelings determine if this is right of wrong. Alot of people who claim they are Xtians ignore certain verses in the bible because they feel like doing it, and if more people feel like doing it, it makes them feel as if they are right since us humans like to follow patterns alot. How people feel about things creates their Morality, it's not universal because it's different in everyone. So i try to avoid it, i like being kind to others and connecting with other people, i don't need a conecpt to keep me in check from doing things i know i won't do.