Questions Concerning Atheism As A Positive Worldview

[Deva]

I suspected as much. Thanks for the prompt replies.

If, as I may assume from your posts, the only common element to the people on this board is their status as an ex-christian, does that then mean some are atheists (as in freethinking), others agnostics, and still others perhaps other religions such as Buddhists, mormons, et cetera? And apart from that, to what extent is the baby thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak? Or more specifically, is the idea of God, of absolute truth, of a spiritual reality summarily rejected or “rescued” from the trash pile? I am especially interested in those who may have turned to other religions – are they doing so because they think it is the truth, or are the arguments and logic leading them away from Christianity also employed against other religions (and thus causing them to see all religion “as good as one another,” with their choice of what to believe in being a purely aesthetic one)?

 

 

I don't consider myself an atheist and I was tempted to try to explain Ex-Christian to Buddhist, but I am afraid your posts are so loaded with assumptions that it would be quite pointless. I will just say it isn't a case of "one is as good as another". Your last point about aesthetics, which you seem to just throw out at the end, is actually an interesting one.

 

Stude, I don't like to say this, but something about the way you post gives me the feeling you think we are all shallow and superficial. Otherwise I don't know why you would write "purely" superficial in a dismissive way, as if that could be possible.

[florduh]

As soon as some members decide they don’t like the current system, your morality is no longer absolute.

I guess that's how we get from "an eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek." The greatest shift in morality is from the OT to the NT. The unchanging god did a 180 turnabout, or perhaps at least took an anger management class.

 

We must of necessity end up discussing Christianity because there are some beliefs, tenets, interpretations and so forth to examine. Atheism is simply the lack of all that so there is really nothing to discuss. If you're interested why atheists come to their conclusion regarding the existence of a god, that falls to you. Theists have not presented sufficient evidence to back up their claims.

[belladonna]

Greetings and peace be with you (all). Although I am asking these questions as a theist, I hope our discussions could occur over common ground rather than contested territory inasmuch as that is possible.

The majority of arguments and threads regarding theism here seem to be concerned with “poking holes” in this or that syllogism or line of reasoning raised in its defense. The issue of atheism as a standalone philosophy is little discussed, if at all. Part of this could of course be the desire for atheists to deconstruct theistic philosophical structures (leaving little time and effort to build up the “home base” so to speak) or perhaps many so-called atheists are in fact closer to agnosticism, with the former label adopted simply for argumentative purposes (in which case my proceeding inquiry could extend towards the agnostic worldview). Whatever the case may be, I am curious as to what degree atheism has been developed regarding the basic metaphysical/ontological structures (i.e. the problem of evil, what is morality, what is reason et cetera) it presumably inherits from the fall of theism, assumed here for heuristic purposes. Although admittedly my ultimate goal is to hopefully deconstruct the final possibility of atheism as a worldview, I am not so sure if atheism is in and of itself taken seriously as a presuppositional worldview and, if it is, what exactly that entails. Feel free to extend this to agnosticism.

 

Why do you guys always try to make this more than it is? An atheist simply doesn't believe in god/gods. Has nothing to do with one's morality or decision to do or not to do good works.

[Guest Stude]

(To Devalight)

Mm. It does seem that way, and I can't say you're entirely wrong. Apologies for offending you; I did not consciously think it, but on some level it is present. As for my being loaded with assumptions, I don't doubt that I am, though I do hope I'm not really so loaded down as to make discussion hopeless. Even if it may seem a fruitless exercise, though, I would appreciate it if you could clarify just what assumptions we're talking about.

 

(To Florduh)

So my whole thread here is pointless? ah well.

Your concern (if that) about the shift in morality from the OT to the NT is a serious one and also one that, I must say, cannot currently answer. Let me also bring up the issue of the Benjamites forcibly taking wives, the holy ban on the Canaanites, and sundry other items along the same vein and say: With where I'm at right now, I honestly cannot give you a satisfactory answer.

As for theistic proofs, well, that would take more juice than I currently have, not to mention "theistic proofs" is a large, large topic.

[belladonna]

Ok, let me ask you a question in regard to the Bible (more OT than NT, but you are suppose to read the whole thing):

 

Why do anti-sbortionists use the Bible as justification for their stance against it, when the Bible, especially the OT, is full of child murder and infanticide, not to mention ripping up women who are with children?

 

And, since I'm at it, let me ask you another...

 

Why would a woman who has actually read and study the text even consider being a Christian uplifting and fulfilling; and I'm not just referring to OT text, but NT text as well?

[Shyone]

You write a lot, so forgive me for taking liberties and snipping extensively to enable me to answer some questions.

 

First, it is helpful for everyone to give a basic outline of what they believe, disbelieve, or how they approach reality. I am a strict materialist. There is no room for God in the universe which is made of matter and energy, and certainly no evidence of any interactions with forces outside of the material universe.

 

I consider this a bold position, but the conclusion is supported by the evidence on every level. Many here would not agree with my assessment.

 

As a result of my approach to reality, I don't believe in ghosts, goblins, fairies, spooks, gods, angels, ESP (until the evidence proves otherwise), or anything else "supernatural." If there were something suggesting the supernatural (e.g. magic) I would look really close for a natural explanation before assuming that water turning into wine was more than a parlor trick.

 

(Sorry for the delayed reply – I was in class for the past hour and a half).

I will freely admit that yes, my belief regarding atheism sees it as being ultimately unfulfilling. As to whether or not they can live productive, happy lives, well, we’d have to get into a definition battle.

 

 

Christians love the "U" word (Ultimate). If this life is all there is, then the ultimate goal of life is living. Fulfillment is individual. I have a wife, children, a great job (physician) and hobbies. We live in society and follow it's rules to the best of our ability, knowing that our natures are sometimes in conflict with society. Even with the inevitable knocks, I know that I can enjoy what I have, and my suffering has no ulterior meaning.

 

Concerning further your assertion that God is not necessary for morality, benevolence et cetera, I reply that while He may not be necessary for their functional existence, He is indeed so for their absolute justification. This article lays out the framework - http://www.scribd.com/doc/4531646/Arthur-Leff-Unspeakable-Ethics-Unnatural-Law. I have read the article several times, and what I see it boiling down to is the fact (or not, as you see it) that without a God or god-like being, no system of ethics (thus morality and presumably a justified concept of benevolence) can be justified to the exclusion of any other.

 

"Absolute" is a synonym for "Ultimate" in the Christian vocabulary. Within any religion that has existed long enough, there have been conflicts between what the religion taught and what it teaches. Rationalizing that is not healthy or honest, but in order to preserve the dream of 72 virgins and all that I can see that you would want to make everything consistent.

 

Without "beating a dead horse" I will echo what others have said about biblical morality. It isn't absolute. It's relative and it has changed. I assume you don't advocate stoning gays or adulterers to death. You eat pork. You are against slavery. You believe in equal rights for women (big assumption on my part).

 

You may argue (unsuccessfully) that Jesus/God changed his mind, changed the rules, and so forth, but in reality society changed.

 

Oh, and I've seen dead people. They don't rise again. They decompose. I have also seen people that are convinced they have talked with dead people. They're crazy, delusional or lying.

 

Read some Muslim apologetic literature and compare it with Christian apologetic literature. Twisting, turning, deflecting, lying and making stuff up to make black into white is nothing more than desperation.

 

Incidentally, if you do a word search for Ethics and Morality in the Bible, you'll find that these concepts did not exist and the words express modern concepts of right and wrong.

[NotBlinded]

 

Second, you question whether absolute justification is needed. This I take to have a more existential rub than anything else – the crux of the matter is, without absolute justification for morality, the best you can come up with is one of convenience or one of pragmatism.

 

Snip

 

Finally, your distinction between relativism and subjectivism. While the attempt and goal is admirable, I don’t see any real distinction between the two. You admit that such morality is not absolute in the sense I take it, but then claim that they aren’t absolutely relative either. Certainly in that society it is not in a functional sense, but it is an artificial absolute. As soon as some members decide they don’t like the current system, your morality is no longer absolute. I don’t really see how that is distinct from stark relativism; you are assuming a functional coherence of society which is quite independent of any absolute nature of that society’s ethics. Such a thing, as I see it, would be coincidence, nothing more.

You are correct within your worldview. What you must understand is that when you try to take your worldview and project it on others, it fails. You have to step outside of it in order to understand others.

 

Let's take your stand on absolutism. I'm pulling some quotes a site that talks about Meister Eckhart: Meister Eckhart

 

The Exoteric

 

The vantage point of the exoterist lies in his individuality and the circumstances that condition his individuality. Thus, it being from a singular and lonely point of view, drawing on a sole tradition for its truths, exoterism has the historical tendency to be absolutist by nature. The existing environments that necessarily condition this singularity of thought have an outstanding effect due to the nature of the feeling individual. By this I mean that the individual, being in time and shaped by his own peculiar circumstance, naturally forms a system of thought according to both his characteristic rationale and his experience. Entire schools of thought, though having been initiated by a divine truth, have succumbed to the manifest limitations inherent in humanly exoterism because of the displacement of divine logic with that of earthly reason (which explains why the vast majority of people can understand exoterism and why only the very few can comprehend genuine esoterism).

 

Contrast that with this:

 

The Esoteric

 

Though these are few and ever decreasing, there are still a slight number of souls that possess a similar insight to that which was delighted in by the rishis and prophets of old: the perspective held from a timeless gaze peering both out and into the universal reality of things. Recalling that the exoterist is one whose field of vision is dictated and necessarily limited by the particularity of his worldly experiences, the esoterist is he who has attained a perspective capable of seeing above time, seeing things as they really are. These rare souls are the great progenitors of the traditional religions.

 

I want to go into this more, but I must go for now.

[Deva]

(To Devalight)

Mm. It does seem that way, and I can't say you're entirely wrong. Apologies for offending you; I did not consciously think it, but on some level it is present. As for my being loaded with assumptions, I don't doubt that I am, though I do hope I'm not really so loaded down as to make discussion hopeless. Even if it may seem a fruitless exercise, though, I would appreciate it if you could clarify just what assumptions we're talking about.

 

It has become more blatant as you continue to post. This is an obvious example of your assumptions:

 

I would submit that, in view of how God created us (that is, to be infellowship with him), only when we are saved can we be truly fulfilled.Certainly non-Christians can and do lead happy and content lives, butcompared to the fulfilled Christian and especially when viewed throughthe lens of the Bible (specifically, the afterlife) that happiness canonly be momentary.

 

It is actually quite offensive. Your whole worldview IS an assumption about how others think and how happy they can be.

 

Don't worry, I don't take it personally. It isn't something I haven't seen before, probably a hundred times.

[Shyone]

 

Your concern (if that) about the shift in morality from the OT to the NT is a serious one and also one that, I must say, cannot currently answer. Let me also bring up the issue of the Benjamites forcibly taking wives, the holy ban on the Canaanites, and sundry other items along the same vein and say: With where I'm at right now, I honestly cannot give you a satisfactory answer.

As for theistic proofs, well, that would take more juice than I currently have, not to mention "theistic proofs" is a large, large topic.

I am troubled by many many verses in the old testament. You mention the kidnapping of virgins. Small stuff in comparison with the treatment of prisoners from Midian - male children and women were killed, virgins kept for slaves. How about just the genocide? Have you read Joshua? Have you really understood that men, women and children were all supposedly slaughtered? The justification that they were practice "evil" religions and sacrificing children does not justify the execution of infants, and the excuse that the infants went to "heaven" is not only disingenuous but would excuse any mother for killing her children (to save them from becoming atheits!).

 

Do you know where the biblical dictum "Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth" came from? Read the inscription from Hammurabi. Maybe you know about the Epic of Gilgamesh? Maybe you are familiar with Sumerian wisdom literature?

 

I could tear apart the whole scheme of salvation, but suffice it to say that 1) it accomplished nothing, 2) the sacrifice was temporary (Jesus came back, right?), 3) killing someone to benefit someone else is immoral, 4) God sacrificed God to God? Was Adam

3.1 Homo habilis

3.2 Homo rudolfensis and Homo georgicus

3.3 Homo ergaster and Homo erectus

3.4 Homo cepranensis and Homo antecessor

3.5 Homo heidelbergensis

3.6 Homo rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium

3.7 Homo neanderthalensis

3.8 Homo sapiens

3.9 Homo floresiensis

 

I could go further back in our lineage, but I think you get the point.

[Guest Stude]

(To Belladona)

I am “pro-life,” but just to clarify, haven’t had much contact with their biblical apologetic. I don’t think any of the passages dealing with child murder and infanticide attribute such actions to God. That said, I’ll have to look each passage up; from my recollection, however, most of these passages simply relate ancient practices as they happened, much like a historian would record the atrocities of slavery. You might say that the very lack of condemnation speaks for itself, but most theologians would say in turn that even if such disapproval is not stated explicitly in those passages, they are explicated elsewhere. As for me, like I’ve stated before, the issue of OT ethics is really a thorny one – I simply don’t know enough to really answer you. As for your second point (I assume you’re speaking of the OT’s apparently low view of women), I’d have to say the same thing: under construction.

 

(To Shione)

Yes, if this is the only life, then you’re absolutely correct. I’m not saying you can’t enjoy life, rather that, assuming Christianity is true, that satisfaction would be very momentary. Again, the morality “shift” from the OT to the NT is clearly problematic and one I don’t have a clear answer for. Your assertion that dead people don’t resurrect because you haven’t seen it happen first assumes that your materialistic worldview is correct (in which resurrection really is impossible) and forgets also the Resurrection was a unique event; naturally there would be no other instances.

[Ouroboros]

(This address HanSolo)

(I'm glad we're in agreement of appreciations at least. )

 

First, you point out that by my definition, a true Christian would not be fulfilled on this earth. I agree. The stated implication, then, is that such a Christian could not, in fact, be happy while living on this earth. My answer, in brief, is that you’re wrong. Expanded, I must assume that by happiness, you mean a sense of satisfaction or joy in living, in existing at some point in time. If so, even though Christians often are in sorrow, though they often are truly tested, persecuted, and put on trial, they are happy. More specifically, they are filled with joy regardless of their circumstances, for if their greatest joy is to have fellowship with God (the whole point of heaven, really), then they can do so while on this earth in whatever circumstances they are in. Note also that a genuine Christian, while certainly longing to go to Heaven, also feels an immense burden for the lost souls around him (no offense); in evangelizing and seeing souls saved, we feel genuinely fulfilled, for we are doing our calling.

True, but the happiness you're describing there isn't complete for the Christian. He can never be really, truly happy here. The happiness is only superficial and limited. He can't see the completeness of God, neither can he live a full life as he will in Heaven. Ergo, he will never have a full life here, while I can.

 

I can have a more meaningful life in this short time than a Christian who waits for the rapture. A Christian knows he can't be complete here, and it can cause frustration. (I've met plenty.)

 

Second, you question whether absolute justification is needed. This I take to have a more existential rub than anything else – the crux of the matter is, without absolute justification for morality, the best you can come up with is one of convenience or one of pragmatism. Certainly a society can function, and function well, even if they have no absolute morality (as in absolutely justified). Their citizens can also be perfectly comfortable in such an environment. But if by some chance a dissenting group forms, say, a society in which paedophilia and rape is the norm, in which women are simply objects, you would have no final justification for rejecting such “ethics” on absolute grounds. Whether that bothers you or not, I suppose, isn’t something I can answer for you. Your questions concerning OT laws is well posed, and not easily answered. I submit that to some degree, those laws are culturally bound. But there is also an essential core within those depths (please don’t ask me to elaborate; I’d need a lot more time, as in research, to detail how this works), seen partially in the Ten Commandments and carried on within the gospels. Most relevant here, I think, is Jesus’ answer to the scribe (?), that the two greatest laws are to “love God” and “love your neighbor.” I realize many would say that these commands are impossibly vague, and it certainly does seem so seen from the outside. But if we realize that loving God means pleasing him, and loving our neighbor means to labour for him, then these are in fact succinct summaries of ethical law. Certainly some gray areas apply (the question of lying to save a life, for example) and I suspect you will find my answer sorely wanting, but at the least the Bible has a definite guideline (not in the form of “do X” or “don’t do Y;” rather as we understand scripture better, we know more of what God tells us and thus what He expects of us – again, I can’t really elaborate on this to your satisfaction, but this is my position, so I’m stating it with all it’s flaws).

Here's the problem though, how do you know that pedophilia and rape is wrong? You as a Christian must either go to the Bible, which doesn't state a moral code in these particular cases, or you have to pray and get a revelation from God.

 

Also consider that the laws regarding rape and pedophilia grew out from a secular society, not a theistic or religious one. So your examples to support your argument are weak. Unless you can provide specific moral laws in the Bible to support this claim.

 

And when it comes to the "love thy neighbor" and the Golden Rule, it was presented in various forms by philosophers before Jesus, which means that the source wasn't necessarily divine, but it rather had a logical and rational source.

 

 

Third, the issue of slavery and in a larger sense the changes in ethics and morality which do happen. I would say many of these examples are changes in the expressions of God’s laws, not changes in the laws themselves. Slavery is actually fairly easy to tackle (compared to some extremely difficult OT passages – God ordering the tribe of Benjamin to kidnap virgins as wives, for example); Paul himself urges slaves to free themselves if possible, but not to worry too much about it. This must be seen in light of the Christian perspective of life on this earth – namely that we are sent to evangelize and spread the Word as much as possible. Our social status, our wealth, even possible death should be no impediment to this vital mission. So to answer your question, no, the Bible does not explicitly condemn slavery or urge social revolution against the institution. Truth be told, I would say the same even for America’s era of slavery (which was much more barbaric than that during the biblical times). Not because the idea or treatment of them was right, but because purely political action would take away from the spreading of the Word. Furthermore, I would say that more than anything else, being born again changes a person for the good. Not only slavery, but racism, violent crime, and yes rape, child abuse – all the, well, evil in the world can be traced to man’s initial fall. Please note that I am not at all saying God is unconcerned for such victims; rather, only through an inner transformation can both the victim and victimizer (both of whom are beloved by God) be saved from that vicious cycle. And yes, I know I’m going to get a lot of flak for this, but it is what I believe and, at least within my worldview, makes coherent sense. Not that I can’t appreciate the sensation that must be welling up in you right now to tear me a new one (or not?).

If God existed back then, and slavery is a question in the sphere of absolute morality, wouldn't God have explicitly revealed this to Moses? Why would slavery had to be abolished through action of suffering people in our secularized society? Why not under Christian rule? Why not in a theocracy? Why not in Israel thousands of years ago? Why didn't God tell Paul that it was wrong and had him start a revolt against slavery?

 

Or perhaps the question about slavery isn't a moral one?

 

How about pedophilia and rape? What does the Bible say about those things?

 

 

Fourth, you bring up the sheer number of denominations within the Christian community as evidence that our absolute truth may not be so absolute. Granted, it does not look good, but a great many of these splits are over secondary issues. As long as the core doctrinal truths are affirmed, the manner in which these are expressed do not bear condemnation. A long aside could be put here, but well, I’m frankly tired of typing this much, so please bring up specific issues if you will.

The doctrinal differences are not as tiny as you suspect.

 

The Unitarians believe in God, but not Jesus as God. They call themselves Christians and use the Bible.

 

(Oh, those heretics... but wait, that's what they think of the trinitarian Christians... who's right? Who's on first? And what is on second?)

 

Your next two points are thoughtful ones, and again I’ll have to ask for specific issues, as what I mean by the “divine truth” is probably more limited than you’re taking it. For example, the Bible can teach old earth or young earth. Both fit the biblical evidence, mainly because the Bible is not concerned with such issues so much as it is with the fundamental message of the gospel (which ignores the OT, but hey – one thing at a time). I think you are in essence asking me how I know that the truth that I know is the absolute truth without myself being omniscient, especially given the clear metaphysical nature of my claims. TO this I must say God helps me understand in the form of the Holy Spirit who helps interpret what I read. Furthermore, like you said, there are degrees of absoluteness in knowing the truth. I don’t claim to know all the truth a this time. I am saying I know some of the absolute truth, enough to guide me in living on this earth. Only when I am given a new body, new flesh, can I truly begin to comprehend the absolute truth of God and His word.

How do you know it is the Holy Spirit guiding you and not Satan deceiving you? Perhaps the Muslim Satan is confusing you and distract you from becoming a Muslim? Who knows? You only?

 

What is the absolute truths that you know, and how do you know they are the absolute truths?

 

If you have a situation causing a moral dilemma, how do you resolve it? What is the process you're using?

 

Concerning the identity of Christian presuppositions, I’m not sure if this is comprehensive or without error, but here goes. First, that God is one God, creator of all things, Holy, Just, and Good. That through Adam and his sin, mankind has fallen and has now lost a portion of his original character, and that in the NT, Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate, came down in the space-time continuum within Judea. That He was God and Man, who died upon the cross for our sins and so opened the way for all mankind to come back into fellowship with God. I’m sure I missed some portions, but there you are.

That doesn't explain, define, or even help discernment of absolute morality or absolute truths. That's just a declaration of faith, not a tool to examine a dilemma.

 

Basically, I'm trying to figure out if you can, with the help of your belief and religion, justify why rape, pedophilia, and slavery is wrong. Using specific tools that anyone of us could use. Meaning, society in general would be better off if it could use these tools because they would reveal the absolute truths and absolute morals easily. And it has to have a divine/godly/supernatural source (somehow).

 

Finally, your distinction between relativism and subjectivism. While the attempt and goal is admirable, I don’t see any real distinction between the two. You admit that such morality is not absolute in the sense I take it, but then claim that they aren’t absolutely relative either. Certainly in that society it is not in a functional sense, but it is an artificial absolute. As soon as some members decide they don’t like the current system, your morality is no longer absolute. I don’t really see how that is distinct from stark relativism; you are assuming a functional coherence of society which is quite independent of any absolute nature of that society’s ethics. Such a thing, as I see it, would be coincidence, nothing more.

The difference between relativism and subjectivism was presented to me by a religious philosopher who presented the idea of The Retreat. I'm not going into it now, but he had a long course in ethics and morality, and he believes in a God, and even perhaps the Christian God, but he was very pragmatic about the moral stance.

 

You can't just "know" God's will by assuming you got a direct phone-line to Heaven, and then justify your own actions as moral because of this assumption. What is right and wrong? Only logical discourse will reveal it.

 

From that you can of course claim that God gave us logic, God is logic, or God's nature is logic, but that is just superficial discussions since it left morality up to us to figure out. Morality and truth comes from our understanding of the world, not through supernatural divine revelations in our heads.

[RiverDale]

Stude, Do you believe that as an atheist I would think it is okay to steal from someone else? Do you think I would feel good about "Doing" another man's wife? Raping a child? You seem to think ethical behavior is due to christian morals.

 

At one time it was moral to own slaves, but not ethical, it was moral to pass out smallpox contaminated blankets, but it was not ethical, it was moral to slap the wife when she needed it, but not ethical. Why would you think that as an atheist I am somehow a corrupt person? That I lack a rudder to exist in society?

 

Positive Worldview? It seems to me that christians are ready to defend all manner of unethical practices if god(or their leaders) say it is okay. In addition to that, don't christians have the luxury of forgiveness? Guilt free tomorrows?

[Shyone]

 

Also consider that the laws regarding rape and pedophilia grew out from a secular society, not a theistic or religious one. So your examples to support your argument are weak. Unless you can provide specific moral laws in the Bible to support this claim.

Hans, it is possible to use the Bible to justify any position, good or bad. I could drag up verses to justify slavery, or abolish slavery (and both sides were well represented in the debates preceeding the American Civil War). I could also justify infanticide of unbelievers, or the opposite. Polygamy or monogomy.

 

I could do it with my New Testament hand tied behind my back. The Bible is a morass of conflicting rules.

 

Just compare Exo 20:13 and Num 31:17.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, it is possible to use the Bible to justify any position, good or bad. I could drag up verses to justify slavery, or abolish slavery (and both sides were well represented in the debates preceeding the American Civil War). I could also justify infanticide of unbelievers, or the opposite. Polygamy or monogomy.

 

I could do it with my New Testament hand tied behind my back. The Bible is a morass of conflicting rules.

I know that. But I asked for specific support. As far as I know there are no laws in the Bible against rape, pedophilia, or slavery. It can be constructed through some inference of the Golden Rule, but nothing specific.

 

If these things are examples of absolute moral laws, then it would be reasonable to assume God knew those laws 3,000 years ago and could have made Moses write them down. But he didn't. Because God didn't want people to know his absolute moral laws at all (or more accurately, God never said anything to anyone). We have to discover them by ourselves, through reason and discovery of our world. We adjust our moral law based on our growth as a species, i.e. subjective progression.

[Shyone]

Hans, it is possible to use the Bible to justify any position, good or bad. I could drag up verses to justify slavery, or abolish slavery (and both sides were well represented in the debates preceeding the American Civil War). I could also justify infanticide of unbelievers, or the opposite. Polygamy or monogomy.

 

I could do it with my New Testament hand tied behind my back. The Bible is a morass of conflicting rules.

I know that. But I asked for specific support. As far as I know there are no laws in the Bible against rape, pedophilia, or slavery. It can be constructed through some inference of the Golden Rule, but nothing specific.

 

If these things are examples of absolute moral laws, then it would be reasonable to assume God knew those laws 3,000 years ago and could have made Moses write them down. But he didn't. Because God didn't want people to know his absolute moral laws at all (or more accurately, God never said anything to anyone). We have to discover them by ourselves, through reason and discovery of our world. We adjust our moral law based on our growth as a species, i.e. subjective progression.

I agree. I just didn't want you to be disappointed when he comes back with the Golden rule, or "Suffer the little children..." or whatever.

[Ouroboros]

I agree. I just didn't want you to be disappointed when he comes back with the Golden rule, or "Suffer the little children..." or whatever.

He already did. He used it partially in the argument against slavery, but I don't think it's enough. It's just a generic, very unspecific rule. And obviously it wasn't good enough to be used against slavery for 1800 years or so. Only through enlightenment and modern thought did we as a society talk about individual freedom and rights. Some of the most influential philosophers in the charge against injustice were either non-religious or very liberal in their religious views. So I can't see how the view that somehow an absolute view of God and morality could bring this change about? Obviously, according to history, it didn't. Religion was sometimes mixed into the message to give it persuasive power, but overall, it was based on reason, not faith.

[Guest Stude]

(notblindedbythelight)

Hm. I’m afraid I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “projecting” my worldview onto others. Are you saying here that my Christian assumptions prevent me from seeing the absolutism of subjectivism? Your quotes concerning the exoteric/esoteric seems to imply that any absolutism is, by its very nature, created by limited human understanding of divine truth. The esoteric in contrast is said to see things “as they really are.” Does that mean the esoteric must by his nature accept the plurality of religions? What if this divine truth is absolutist in nature? This question assumes that you assume human understanding can attain at least some degree of divine truth, which may not be the case.

 

(Devalight)

Well, yes, to a degree. My worldview necessitates assuming certain things about mankind and also about his or her purpose (and so also what leads to fulfillment, happiness et cetera). If that offends, I’m afraid I can’t take it back. We are focused primarily on what happens after death, however, so when we say “happiness is temporary” we do so in view of the final judgment.

 

(HanSolo)

Concerning rape and paedophilia, Paul states that sexual relations is to remain within a man and his wife. This by implication excludes these two (although this is not a condemnation per se). Jesus’ command, “love your neighbor” certainly would preclude such. Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child. Also, the argument that the Bible does not explicitly condemn certain acts is not very compelling; the entire point of Jesus coming, of the new heart and new flesh, is because man in his sin finds ways to circumvent written law. You can legislate, say, the banning of alcohol; but if the people don’t agree, a law is nothing more than words. By being reborn, we are no longer subject to the “flesh.” (certainly not logic that would be accepted outside Christianity, but that is the position of the Bible).

As for slavery, the same type of argument applies: mere social revolution (and here you’d probably disagree) will not get rid of the underlying factors motivating slavery. There needs to be a grassroots movement in which the society itself finds slavery repugnant, and the gospel does nothing better (that is, spiritual renewal).

I think you’re assuming too much towards the end. In saying we can’t “assume we have a direct phone-line to Heaven,” you mean that there’s no guarantee what we think God told us is actually what God told us and not a distorted version of the truth. It’s true that our understanding of God’s revelation is limited, but that does not mean our understanding of it can’t be true insofar as our limits as finite beings are concerned. You say logical discourse points us towards morality, which isn’t completely wrong. The bible, as Shyone points out, is at times difficult to understand and seemingly contradictory at points. But if we stick to strict biblical hermeneutics (plain scripture interprets harder scripture, scripture does not contradict itself nor affirm anything contrary to truth), there are definite bounds in interpretation.

I really appreciate the feedback, people, and hope I haven’t offended too many (or amused, for that matter). Sorry for any unanswered questions, but this’s been a long day.

[Deva]

(Devalight)

Well, yes, to a degree. My worldview necessitates assuming certain things about mankind and also about his or her purpose (and so also what leads to fulfillment, happiness et cetera). If that offends, I’m afraid I can’t take it back. We are focused primarily on what happens after death, however, so when we say “happiness is temporary” we do so in view of the final judgment.

 

Hey Stude, I do appreciate how you are really trying to address everyone on here. Oftentimes I am just ignored.

Look, I don't think anything is permanent, including happiness.

 

Since nothing is permanent, there is no such thing as a "final" judgment.

[Ouroboros]

(HanSolo)

Concerning rape and paedophilia, Paul states that sexual relations is to remain within a man and his wife. This by implication excludes these two (although this is not a condemnation per se). Jesus’ command, “love your neighbor” certainly would preclude such. Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child. Also, the argument that the Bible does not explicitly condemn certain acts is not very compelling; the entire point of Jesus coming, of the new heart and new flesh, is because man in his sin finds ways to circumvent written law. You can legislate, say, the banning of alcohol; but if the people don’t agree, a law is nothing more than words. By being reborn, we are no longer subject to the “flesh.” (certainly not logic that would be accepted outside Christianity, but that is the position of the Bible).

First of all, why didn't God reveal this to Moses who wrote all the moral laws? Instead it's hidden in some obscure place in one of the letters (kind of ad hoc) much, much later? Doesn't sound like an absolute moral law, infinitely, eternally, and absolute true for everyone, everywhere, every time. Or perhaps your thought of absolute isn't absolute?

 

"Love thy neighbor" isn't a good verse to use since some pedophiles consider "love" to include more than just being nice. Besides, it doesn't include your neighbors neighbor, neither the stranger. So you have to read more into that verse than it actually says in one sense while excluding other meanings just to make it work. You're adapting the Bible to fit your morality and not the other way around. In other words, you are not applying morality in your life based on the Bible, but you are applying your morality when you're interpreting the Bible. You make the Bible fit, instead of fitting yourself to the Bible.

 

You do know that the problem of child molestation is huge in the Catholic Church? There are some documents from hundreds of years ago hinting that this was going on back then too. Jesus never made Christians better people. No one in the past 1900 years said anything about rape or child molestation. How can an absolute moral law be so forgotten and veiled? And how come secular society forced this issue and suddenly all Christians back it up and say, "look the Bible says it too!" Even though they never saw it before.

 

As for slavery, the same type of argument applies: mere social revolution (and here you’d probably disagree) will not get rid of the underlying factors motivating slavery. There needs to be a grassroots movement in which the society itself finds slavery repugnant, and the gospel does nothing better (that is, spiritual renewal).

Again, where was God to tell us it was wrong?

 

I think you’re assuming too much towards the end. In saying we can’t “assume we have a direct phone-line to Heaven,” you mean that there’s no guarantee what we think God told us is actually what God told us and not a distorted version of the truth. It’s true that our understanding of God’s revelation is limited, but that does not mean our understanding of it can’t be true insofar as our limits as finite beings are concerned. You say logical discourse points us towards morality, which isn’t completely wrong. The bible, as Shyone points out, is at times difficult to understand and seemingly contradictory at points. But if we stick to strict biblical hermeneutics (plain scripture interprets harder scripture, scripture does not contradict itself nor affirm anything contrary to truth), there are definite bounds in interpretation.

Christians have stuck to the strict Biblical hermeneutics for 2,000 years and managed to get morality wrong over and over again: Witch hunts in Africa by Christians, slavery justified by Christians in KKK, child molestation in Church, and prejudice and persecution of anyone who thinks or believes different. So far the track record speaks against the Christian interpretations, knowledge, and revelations of absolute morality from God.

 

Perhaps God exists. Perhaps God creates the absolute moral laws. But Christianity has been the black sheep in the family and has not proven this to be true.

 

You have to do better than that. I want a specific verse condemning rape, child molestation, and slavery. Not some vague verses that can be interpreted whichever way you want according to current culture and social values. It has to be absolute for it to be absolute.

 

Revelations from God is just an excuse for religious relativism. You modify and change your morality and point to God as your source, while in reality you adapt and adjust according to the current flow in society. Don't use the walls of the secular society's constructs for your graffiti and "Goddidit" slogans.

 

---edit---

 

And one more thing, how come so many religions and other cultures, thousands of years before Christianity, managed to create stable societies with values, norms, and moral code? Did YHWH/Jesus somehow magically reveal the absolute moral code to the Confusius?

[florduh]

(To Florduh)

So my whole thread here is pointless? ah well.

Your concern (if that) about the shift in morality from the OT to the NT is a serious one and also one that, I must say, cannot currently answer. Let me also bring up the issue of the Benjamites forcibly taking wives, the holy ban on the Canaanites, and sundry other items along the same vein and say: With where I'm at right now, I honestly cannot give you a satisfactory answer.

As for theistic proofs, well, that would take more juice than I currently have, not to mention "theistic proofs" is a large, large topic.

Don't feel bad. The best and the brightest have not been able to answer those questions. Therein lies the problem with the religion that is based on a self-contradictory collection of writings.

 

Hint: If you want to answer those questions, and some others, you just insist that God's ways are not our ways and we must have faith. That seems to satisfy those who don't care to think.

[Shyone]

The bible, as Shyone points out, is at times difficult to understand and seemingly contradictory at points. But if we stick to strict biblical hermeneutics (plain scripture interprets harder scripture, scripture does not contradict itself nor affirm anything contrary to truth), there are definite bounds in interpretation.

If you operate under a rule that says "scripture does not contradict itself" when it really does, then you are twisting the truth to accommodate your preconceptions.

 

That is why apologetics is so dishonest. Even recognising an obvious contradiction, some crafty way will be found to make black into white, evil into good, slaughter into a blessing.

 

Furthermore, accepting whatever is said by God (as quoted in the Bible) as "Good" makes anything evil into an automatic good, even if we today would reconise the evil immediately. Genocide of the Jews is bad; Genocide of the Midianites, Ai, Jericho, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, and many other peoples - men women and children is "good."

 

What of mercy? What of teaching, converting, spreading the word? Just kill them all?

 

The ancient Hebrews were a xenophobic lot, and their morals stink to high heaven. Their laws are abhorrent, and Jesus had no intention of ever changing those nasty, inhuman, primative and cruel laws by his own statement.

 

What was it he called the Gentiles? Swine? At least until someone decided that there was an untapped market of sinners just waiting to be plucked.

[Guest Darcy Grant]

 

I will freely admit that yes, my belief regarding atheism sees it as being ultimately unfulfilling. As to whether or not they can live productive, happy lives, well, we’d have to get into a definition battle. I would submit that, in view of how God created us (that is, to be in fellowship with him), only when we are saved can we be truly fulfilled. Certainly non-Christians can and do lead happy and content lives, but compared to the fulfilled Christian . . .

 

 

 

 

Just a brief comment on part of what you said--

 

This is actually along the same lines as what HanSolo said in another post . . . however, I am wondering---what exactly is the measure of whether or not a person is “truly fulfilled?”

 

You keep referring to the “fulfilled Christian” and the “truly fulfilled” Christian. What I am wondering is what measuring stick is used by Christians such as yourself to determine whether or not a person is “truly fulfilled?”

 

Many Christians, for example, are clinically depressed and are even on medication to treat their depression. Are clinically depressed Christians who are being treated with medication “truly fulfilled?”

 

Other Christians are in prison for crimes that they committed. Are these Christians “truly fulfilled.” And if so, how can we know that this is true?

 

Still more Christians are suffering from cancer or watching their children die of cancer. Are these Christians “truly fulfilled?”

 

As I’m sure you’ll agree, there are also Christians who are pedophiles and rapists and thieves Is a Christian pedophile “truly fulfilled?” What about a Christian rapist or a Christian shoplifter?

 

You keep claiming that Christians are “truly fulfilled,” but unless you provide evidence that this is so, I don’t know how we can take you at your word. If you have evidence to demonstrate the truth of your assertion, I would be more than glad to look at it. Until then, though, I’m afraid I simply have to disagree with you that Christians are any more fulfilled or happy than non-Christians.

[Guest Darcy Grant]

Stude wrote: "Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child."

 

I must confess to being more than just a little taken aback by the wording of the above statement. Stude wrote: "you certainly don't rape those whom you love" . . . the implication being that it would be acceptable to rape a person that you do NOT love. Surely, though, this was not the intent of his statement and an explanation for the qualification of "those you love" in regard to the moral acceptability of rape [within the context of the Christian worldview] will be forthcoming.

 

Interestingly, there are Christians who believe that God doesn't love everyone. These Christians believe that God only loves his children, i.e. Christians.

 

If the rule is only that you don’t rape “those whom you love,” (and I'm really not even sure how a Christian would know that this was an absolute rule in the same way that Christians don't seem to know whether it is an absolute rule that you don't beat your children or you don't torture people) then perhaps a Christian could rightly conclude that it would be acceptable, in the Christian worldview, to rape, torture, and/or beat a non-Christian or someone that you don't love.

 

It seems to me that as soon as you start adding qualifications to your rules (for example, it's wrong to kill UNLESS...) the rules are no longer absolute but subjective. I think what often happens in these kinds of discussions is that the definition of "absolute moral standards" is in itself subjective, defined differently by different people. Unless we could all agree on exactly what an absolute moral standard is, then I'm not sure that meaningful dialogue about this subject is possible.

[ContraBardus]

It's been an interesting read. Stude is one of the more interesting Christians we've had on the boards.

 

The only thing I really think I should add, mostly because I'm burned out on the 'morality' and 'absolute morality' from arguing them with other Christians recently, is the use of Paul.

 

Pauls writings can't really be used to justify anything. He never met Jesus, didn't know him, and was at odds with Peter, the one who Jesus left his Church with.

 

Pauls letters in the Bible are a political gambit. If you read them it's pretty clear. It's basically an argument between the Church in Jerusalem, and the Church in Rome. They aren't addressed directly to Peter or the Jerusalem Church, but they were intended for them.

 

Paul wanted control of the Church in Rome, which he eventually got. It's the origin of the Roman Catholic Church. He made his case about policy in letters to others, not directly to those he was arguing with. It was a sort of respect, a way of avoiding admitting he was arguing with higher authorities within the Church.

 

Even if I was a Christian, I would not hold any stock in Paul's portions of the Bible. I think they are out of place in the book. Luke also, but to a lesser extent, he was also not an eyewitness to anything, but his books are more of a copying of an oral account of others. Not really his own story. It's just an unnecessary hearsay account.

 

That being said. I don't put an validity in the historical accuracy of the rest of the Bible either. Those are just the most suspect in my view, along with Revelations, which was clearly not written by the same John the gospel was written by. The prose and writing style are completely different, and it's not consistent with the book. It's also at odds with the rest of the NT in several places.

 

Revelation was clearly an addition intended to help convert pagan Romans to the Church. It really served no other purpose.

 

Just thought I'd throw that out there for consideration.

 

As for the rest of the Bible, it's not old enough to be anything but a hearsay account to begin with. The authorship of all of the books in the NT were originally anonymous. Only Christian tradition ascribes them to the authors the book now implies.

 

You could say the same thing about the 'executions' of the apostles. There's really no evidence they ever really happened. Just tradition dictating what occurred, with no real evidence that the stories are true. Perhaps they are, but there's no real reason to think so.

 

There aren't really any written accounts old enough to qualify as anything more than hearsay as evidence of Christian claims. The earliest extra biblical accounts, Tacitus, Josephus, and others are pretty much universally forgeries, courtesy of Bishop Eusebius, who openly supported forgery and deception to promote the faith. A policy that to this day has never been denounced, if not openly supported.

 

The Bible itself is about a hundred years too young to qualify as evidence. Even then it's just bits and scraps. Complete manuscripts of the NT do not appear for hundreds of years after the fact.

 

There are no contemporary writings supporting the claims of Christians. No archeological evidence, no contemporary records, or any first hand accounts of any kind.

 

There may have been a man named Jesus, but he wasn't from Nazareth, because it didn't exist before the 4th Century. There is no evidence of any Censure in that era of history, and Herod is considered one of the best rulers of his era. There are no records of him ever slaughtering any children.

 

There are no written accounts of earthquakes, rising dead, solar eclipses, or any of the events described in the Bible as happening concurrent with the death of Jesus.

 

Pointius Pilate is rather out of character in the Bible as well. Considering writings of others who knew him, he's acting very out of character in the NT account. Roman Procurators did not 'wash their hands' of matters. That was a Pharisian custom.

 

There are no accounts of any of Jesus's very public miracles. No writings describing the many miracles he supposedly performed, or the large crowds he was said to have gathered. There is absolutely nothing to confirm these accounts at all. No witness accounts, or even second hand contemporary writings about them. Jesus was supposedly a very important man, yet none of the historians, Scholars, or anyone else in his day ever put any pen to paper about him?

 

That is very strange. There were plenty of historians, Scholars, writers, and philosophers who would have been very interested in writing about such a man. Yet there is absolutely nothing to support that he was even a real person.

 

It has all the earmarks of a myth, and nothing to support that any of it is a true account. In fact, the evidence contradicts that it is in any way true. What good is a worldview based on a fantasy? What good is morals that are based on fiction? You might as well base your moral code on Lord of the Rings. It's the same thing, and actually, Lord of the Rings is morally superior to the Bible.

 

Put simply, you can't really argue about truth unless you can back it with fact. Because there's no indication that it is true to begin with. Your feelings are not enough to support it, nor are the feelings of anyone else.

 

It's just pretending that morals, ethics, and worldviews have some real basis or origin in a book that's full of unfounded absurdities. That's exactly what it is.

 

You've got no sound basis for your own claims about the origins of morality and meaning in life. So how can you really be critical of another person's?

 

You can go on about Heaven all you want. There's no basis to validate the claim to begin with, so it's essentially irrelevant to argue that it's true.

 

Atheists aren't making claims. The burden of proof lies with those who do. Christians and Theists of all kinds claim that their God is real, and it falls on their shoulders to prove that he is.

 

You cannot 'rationalize' proof into existence, and without it, your claims are just baseless supposition and conjecture. Just statements with no backing that are little more than bald assertions. In fact, that's exactly what they are. Logical fallacies, and rational failure.

 

I don't understand why so many Christians fail to account that the entirety of the Bible was meant to be taken literally, not figuratively in any way. The original authors and those who have lived by it for the past 1800 years at least took every word literally, and did not believe for a moment that any of it was in error, often on pain of death.

 

Do you realize that your brand of Christianity was likely to have you stoned to death or burned at the stake as little as 300 years ago? It would not have been accepted, and you would have likely been destroyed as a heretic.

 

Modern Christianity bears no resemblance whatsoever to the early Church. It's a product of today's world and morality. It did not create today's morals, ethics, or worldviews, but conformed to them.

 

That's very strange and suspect for something that was supposedly started by God and deemed perfect and infallible by his own word.

 

Since the Church is so different today, what makes you think you're going to heaven for following it?

 

I'm really serious with that question. It's nothing like the organization supposedly founded by Jesus and confirmed by the God of Abraham. There is no real similarity at all.

 

Why are you so sure you're pleasing God by following modern Christianity? It's not what he supposedly left us, and does not follow his word as it was presented 2,000 years ago according to claims at all.

 

Put simply, Modern Christians are just as doomed as the rest of us if it's true. There is no salvation in the modern church, which has twisted and changed with the times, instead of remaining as it was given by their God. They've altered and conformed their teachings and beliefs to fit the modern world, something that should never have been done to something that was truly of divine origin.

 

It confuses me how little most Christians today know about the history of their own Church, and the origins of how it came to be what it is today.

 

Their position, whether they admit it or not, is that the perfect, all powerful, all knowing, unchanging God, changed his mind, and didn't intend things to be interpreted the way they were for thousands of years. He intentionally misled generations, and didn't make himself clear, so that his true message could be gleamed thousands of years later.

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

On a related note, the position of 'I can't explain that, I don't know why, I've got no justification, I can't prove that it's true, and I in fact have no idea if it is or not, but I believe it anyway', also makes no sense to me.

 

If you can't explain, justify, or otherwise validate it, why believe in it?

 

That seems counter productive.

 

That being said, I have enjoyed your posts thus far. Don't really have anything else to add that hasn't already been said though. I don't agree with them, but they've been well presented thus far, even if they are full of logical fallacy and over rationalization of simple ideas.

[ContraBardus]

Double post, it gives me an error message, says it didn't post, and then posts it anyway. >_< How annoying.