Need Some Help

184 posts / 0 new
Last post
CyberLN's picture
There are a number of

There are a number of different models for ‘types’ of atheism. A quick google search will provide them to you. Personally, I go by a/gnostic a/theism. I consider myself an agnostic atheist...I do not believe in god(s) and I cannot know if any of them exists. A/theism is about belief, a/gnosticism is about knowledge.

Cognostic's picture
Atheism is not a world view.

Atheism is not a world view. It is a position on a single claim; "Belief in God." There are liberal, conservative and moderate atheists. There are atheists that believe in other forms of magic other than god; crystal power, ritual magic, ghosts, ancient aliens, etc... Are you unaware of the fact that the Christians were among the first atheists. You folks were called atheist because you did not believe in the Roman Gods.

Atheism is a term, perpetuated by your Church and your belief system in a derogatory manner to condemn non-believers. Modern atheists have simply adopted the term as a badge of honor and freely admit, "Yes, we are atheists." You may as well insult us by calling us heathen, blasphemers, infidel, paynim, disbeliever, unbeliever, sinner, or any number of terms your religious beliefs assign to anyone disagreeing with your unproved assertion that God or gods exist.

As for the Morality question: Christians are incapable of being moral. All you have are moral dictates from your bible. You follow the rules your god sets and that is your morality,. "What would Jesus do?" You have internalized nothing. All you have are dictates given to you by your church or your religion. THIS IS NOT MORALITY. You choose to follow god's laws or not. If you are moral you do what god says. This in no way makes you a moral person.

Morality is based on "Well Being." If we do not agree on this we are not talking about the same thing. You need to do a bit of research on "Secular Morality." Here are links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g

How in the hell is Christianity moral when a death bed confession and acceptance in Jesus Christ as a personal savior ends up in letting you go to heaven no matter what you have done. How is your system of morality moral when after harming others, killing every member of a family but one, you can turn to a god for forgiveness and never face any of the victims? How do you rationalize the horror of Christian morality? According to your version of morality, Hitler is in heaven.

A school shooting is an immoral act as it does not facilitate the well being of the person doing the shooting or of the students that were shot. This is demonstrable. In every situation a person can imagine there is a most moral act that can be undertaken based on "well being."

Neel Skelton's picture
A lot of good thoughts here.

A lot of good thoughts here. I was not trying to pigeonhole all atheists into one worldview, but I think I came off that way so I apologize for that. I am learning that I have a narrow definition of atheism, but I can assure you I am not trying to be condescending in the way that I use it. I simply came here to have a discussion about worldview because I believe that believing in God or not believing in God (and what that God is like if he exists) is a huge part of one's worldview. It would be helpful to me if you could expand on your definition of atheism, but in all honesty I am more here to see what individuals on this forum believe. I know that broad strokes are not helpful, so I am trying to avoid that.

As far as the morality discussion goes, I am not sure I am following the statement that "Christians are incapable of being moral." I watched the first YouTube video that you linked and here is what I took away (in summary form) from his argument about secular moralism: We evaluate the consequences of our actions with respect to specific goals. Thats how we determine right and wrong. You can also look at the effects of things on other human beings. We are able to look at people before us and learn from them what works and what doesn't work."

I assume that is why you are saying the basis of morality is "well being". I would agree that a piece of morality has to do with the consequences of behavior and decisions. But I would also argue that there are objective standards that we cannot know apart from God. Obviously we will not agree on that point. Dillahunty argued in the video that there are multiple right answers in morality and that there are various right things to do in situations. He argues that is not moral relativism but I don't know how you could say it isn't. We need an objective moral standard or else it is simply your opinion against mine on what is right and wrong. There has to be a higher standard to appeal to. Obviously Dillahunty argues against these points in the video.

I guess my question for you would be this, if we determine morality based on "well being" and "the results of decisions made by those in the past" then what is the standard? How did those people in the past determine right and wrong if they had no precedent to appeal to?

On your second to last paragraph about Christianity being moral if "a death bed confession and acceptance in Jesus Christ as a personal savior ends up in letting you go to heaven no matter what you have done", I think we have entered into a different discussion there. You are referencing Christian beliefs on salvation, not morality. God offers forgiveness to those who place their faith in Christ but that does not mean that God condones the immoral actions (sin) of Christians in the past, present, or future. Christians are not saved because of how moral they are, they are saved because Jesus paid the penalty for their sin by his death on the cross.

On the last paragraph, what if someone argued with you and said that it was moral to shoot others in a school and said it made the world a better place because those kids were horrible human beings? What would you appeal to? What percentage of people have to agree that something is right or wrong for it to be true?

Sheldon's picture
"On the last paragraph, 1)

"On the last paragraph, 1) what if someone argued with you and said that it was moral to shoot others in a school and said it made the world a better place because those kids were horrible human beings? 2) What would you appeal to? 3) What percentage of people have to agree that something is right or wrong for it to be true?"

1) My perception of the character or nature of a person is not an objective reason to murder them.
2) objective reason, how would they feel if someone murdered their child because they perceived them as horrible.
3) I have no idea, validation of our peers plays a part in curbing our behaviours, but it isn't the only thing that informs our morality.

Now I have a question do you think murder is objectively wrong? If so why does the bible claim your deity commits indiscriminate murder again and again, and encourage humans to do the same, even murdering babies and infants?
-----------------------------------------------
"I would also argue that there are objective standards that we cannot know apart from God."

Then how do you know they're moral at all?

Neel Skelton's picture
Help me if I'm wrong, but it

Help me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are saying the way you and others feel is a good standard for objective morality. That seems about as subjective as it gets to me.

As far as your references to God committing indiscriminate murder and such, can you give me some references? I think it is important to have context when you make claims like that, so it would help me if I knew what specific things you were talking about.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at in your last comment, can you elaborate?

Sheldon's picture
"Help me if I'm wrong, but it

"Help me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are saying the way you and others feel is a good standard for objective morality. "

No that wasn't remotely what I said, in fact that is a claim made by theists.

"As far as your references to God committing indiscriminate murder and such, can you give me some references?"

There are way too many to list, try these two, Genesis 5:32-10:1 Noah's flood, the destruction of Sodom Genesis 19. How can murder be objectively wrong according to a deity who commits indiscriminate mass murder?
----------------------------------------------------
"I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at in your last comment, can you elaborate?"

>>You made this claim:
"I would also argue that there are objective standards that **we cannot know** apart from God."

>>I then asked
"Then how do you know they're moral at all?"

It's simple enough, you are claiming we can't know what objective moral standards are, that only a deity can know this, so how then do you know that (what you believe) this deity presents as moral is in fact moral at all?

David Killens's picture
For myself, it begins with

For myself, it begins with the simple question "would I like it if it was done to me?" It then expands to cover "walk a mile in their shoes".

I define my own moral parameters. I adhere to all laws. I consider others in my decisions, and I carefully think through decisions of such matters. There is no list of rules that tell me what to do, each situation must be evaluated on it's own merits and decisions made with the data available.

Here is a true example. I was at a bus stop, waiting to make the last connection on my way to work at a military base. There was a young lady in uniform who was suddenly being harangued by some individual who got right in her face. He was spouting very offensive anti-military rhetoric. I knew from previous experience that she was a timid and quiet person, and from her reaction to this nut she just stood there and examined her shoes. I am rather large, so I placed myself between the two individuals, facing him. He had to get through me to get to her, and that just wasn't going to happen. I did not say anything, but I made sure I was the wall, the barrier that kept him away from this lady. I did not know her name, I had no romantic interest in her, and I did not expect any recognition or reward.

But I am just speaking for myself, just one individual who may not agree with the majority of atheists.

Neel Skelton's picture
David, I commend you for your

David, I commend you for your actions in that situation. I hope I don't in any way sound like I am trying to say atheists cannot do the right thing or act in a moral way, that only Christians can. I do not agree with that in the slightest.

But I do have to ask, what if someone disagreed with you on your personal moral parameters? How do you decide who is right?

David Killens's picture
I grew up in a religious

I grew up in a religious family, I lived through the entire experience. And for the great majority of my life I embraced some form of spirituality. I searched for god, I wanted a god, and even as I compose this response, my mind is open to change if a god can be proven to exist. It would be cool if we even had Mentor of Arisia.

Due to my professions and mental outlook, I am a very pragmatic person. I need rational proof, and until I have proof, this god falls into the category of fictitious characters like Zeus, Spiderman, and Bigfoot.

mickron88's picture
don't push it Neel, if you'll

don't push it Neel, if you'll proceed to ask this things further.. you'll be the first pastor or a priest to be skeptic of his belief..
try to ask your mentor, or the priest that is teaching you in apologetic class..maybe he know something... but not here..

i'm telling you, don't push it...just warning yah..
these guys are very tricky..

you haven't seen everything....(0.0)

mykcob4's picture
@Neel

@Neel
In general, I am suspicious of theist that come to the forum an claim that they are writing a paper. The reason is that most have come here just to proselytize. But for the forum's sake, I will take you at your word until it proves otherwise.
Atheists do not have a "worldview" based on atheism. Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of believing in a god or gods.
Atheism is not a coalition, organization, or religion. Atheists are individuals having nothing in common other than we do not believe in a god or gods.
As for the "Gun Control" threads, you can plainly see that there is a diversity of views and opinions.
I for one am not interested in a private conversation or interview. I see nothing gained in such an endeavor.
I will say this if you make a claim it will be questioned. If you make an unsubstantiated claim it will be dismissed.

Neel Skelton's picture
I understand your suspicion,

I understand your suspicion, which is why I tried to be as forthcoming as possible in my original post. I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Can you give me your personal thoughts on the Florida school shooting? That is what I am most interested in, personal opinions.

Mithridates's picture
In response to your question

In response to your question about morality as an atheist there are several lines of thought, the one I personally subscribe to is that morality is a societal based construct aimed at stabilizing whatever civilization present at the time. In ancient Carthage the societal (and religiously based) moral system declared that child sacrifice was a perfectly moral system to ensure stability. Now we think of that as the most immoral of actions, but looking back on that has led me me to believe that morality is flexible, self-made, and changes with the ages. Therefore I personally simply attempt not to harm others as I personally consider this wrong. I do not believe that there is a universal system of morality as religion often dictates.

Neel Skelton's picture
Mithridates, if there is no

Mithridates, if there is no "universal system of morality as religion often dictates" then how do we decide what is right and wrong? What if we swing back as a culture to child sacrifice, will it be okay then?

Mithridates's picture
Well on the reverse side is

Well on the reverse side is it sustainable? As callous as it is and sounds there is no universal defining of good and evil, society merely attempts to work it out on it's own by testing different practices and receiving the fallout from the same practices. Every individual has their own definition of right and wrong, and eventually the collective formulates a general template of morality from shared viewpoints.

Neel Skelton's picture
"Every individual has their

"Every individual has their own definition of right and wrong." If this statement is true, then who are we accountable to, ourselves? If we decide who is right and wrong then what right does anyone else have to tell me that I am doing something immoral? There is no objective standard, no higher authority to appeal to.

CyberLN's picture
“then who are we accountable

“then who are we accountable to, ourselves?”

Yes, and to each other.

Neel Skelton's picture
What if we disagree on

What if we disagree on morality? Are we still accountable to each other?

And if we are accountable to ourselves, why do we contradict our own moral standards? And when we do, what is the punishment, since we are accountable to ourselves?

CyberLN's picture
This is getting tedious, Neel

This is getting tedious, Neel. Your questions seem a bit like a cattle shoot to me.

I also think it’s kind of icky that you ask about punishments.

Neel Skelton's picture
I'm sorry you feel that way.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think these are important questions. Ignore the punishment question for now, what about the other questions I raised?

What if we disagree on morality? Are we still accountable to each other?

And if we are accountable to ourselves, why do we contradict our own moral standards?

CyberLN's picture
I am accountable not to

I am accountable not to purposefully cause harm to you. You are accountable for the same. If we disagree on what is defined as harm, the we provide proof of that harm. If still at an impasse, then perhaps neutral arbitration is an option. This is how the tort (and to some degree, the criminal) system works in the U.S.

Neel Skelton's picture
What if we disagree that

What if we disagree that harming another person is immoral at all? Then how do we decide what is moral?

And have you ever hurt another person? Emotionally, physically, etc.? If so, why do you contradict your own moral standards?

Sheldon's picture
"What if we disagree on

"What if we disagree on morality? Are we still accountable to each other?"

We already do, and yes.

"why do we contradict our own moral standards?"

Because we are fallible evolved primates.

Mithridates's picture
Yes actually we are still

Yes actually we are still accountable to each other, this is why governments arise to ensure accountability. The punishment for crossing societal standards is dictated through laws.

Sheldon's picture
"what right does anyone else

"what right does anyone else have to tell me that I am doing something immoral? "

The same right as everyone else, and it is vital we all have that right. Religion attempts to close this right down by sententiously claiming it knows what a deity wants, and will accept no dissent on the point.

" There is no objective standard, no higher authority to appeal to."

I agree, wholeheartedly. Scares you does it?

Sheldon's picture
"What if we swing back as a

"What if we swing back as a culture to child sacrifice, will it be okay then?"

Genesis 22

It's the sign of a good theist according to your bible. Personally I'd find it appallingly evil, as part of my morality encompasses the belief that we should try to empathise with human suffering, and wherever possible try to prevent it. Like David Killens in his post above my morality also encompasses the golden rule, I need no religious beliefs in anything supernatural for me to see the value of these moral precepts, subjective or not.

Sheldon's picture
"if there is no "universal

"if there is no "universal system of morality as religion often dictates" then how do we decide what is right and wrong? What if we swing back as a culture to child sacrifice, will it be okay then?"

We use human reason, as we always have, and temper this with empathy for the suffering of others. Why would we 'swing back' to child sacrifice? This makes no sense, and child sacrifice was of course a religiously motivated action. Your bible celebrates a man who was happy to sacrifice his own child, and a deity who set that as a standard of what it wanted from it's servile pets.

David Killens's picture
@Neel

@Neel

Are you a Youth Ministry Director from Mitchell Road?

Cognostic's picture
CHRISTIANS ARE INCAPABLE OF

CHRISTIANS ARE INCAPABLE OF MORALITY: If you are following the dictate of a god, you are not moral. You have internalized nothing. You are following orders. If you are trying to get to heaven by doing good things and avoiding bad things, you are not engaged in morality. You have an external locus of control. A child who does not steal because he is afraid that his parents will spank him is not behaving morally. He is behaving out of self preservation and fear. A child who does not steal because if he does not get arrested for a month his parents will buy him a bike is not behaving morally. He is only seeking a reward. It is impossible in the Christian paradigm to behave morally. All you are doing is following dictates given to you by your God so you can achieve a reward or avoid a punishment. Morality is not internalized it is always dictated from your God.

Neel Skelton's picture
Cognistic,

Cognistic,

That was a helpful response and I see what you mean now. Morality does indeed have an existential aspect - motives do matter. Christianity agrees on this point in that we obey God motivated by love, not to manipulate him into giving us what we want or simply to avoid punishment. But we also believe that God is the ultimate standard of morality, not us.

Where we might disagree on this point is that Christianity doesn't teach that we "get to heaven by doing good things and avoiding bad things" as you asserted above. We get to heaven by faith in the obedience of Christ and his death in our place - not by our own obedience. And so our ultimate reward is secured by Christ - not our behavior.

Let me ask you this, do you believe there are absolute norms of morality? And what accountability is there, if any, if we don't live by those norms?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.