I'm going to take this in sections, when I have the time to do it. That was a ton of information/analysis exchanged, and it would take a long time to address all of it. I fail to see how believing in Zues or Jesus changes the compassion that an atheist, agnostic or otherwise, would feel towards his fellow man. Treat others as you would like to be treated. "Without some sort of transcendent cause, we have nothing to actually base morality on." Essentially, I do not see how being an atheist towards Zues, Fairies, Buddhism, Scientology, Christianity, Islam, etc... has anything to do with morality or how it is based. Carvaka, for instance, was a morality system with zero god.
I am sorry if I am not communicating this well. But what I am arguing is that without there actually being a God (and by God I mean a maximally great being, not necessarily the Christian God) there is nothing to base morality on. I am not talking about how we know what is moral (which is what you are referring to I believe), which is moral epistemology. You are absolutely correct that being an atheist may not affect someone's morality. However, if the atheistic world view is true, then there is no God. Moreover, if the atheist is a naturalist (which most are I'm assuming), then nothing outside of the physical reality exists. So, if the naturalistic atheistic world view is true then morality cannot be objective (true regardless of what people believe) because there is nothing to ground morality in (once again, I am talking about the origins of morality, not how we know what it is). Since, given atheism, morality is an evolved trait of beings with higher consciousness, nothing is objectively right or wrong. This world view would entail that a loving act such as hugging a child is no different than beating a child, in objective terms. Sure, subjectively beating a child may be wrong because the child is hurt and the species development might be hindered, but there is nothing actually wrong with the act. In different circumstances, under a possible different evolution, or under a different society, beating a child instead of loving it might even be considered a good thing. I think that is ridiculous. I suggest that beating a child is always worse morally than hugging a child. But, given atheism, there is no grounding for me thinking that way. So while being an atheist doesn't necessarily affect one's morality, atheism being true affects if there is an objective morality. If there is an objective morality, then certain actions (whether we know what they are or not) are either right or wrong. If morality is only subjective, then actions may seem right or wrong to us, but we cannot actually call an action absolutely wrong, but instead must concede that it is a difference of opinion. Because evolution and society determines what we think of morality given atheism, there is no reason we ought to act morally if we don't want to. So if I want to punch someone in the face for no reason at all, yes society may view it as wrong, but in actuality I did nothing wrong. I just acted against my genes, and no one has any right to call it wrong. In fact, if I can get society to think that it is right, then what I would have done would have been a good thing. This all sounds ridiculous to me. I believe there are right and wrong actions, not just based on our evolution, but based on a transcendent being (which I believe to be the Christian God). This grounds morality outside of humans and society, and allows us to call an action like rape wrong no matter what the circumstance or society. I believe naturalistic atheism cannot do this. That is my point.
As I said before I am not remotely a Biblical scholar so I will defer to you and Havoc's knowledge in this regard. What I am saying is that while there is a good likelihood that the Canon got it right I don't think we can ignore the intervening time regarding when the Gospels were written and the time that Jesus actually lived and also other factors that may have influenced which accounts became Canon and which ones did not. Even if the Bishops acted without prejudice and with the utmost objectivity what we know of humans is that there could still be lots of room for error in the recollection. Also given the political situation around the early church I think that is even a bigger issue that cannot overlooked.
See my response above to MadMax. I will agree that your acceptance isn't completely blind but pardon the pun it seems like you are putting too much faith in the Bishops who institutionalized the Canon and largely relying on the strength of the institution to support your view.
I apologize if I wasn't clear...I didn't mean to engage the larger "debate." I was just speaking of the Gospel of Peter, specifically.
All the people who are arguing that the New Testament is not an accurate account of Jesus WILL one day have the opportunity to ask him how accurate it is. Hopefully you will have already accepted him as your savior before that happens.
When people say "You can't be moral without religion", that kind of worries me, because to me that sounds like "If I wasn't afraid of going to Hell, I'd be completely immoral". Basically you are saying you are only good because theres consequences if you aren't. I mean, you seriously couldn't do something just because its the right thing to do, not because you want benefits? Its really a stupid argument and at least in my eyes, makes you look like a bad person. I try to be a good person because I want to make a positive impact on the world, not because I want a good standing in Heaven, but apparently I'm in the minority there.
I would agree with you. Anyone who thinks that you need to believe in God or a specific religion in order to act good is deluded. There are plenty of good atheists, muslims, Christians and followers of various other religions. A lack of belief in God does not automatically mean that someone is immoral. And I hope you were not insinuating in your post that I was saying that. However, when you say something is the right thing to do, what do you base that on? What is your standard for right and wrong? It seems you are appealing to a greater standard of morality, where people inherently know that some things are right and some things are wrong. This would seem to be an objective morality, and I was arguing that without a God actually existing (whether or not a person believes in Him is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is something outside of us to ground morality in. Otherwise morality shifts as society and people's thinking shifts. So something that is good today may be terrible in 200 years.) there can be no objective morality, and it would be only subjective ie.. depending on that specific person. I hope this clears up my stance. If not then I apologize.
Cml750 - if I wanted to hear fairy tales, I'd read mother goose... Please try to bring critical thinking to the discussion.
I'm saying if the basis of the Christian God is love, then what's being taught around some churches is unfair and even cruel. And that His influence through how people practice it seems more individually focused than community focused, which allows people to forget/ignore everything else that happens around them, and let them think that, despite claims, events happen to be all about them. Which is fine and natural, but doesn't seem very transcendent or holy. I was rambling a little bit, but that was it. I also think as a predominant religion for world powers in the last 300 or so years, the Christians involved haven't been doing a good job spreading a faith their Messiah would've wanted it. Or maybe I'm interpreting the Bible all wrong, and their and our actions falls under the box of God's plan. It kinda follows your argument about the basis of morality. Does our "goodness" come from God's influence or the religions that sprout from His influence? If it's the former, what proof would be there to distinguish His influence against one that happens through chaos and natural selection? Normally it'd be unfair to ask this, but it's similar to asserting that our morality comes from a higher cause. If you're making a case about the latter, is humanity collectively better off? We might've made great strides in the last two centuries, but those periods were also home to the bloodiest and horrific wars human kind as ever known. I respect the rest of your reply and your tone in this thread.
Because what morality is in that case is subjective. There is no reason that it couldn't be different if we had evolved differently. If you want to hold that morality is subjective then that is fine. But IMO there are certain actions that are good, such as loving something, and there are certain actions that are bad, such as raping someone regardless of what someone else might think. I don't think these things are good and bad simply because we evolved to think they were. I believe they are objectively good and bad. As in they would always be bad no matter how we ev
Sorry I accidently hit submit. I think these actions are always good or bad, even if we would have evolved differently. On the view presented in the quote, the only reason they are good or bad is because of the way in which we evolved. Also, the quoted material provides no reason why we ought to not do something or why we ought to do something. If I want to ignore my natural evolutionary programming and commit some horrible atrocity, then why shouldn't I? Who is to say I am wrong? Society may say I'm wrong, but if I can get away with it then why shouldn't I? (I have no desire to commit a horrible atrocity )
Therein lies the problem. You want to engage in "critical thinking" when none is required. Faith in Jesus is the only requirement. Let me ask you a question. What if I am right? Has the thought even crossed your mind? What if the so called "fairy tale" is really true? What if your soul is eternal? Does that scare you at all? Not believing takes a little bit of faith too. I see no point in arguing about the accuracy of the New Testament because I have faith that the scripture were written by men under divine authority and any editing that was done was done under divine authority too. When Jesus died and rose again the Holy Spirit was released into the world. The Holy Spirit guides true believers so I believe the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote and edited the scriptures of the New Testament.
<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNcWdV0LYG4?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CNcWdV0LYG4?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object> How much faith does it take for you to not believe that I have an invisible pet dragon in my closet that sometimes grants me wishes when I feed it?
Completely agree with this. Morality is a developing thing, it's not set in stone - it grows with information and experience. That information and experience doesn't necessarily come from God or religion. An atheist and a Christian can lead exactly the same life, while placing faith in different things, but that wouldn't change the fact they're both acting in the same moral/immoral fashion. Morality is as independent of religion as independence can be within a religious framework.
