What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Well guys, I have gotten half way through page 20 replying to all your posts. It is past 3am where I live and I must go to bed at this point. My husband has to be up early for work tomorrow, and I always like to see him off in the morning.

Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this with me. I must admit it didn't go so much in the direction I intended lol. I wanted to hear more about your views and why you believe the things you do. Some of you responded with such, but many others just decided to focus on me rather than on my question. So I had a lot of people interrogating me on my beliefs. Even though this is not what I intended, I still very much enjoyed talking to you about my faith and my motivations. I am sorry if I came off as "preachy" at any time. Kind of hard not to do when I'm being asked about my faith!

I tried to answer everyone's posts, but I am sorry for those of you who I missed. I want you all to know I respect you all, even in all our differences.

I hope everyone has a great night, and thanks again for taking the time to talk to me and make me feel welcomed to the forum!

[Thumpalumpacus]

...But isn't that what you are doing when you say you believe the story of Genesis is allegorical?

No, because I regard all of it as horseshit. Pure, grade-A horseshit.

I believe ALL the Old Testament is allegorical. The nice parts, and the bad parts alike. I'm not sure why you are perturbed by this.

Because you're using this to dodge the question of why the same god is so entirely different from one book to the other. And because you have no way of knowing that you've applied the allegorical reading and the literal reading to the right portions of the book.

Would you rather me believe that the bad parts about slavery and stoning being acceptable are literal?

Facts are facts. Slavery and execution by stoning were facts. And according to the part of the book you disregard, your god ordered those things.

Why would you want me to believe such horrible things are true? They go against the teachings of Christ, so of course I am against them.  

In other words, you've made up your mind already, and feel obliged therefore to regard that part of the bible as allegory. This is exactly what I've been saying all along. Thanks you for finally admitting as much.

I regard them as allegorical because I regard the entire Old Testament as allegorical. I don't believe Moses spoke to a burning bush. I don't believe Jonah was in a whale for 3 days. I don't believe Eve was tempted by an apple. Above all, and most importantly, I  regard it all as allegorical because I'm Christian. And Christ *specifically* teaches that some stuff in the Old Testament is inaccurate. I am not trying to make an argument, just telling you what I believe because you seem to really want to know and understand.

What's funny is that he teaches that those moral precepts are outmoded, and that the time has come for a new set of values.

You see, even Christ, as written in the Bible, is a moral relativist.

You continue with your cherry-picking, young lady. It's time for this old man to get some shut-eye. Good night.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It isn't all about emotional inclinations. I use logic to get to this point. Christianity makes much more logical sense to me. Just as being an atheist makes more sense to you. Could someone else other than yourself be right? Sure, but you don't think so. Same with me.

Last point: how many other religions did you examine in the same depth as you examined Catholicism? How old were you when you converted?

The idea of Christianity being logical is risible.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I still can’t get over that you admitted that all the stories in the old testament are an allegory. Why can’t the New Testament be an allegory too? Noah’s Ark, Jonah, Samson, Moses parting the Red Sea, talking burning bushes, people living to be 900 years old, are all allegories, but jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, raising Lazarus from the dead, feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fishes, and cursing a fig tree…your skepticism isn’t raised in the slightest towards these things?

You say you are trying to think logically, and had a period of doubt, how are those stories convincing when the others aren’t? They are all stories, that’s it. I feel you need to apply a bit more skepticism to these claims, instead of just believing them because they are written in a book.

If muhammad was said to walk on water, and there was never a mention of jesus doing it, you’d probably think that story was nuts, but because it’s in your religion, you just believe it without even being all that skeptical. You just accept the good and miraculous parts, ignore the bad parts, and don’t seriously question the validity of the claims. If you’ve seriously questioned it, you probably wouldn’t be believing in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

In those instances where it's clear that your beliefs (and not just your religious beliefs, but your beliefs about things like subjective morality) are an impediment to understanding the responses you've been given to your questions....they are going to end up being discussed, sure.   That -might- be unavoidable.  It's been fun, nice to meet you, see you next time.

[robvalue]

Good night then Thanks for answering my questions.

When you rejoin us, maybe you could define what "good" and "morality" actually mean to you, specifically? Are they about wellbeing versus harm, and if not, why should I care about them? If they are, isn't it pretty obvious on the whole what causes harm and what aids wellbeing? You admit we all differ on the finer points, that is to be expected from subjective but not objective morality. Also, "what God says is good" is subjective to God, not objective. If it was objective, it would also apply to God, and he couldn't change it.

Also, what logic did you use to decide Christianity is true? You've already discarded most of the bible as irrelevant. If I picked up a book and wanted to learn something from it and I was three quarters of the way through and so far it was getting it all wrong, why on Earth would I read any more or expect it to suddenly be right?

There's not a lot to say from our perspective. On the whole, we use empathy and reason. Not a lot more to it. We know what hurts us, so we don't do that to other people. The more general explanation is evolution, the natural selection of those who cooperate. All religion does is try and credit "God" with all this.

[Aoi Magi]

---

The keyword here would be what I think. From my perspective, yes it is wrong, but from their perspective it is not. As I said before too, morality depends on situation and perspective, and thus it IS NOT an absolute universal truth.

Your takeaway is wrong, almost every atheist I know believes in morality, they just don't believe that their morality is the absolute truth or universally correct.

---

Yes, thank you for the reply. I understand what you are saying. You believe that, if to them, killing infidels is not immoral, then they are not definitively doing anything immoral as a reality. You do not believe that there is a moral truth. And that is where we differ.

What the heck do you mean by "moral truth"? Define the term please...

1) If murder or any such action is morally wrong in one situation but not wrong in another, and if the same morality isn't universally applicable then morality is NOT a universal truth, but a subjective truth.
2) If it is subjective, then suggesting it is universally defined by a supreme being is false.
3) Thus simply presuming a supreme being, and jumping from that to christianity or any particular god is a huge leap in logic.

[abaris]

Scratch that.

Post got lost when posting and can't be arsed to write it again.

[Nope]

I like how you guys always try to compare ancient civilizations with your modern world view.

That was from Huggy 74. For some weird reason, my post won't show both my response and the part of his reply that I wanted to use so I just copied and pasted.


Huggy, you and I are in agreement. . Morality changed from the ancient period to now. Human beings did not feel less pain or fear  than they do now. The difference is that we as a society have decided that killing infants just because we don't like their parents' religion is wrong. That is my point. On this issue you disagree with Catholic_Lady  not me.


Catholic_Lady, thank you for being polite in this discussion. Most people here enjoy a good debate which can be a little disorienting to someone not used to it. I do have another question for you and I hope that you haven't given up on this thread yet.

Is the entire Old Testament an allegory? If so, what is the point? What lesson do we learn from verses like these:

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." 

Those young captives probably saw their entire families murdered. They were no less human than you or I. What exactly is the lesson that we are supposed to learn from this?

[pocaracas]

23 pages in 10 hours and, most grievously, while I sleep!?!!
Damn you guys!

The question I have for atheists is how do we know what IS good?

To put it simply:
- Good is that which is not bad.

Bad is that which damages people, or a people's chances at survival.
The concept of Bad changes with society.
It is known.