(November 5, 2014 at 1:38 pm)Cato Wrote: There is no single 'atheist morality', nor is there any single 'biblical morality'; making the ethical query in the OP all very confused. As has already happened, bad moral actors (God and Hitler) are immediately invoked in an effort to demonize non-existent moral codes by association.
The ubiquitous references to Hitler in these types of discussions are distractions. Hitler's belief or non-belief in God is immaterial, because Hitler's actions are universally accepted as immoral regardless of someone's religious affiliation; notwithstanding the existence of Mel Gibson and Islamacists.
Charges that Christians are immoral because the OT God was a prick are very superficial. Most Christians don't interpret the Bible literally. I don't have data to support this, but I imagine this is at least partially due to the fact that some believers can't reconcile some Biblical tales with their sense of morality and the idea of a just, loving and merciful God. Claims that someone can't be moral without a universal law giver are equally preposterous. When it comes to ethical debate, I put moral nihilists and literal Biblical apologists on the same psychopathic tendencies watchlist.
I just wish people would quit ignoring that meaningful ethical debate has been raging for thousands of years and that it is far more sophisticated than god/no-god. Virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism don't necessarily require a god, but they also don't prohibit the idea of a god in order to be meaningful and practical systems of moral guidance.
Most Christians do not take the bible literally still does not mean that others read that same book with the same words to justify controlling the reproductive rights of women and justify bans on gay marriage no different than Russian Christians read the same bible to justify their current uptick in homophobic laws.
Most Christians 100 years ago took it more literally. Most Christians during the dark ages even took it more literally. Less literal Christians of today are still using the same book that was used in the past taken more literally. Still the same source.
I argue the same with liberal westernized Muslims and liberal atheists and liberal Christians when they argue "most do not do that". It is not a matter of a majority doing it. It is a matter of just enough that read the same books to justify cruelty. The source of their morality is the same no matter if that source is used to justify compassion or cruelty.
What humans fail to see is that religion itself is not a patent holder on morality. No one religion invented cruelty or compassion. Those acts have always been in or evolution. Our morality is in our behavior, not in the religions we invent or the books we use to justify good or bad actions.
