Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:18 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
#31
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
.There is only human morality and in our species history we have always and we will always display some range of behavior both good and bad. Evolution will always do that. If we seek to be less violent and more compassionate we must put our common existence ahead of our personal views. We are still ultimately individuals within the same species.
Reply
#32
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The problem is, you see things from such a narrow point of view. When a child is born into the world, there is suffering for both mother and child, not to mention bloody, yet do we say this is a terrible thing? no. when a child is born it is a joyous occasion, and the suffering is no longer remembered.

Speaking of narrow points of view, this is one from you. Do you honestly think that if we developed a method of childbirth tomorrow that alleviated all of the pain, that it wouldn't instantly become the most popular method of childbirth?

The pain of childbirth isn't erased when the child comes, and it isn't transmuted into some kind of happy thing either. The joy comes at the arrival of the child, not the suffering that preceded it. Nobody looks fondly on the process of childbirth. Nobody finds that pain appealing, it's just a reality of the process. But you're not talking about a process that required pain, you're not even talking about a process that even needed to happen.

You're talking about pain, inflicted on total innocents, for no reason at all, even though there was another way that was just as easily attainable. You're talking about a god who, when given the option of either hurting babies or not doing that, a choice that any normal human being would find trivial, if asked to find the moral answer, chooses to hurt babies.

And you're defending that choice because afterwards you would prefer to think that the babies got something nice, even though you have no indication that they actually did. It's despicable, and before you come back with this "oh, innocents go to heaven" crap, I'd remind you that another thing the bible constantly reinforces is the idea that the offspring bear the consequences of their parents' wrongdoings. The argument could be made either way, I'm just not willing to sugarcoat the entire process the way you are, because maybe there was a silver lining to an ordeal that never needed to happen.

Quote:like wise for those that return to God, it is a joyous occasion in heaven. Death is simply a transition from one place to another, is suffering sometimes involved? sure, but suffering is involved during birth, but that moment of suffering will no longer be remember once you step into eternity.

If suffering is not required in death, but that suffering is inflicted anyway, then that is needless, torturous cruelty. If a human did it you'd rightly call him a monster.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#33
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 2:46 pm)Esquilax Wrote:
(November 5, 2014 at 1:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: The problem is, you see things from such a narrow point of view. When a child is born into the world, there is suffering for both mother and child, not to mention bloody, yet do we say this is a terrible thing? no. when a child is born it is a joyous occasion, and the suffering is no longer remembered.

Speaking of narrow points of view, this is one from you. Do you honestly think that if we developed a method of childbirth tomorrow that alleviated all of the pain, that it wouldn't instantly become the most popular method of childbirth?

The pain of childbirth isn't erased when the child comes, and it isn't transmuted into some kind of happy thing either. The joy comes at the arrival of the child, not the suffering that preceded it. Nobody looks fondly on the process of childbirth. Nobody finds that pain appealing, it's just a reality of the process. But you're not talking about a process that required pain, you're not even talking about a process that even needed to happen.

You're talking about pain, inflicted on total innocents, for no reason at all, even though there was another way that was just as easily attainable. You're talking about a god who, when given the option of either hurting babies or not doing that, a choice that any normal human being would find trivial, if asked to find the moral answer, chooses to hurt babies.

And you're defending that choice because afterwards you would prefer to think that the babies got something nice, even though you have no indication that they actually did. It's despicable, and before you come back with this "oh, innocents go to heaven" crap, I'd remind you that another thing the bible constantly reinforces is the idea that the offspring bear the consequences of their parents' wrongdoings. The argument could be made either way, I'm just not willing to sugarcoat the entire process the way you are, because maybe there was a silver lining to an ordeal that never needed to happen.

Quote:like wise for those that return to God, it is a joyous occasion in heaven. Death is simply a transition from one place to another, is suffering sometimes involved? sure, but suffering is involved during birth, but that moment of suffering will no longer be remember once you step into eternity.

If suffering is not required in death, but that suffering is inflicted anyway, then that is needless, torturous cruelty. If a human did it you'd rightly call him a monster.
like I said, you have a very narrow point of view.
your soul has no age, it has existed since the beginning, and at the appointed time you step out of eternity and in to your body here on earth. But because of sin, we suffer and we're appointed to die. When you die here, there is a body waiting for you over on the other side.
Quote:2 Corinthians 5:1
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

This scripture is in reference to the body being destroyed and receiving a new body.


The decisions we make in this life determine if we return back to God or not. Children can't be held accountable for their decisions so they go to heaven, maybe God in his infinite knowledge knew that they would just follow the footsteps of their parents and decided to take them early, who knows?

what I do know are these children are happy where they are and wouldn't want to return to earth under no circumstances.

I suppose an unborn child is content to live in the womb forever, after all the womb is all it knows, all it's need are provided for. But after experiencing the outside world would you want to return to the womb?
Reply
#34
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 12:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Jenny A Wrote:


Ok, so pick the one you think is the worst and I'll address that one in depth, a short answer will not do any of those justice.

It's the pattern of a spoiled tyrant. There isn't a worst. It's a pattern of immorality.

(November 5, 2014 at 12:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(November 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Jenny A Wrote: So you believe that nations who sacrifice their children should be punished by killing all their kids? Odd point of view.

Oddly enough, I explained this in another thread.

If I remember right, the explanation is that the children go straight to heaven. Sorry but that won't cut it. That way leads to infanticide as a morally correct method of birth control. I may be pro-choice, but I won't go there. But the OT god does and he instructs his people to kill babies.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#35
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 3:20 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: like I said, you have a very narrow point of view.
your soul has no age, it has existed since the beginning, and at the appointed time you step out of eternity and in to your body here on earth. But because of sin, we suffer and we're appointed to die. When you die here, there is a body waiting for you over on the other side.

Why do you think repeating the same shoddy point and ignoring my objections counts as a rebuttal? Like I said, and you failed to even acknowledge, pain inflicted where no pain need be is needless, pointless cruelty. It doesn't matter what comes after, the point is that when god was offered a choice between hurting babies and not hurting babies, he chose the former, willingly, and without cause. These are not the acts of a moral ruler.

And don't give me this crap about sin; babies can't sin, they don't have the capacity to yet. If your argument is that they take the blame for original sin then, well, you're kinda done on this whole heaven thing too, since if you're saying they take on the ancestral sin then they're in hell, because another thing babies can't do is make a conscious choice to come to Jesus.

You can't have it both ways; if suffering is a product of sin then those babies were under that sin and are in hell, making the entire process completely monstrous. If the babies aren't under sin, then why were they made to suffer?

Quote:The decisions we make in this life determine if we return back to God or not. Children can't be held accountable for their decisions so they go to heaven, maybe God in his infinite knowledge knew that they would just follow the footsteps of their parents and decided to take them early, who knows?

Right, so they weren't held accountable for any sins, making their earthly suffering completely unjust. And if you're going to use god's foreknowledge as an excuse here, then you can never use the free will excuse to absolve god of responsibility for the problem of evil, either.

Quote:what I do know are these children are happy where they are and wouldn't want to return to earth under no circumstances.

There was a way to get them there without hurting them, and god chose to do the opposite. It doesn't matter if they're happy now, because this isn't about them, it's about the choices and thought processes of god. It has been since the beginning of this conversation, so please stop dodging.

Quote:I suppose an unborn child is content to live in the womb forever, after all the womb is all it knows, all it's need are provided for. But after experiencing the outside world would you want to return to the womb?

Irrelevant to the actual conversation. Quit laying dodgeball and address the issue. Dodgy
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee

Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Reply
#36
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 3:20 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: your soul has no age, it has existed since the beginning, and at the appointed time you step out of eternity and in to your body here on earth.

Putting "beginning" and "eternity" in one sentence seems pretty odd. Beginning of what exactly?

And stepping out of eternity, which obviously had a beginning, to use your words, means an eternal soul. But this eternal sould doesn't even have the capability of recognizing itself in a mirror till the age of three or thereabouts. It's actually pretty darn stupid for an eternal sould stepping into an earthly body. God must use his special eraser before the appointed time.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#37
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
All of this apology for god sponsored infanticide is horribly ironic when considering the evangelical, catholic, and fundie views about abortion.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#38
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(November 5, 2014 at 4:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Why do you think repeating the same shoddy point and ignoring my objections counts as a rebuttal?

First of all, all I do on this forum is repeat myself. I said the above in another thread, how am i supposed to know you read it?

second, I asked a simple question to which you answered with a question, hmmmm.

I also asked you guys to to provide a instance of what you're talking about from the Bible so we can discuss a specific case, which you also failed to do.
Reply
#39
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
(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.

The only difference between the atheist and the theist is that the atheist does not assign good or bad or "all this" to a super hero vs a super villain.
Reply
#40
RE: Atheist Morality vs Biblical Morality
The only difference is that the morality advocated by theists doesn't first consider the beings to whom it matters most.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rebuke on Biblical Prophecy Narishma 12 1444 May 28, 2018 at 11:46 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Knowing god outside a biblical sense Foxaèr 60 10615 March 31, 2018 at 1:44 am
Last Post: Godscreated
  Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy. Jehanne 184 22155 December 31, 2017 at 12:37 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  So, what would an actual 'biblical' flood look like ?? vorlon13 64 14524 August 30, 2017 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Christmas Traditions and Biblical Contradictions with Reality Mystical 30 5108 December 8, 2016 at 10:01 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  Biblical Date Rape chimp3 38 6677 July 29, 2016 at 10:35 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Biblical Incest Foxaèr 35 6274 July 19, 2016 at 11:21 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  biblical diabetes cure brewer 30 8231 June 30, 2016 at 7:34 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Pagan influences on the biblical stories of Jesus' life Panatheist 53 13175 April 11, 2016 at 10:50 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  Biblical Christianity 101, a study of the book of Romans Drich 633 88416 December 14, 2015 at 11:46 pm
Last Post: KevinM1



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)