Why I think atheists should not reject all religious text.

[Cato]

Here's a link to the article that provoked me to join this site and open this thread: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics...moral.html. The info presented in it may be biased or fabricated but if it is true, I just wondered if my theory as to why may be correct.

Funny, getting a page not found error. Same shit happens when looking for God.

[Alex K]

@Cato
Thou deletest ye olde dotte in the end of the url, and thou shaltst find sillyness.

[robvalue]

I don't know if that's a parody site or not. It's impossible to tell.

[Alex K]

I don't know if that's a parody site or not. It's impossible to tell.

It is a poe case in the original sense. The comparative statistics bit is great comedy, no matter whether intentional or not.

[abaris]

OK, so that's the conclusion of the text quoted.

Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. This phenomenon also occurs in Christians who abandon church and Christian fellowship. As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone to viewing pornography, using profanity in public, gossiping, and drunkenness.

In German we have word for that: "secondary virtues". Meaning, focussing on things that aren't really important and have next to no impact on society. These secondary virtues are a great tool to keep people towing the line. Don't do this or that and most of all obey.

Small wonder that the article also points out, that atheists as well as liberals don't want to obey authority. They on the other hand, speaking as christians, think obeying to be a virtue. It's literally the line of thinking that led us into two world wars.

[Alex K]

Exactly, all of this is secondary, conveniently ignoring the really important stuff. But of course, that survey is a joke anyhow.

Of course, there has never been any moral drifting observed for the churches' positions themselves

[Nope]

OK, so that's the conclusion of the text quoted.

Although, in theory, atheists can lead moral lives, the absence of an absolute moral foundation probably leads to moral drifting over time. This phenomenon also occurs in Christians who abandon church and Christian fellowship. As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone to viewing pornography, using profanity in public, gossiping, and drunkenness.

In German we have word for that: "secondary virtues". Meaning, focussing on things that aren't really important and have next to no impact on society. These secondary virtues are a great tool to keep people towing the line. Don't do this or that and most of all obey.

Small wonder that the article also points out, that atheists as well as liberals don't want to obey authority. They on the other hand, speaking as christians, think obeying to be a virtue. It's literally the line of thinking that led us into two world wars.

That makes a lot of sense. I think that atheists-and some liberal Christians-view certain issues as morally neutral. Looking at photos of consenting adults who want to take sexually suggestive photos or videos is morally neutral to me, for example, but to some Christians it is a black/white moral issue.

Christians-at least here in the southern US- are the ones that reject their own bible. The book is supposed to be their holy text and yet many have not read it or cherry pick which rules to follow. There is no direct rule against abortion, for example but there are multiple verses in both the Old and New Testament about god's anger when the poor are not helped. Yet many Christians want laws against abortion but believe that helping the poor should be voluntary.

[LostLocke]

Did you notice they tiny liberal/conservative "morality" box at the right?
See how the importance of 'harm' and 'fairness' drops the more conservative on the scale you are?

[Losty]

I can't think of one good thing the bible teaches us we can't get from secular sources, plenty of bad things though. The day I need to know how to get a slave, or who to sell my daughter to after she's been raped, I'll read the bible. Until then I'll happily throw the baby out with the bath water, or,as my mother often said "if you find a sweet in a pile of poo, do you eat it?"

Either you're not being honest or you should read a lot more of the bible. But considering that the most popular verses tend to be about treating people with kindness and love, I have a hard time believing you've no knowledge of them.

We don't need the bible to teach us about kindness and love. If the bible had never existed we would still have a world full of kindness and love.

[abaris]

We don't need the bible to teach us about kindness and love. If the bible had never existed we would still have a world full of kindness and love.

Probably more so.