7 Points of a Godless Life

[Neo-Scholastic]

The OP gives us a good example of atheist wishful thinking. If there is no god you can do as you please to serve yourself without having to worry about trivialities like justice or truth. You live, you die, the end. How comforting it must feel not having to worry about the ultimate consequences of your life and never being held into account. I can see the appeal of atheism for people with no sense of responsibility beyond themselves.

The difference between atheists and theists, it seems, based on the fact that this argument is such a common theme among religious blowhards that can't leave well enough alone, is that atheists don't share in the theist's desire to commit actions that would require accountability of a negative sort after death. Isn't it interesting, Chad, that you seem to believe that your actions in this life will require some retributive justice in the next, whereas I do not? My actions in life don't require some grand, dramatic court martial to balance the books punitively before I go on to my rest, and frankly, it's a testament to how bad you have been not only that you think your actions do require that, but that you literally can't imagine a person who might just be decent their whole lives, make up for their errors in this life, and die without this clawing fear of ultimate justice round the corner. As usual, your projection says far more about you, than it does about that which you disdain.
Incidentally, who, exactly, is attempting to escape accountability here? The atheist, who does their best to make up for their bad actions in the here and now, or the christian, who has shopped off any need to do that on the suffering of a third party they've agreed to be innocent? You want to talk about escaping accountability? You think you're going to heaven regardless of your sins because of a Christ shaped loophole, something that we atheists have no assurance of at all, and you're accusing the people who aren't using the loophole of trying to avoid accountability?

As usual, Esquilax, you offer up dishonest and diversionary debate points. Apparently doing so satisfies some need you have for self-righteous anger and belief in your own moral superiority.

The Christian position is not, as you say, that people require the threat of after-death retribution to behave morally; but rather, that God gives the justice that is conspicuously absent during our mortal term. Christians are called to manifest in their words and deeds love of the Lord and to others as themselves. Love, not fear, is the basis of Christian morality.

You claim not to need a divine threat as an incentive to behave morally. That may be. But that was not my point which was this; just as believers can take comfort in God’s justice and mercy, atheists can take comfort in the idea that they are not bound by any divine or natural law. This gives them license to conform morality to their personal opinions and proclivities, which is what you, Esquilax and others, do.

With respect to your mean-spirited accusation that Christians avoid responsibility, it is true that some Christians mistakenly believe that they can sin and not be held accountable if they ask for forgiveness. That is not sound doctrine (Scriptural references provided upon request). Christ’s forgiveness is not a “Get-Out-of-Hell-Free” card. First there must be true repentance before God extends Mercy. Even our earthly justice system recognizes that the severity of the sentence is tempered by the convict’s contrition. Once forgiveness has been granted the believer must persist in their regeneration. It is Christ’s victory that allows us to overcome, something not available to unbelievers who rely on their own strength and willpower. And it is He who provides the full restitution that no mortal, on his own, has power to give.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The OP gives us a good example of atheist wishful thinking. If there is no god you can do as you please to serve yourself without having to worry about trivialities like justice or truth. You live, you die, the end. How comforting it must feel not having to worry about the ultimate consequences of your life and never being held into account. I can see the appeal of atheism for people with no sense of responsibility beyond themselves.

Setting aside for the moment that she didn't address "justice or truth" in her list, your personal attacks don't explain why you think that you as well aren't a moral relativist ... because you are. You simply refuse to own the decision, palming it off instead on a fictional being in order to avoid the responsibility of constructing a decent moral code.

Instead, you're satisfied with a Bronze Age code which is incoherent and ultimately meaningless, given the fact that wrong was made right by the torture and murder of an innocent person. If that sort of thing is sufficient to satisfy your moral curiosity, then you're more of a simpleton than I had thought, and all that high-falutin' philosophy apparently didn't teach you a fucking thing.

[Esquilax]

As usual, Esquilax, you offer up dishonest and diversionary debate points. Apparently doing so satisfies some need you have for self-righteous anger and belief in your own moral superiority.

And as usual, you completely misunderstand the basic concepts I was talking about, making your haughty, condescending ad hominems rather funny. Because see, you go on to say:

The Christian position is not, as you say, that people require the threat of after-death retribution to behave morally; but rather, that God gives the justice that is conspicuously absent during our mortal term. Christians are called to manifest in their words and deeds love of the Lord and to others as themselves. Love, not fear, is the basis of Christian morality.

I never said that. What I said- in fairly unambiguous terms, I thought- was that I find it interesting that the christians willing to say that atheists live a life free of accountability seem to believe that they require retributive justice after death, something that I as an atheist don't actually think I need. The implication is that christians like you commit acts that demand punishment, whereas atheists do not. When I die, it won't be with the sense that I'm getting away with some wrong committed in life, because I'll have done my best to commit no wrongs, and to make up for those I do in the here and now. I'm kinda blown away with the hidden premises of what you said, which is that you yourself have committed wrong acts with no intention of making up for them before you die, to the point that you can't imagine anyone else being otherwise.

I can't even understand how you managed to take an "evidently, atheists are more moral than christians," statement and turn it into a "so you think we can't be moral?!" statement.

You claim not to need a divine threat as an incentive to behave morally.

No, my claim is that, divine threat or not, I have nothing to fear because I've done nothing deserving punishment. See, that's the thing: you're either going to have a reasonable god who will assess my actions on their own terms, in which case I'm fine, or you're going to have a christian god who's just going to Hell me up for not believing, in which case it doesn't matter what I do, since I can't force myself to believe something irrational, nor can I trick that god through presenting a belief I don't hold.

If you have a god whose judgment would actually reflect a moral dimension, then I would come out good. If you have a god whose divine threat I would actually fall afoul of, then his judgment would not reflect a moral dimension at all, it would just be retribution for not kowtowing to arbitrary rules.

A good god would not send me to hell. A god that would send me to hell would not be doing so because I wasn't good.

That may be. But that was not my point which was this; just as believers can take comfort in God’s justice and mercy, atheists can take comfort in the idea that they are not bound by any divine or natural law. This gives them license to conform morality to their personal opinions and proclivities, which is what you, Esquilax and others, do.

I don't, though? My personal opinions are irrelevant to morality. Reality is what informs morality, not what I want. The harm or benefit actions cause are objective, not subjective.

With respect to your mean-spirited accusation that Christians avoid responsibility, it is true that some Christians mistakenly believe that they can sin and not be held accountable if they ask for forgiveness. That is not sound doctrine (Scriptural references provided upon request). Christ’s forgiveness is not a “Get-Out-of-Hell-Free” card. First there must be true repentance before God extends Mercy. Even our earthly justice system recognizes that the severity of the sentence is tempered by the convict’s contrition. Once forgiveness has been granted the believer must persist in their regeneration. It is Christ’s victory that allows us to overcome, something not available to unbelievers who rely on their own strength and willpower. And it is He who provides the full restitution that no mortal, on his own, has power to give.

Still the same thing. Whether you're actively out to skip out on justice or not, the fact is that, if you believe you deserve some form of justice in the afterlife but are taking a course of action that would prevent that justice from being borne out and placing that responsibility on another, you are taking a loophole. To use your convict example, yes, the law recognizes contrition, but it doesn't just say "okay you're sorry, you're acquitted," either. Nor would the judge accept "I'm sorry, and also Jake over there has already served my sentence, so..." as reason to acquit either. There's still some expectation of punishment, even if that punishment is lessened due to remorse. The Jesus option is still a loophole, and so a christian has no place at all to be talking about accountability, since they've already arranged matters such that they face none. The intent behind that is meaningless, the deal still prevents them from being accountable for their own actions.

[Rhondazvous]

The OP gives us a good example of atheist wishful thinking. If there is no god you can do as you please to serve yourself without having to worry about trivialities like justice or truth. You live, you die, the end. How comforting it must feel not having to worry about the ultimate consequences of your life and never being held into account. I can see the appeal of atheism for people with no sense of responsibility beyond themselves.

Your god does not hold anyone responsible. He commanded his so=called people to do half the things he forbade in the 10 commandments.

Maybe you’re the one who’s comfortable. Like a man told me. “I’m saved by grace. I can do anything I want. Come on, baby, we can repent in the morning.”

Yes, it’s comforting to be able to sow seeds to the flesh all week then go to church on Sunday and pray for a crop failure.

Christians base their level of morality on that they think other people should do. Like that woman in Kentucky. 4 husbands, and she wants to set herself up as the guardian of what god planned marriage to be.

Get the fuck outta here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In their own words (which I put in bold face), Cecelia, robvalue, and Parkers Tan, have proved my earlier point. That point being atheistic moral systems are either constructed or co-opted by individuals according to their personal whims.

When we see our fellow man suffering, our empathy gives us cause to help them… we have to judge on the standards of our own empathy,…

I'm accountable to me, and I'm my own harshest critic.

You [theists]…avoid the responsibility of constructing a decent moral code.

Empathy, evolved or otherwise, gets you nowhere, because the feeling of empathy is just one among many other instinctual responses like disgust, contempt, fear and shame. You have no basis for privileging one set of feelings over another other your own personal inclination to do so.

Parker in particular shows himself to be his usual clueless self. He falsely accuses believers of shirking responsibility for not constructing their own moral code. Believers do not have to make-up a feel-good ethical system that you find satisfying. Reason and experience teach the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that transcend personal preferences and individual proclivities.

I have never seen a single post from a believer claiming that a person who doesn’t believe in god/gods must turn evil. Likewise I have never seen a single believer say that a person must consciously acknowledge God to behave morally. When you attribute those beliefs to theists, it may earn cheers among other atheists, but for us believers it only confirms our opinions that many atheists have a fundamental disregard for truth.

Another thing that confirms our opinion of atheistic dishonesty is the claim that Christians are hypocrites because they do not strictly comply with the legal codes of the Mosaic theocracy, which for us are instructive but not binding. That insult has been shown wrong so many times that by continuing to use it you conform to the stereotype of ‘angry atheist’.

You see, Chad, you’ve painted yourself into a corner by saying we need god to be moral. The truth of your statement must be manifest in the lives of every Christian, which it clearly is not.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Knowing the truth of the Gospel and having the will to live according to it are two separate things.

[Rhondazvous]

You see, Chad, you’ve painted yourself into a corner by saying we need god to be moral. The truth of your statement must be manifest in the lives of every Christian, which it clearly is not.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. Knowing the truth of the Gospel and having the will to live according to it are two separate things.

You have obscured your point in obfuscation and back peddling. Adieu, Mr. Chad.

[Rhondazvous]

#11 I am free to not obsess over the sex lives of other people.

[Angrboda]

Empathy, evolved or otherwise, gets you nowhere, because the feeling of empathy is just one among many other instinctual responses like disgust, contempt, fear and shame. You have no basis for privileging one set of feelings over another other your own personal inclination to do so.

Parker in particular shows himself to be his usual clueless self.  He falsely accuses believers of shirking responsibility for not constructing their own moral code. Believers do not have to make-up a feel-good ethical system that you find satisfying. Reason and experience teach the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that transcend personal preferences and individual proclivities.

In the same way, believing in a god doesn't lead one to a specific moral attitude derived from that god - that requires the personal proclivity to invest one's morality into a specific theological theory. Existential freedom isn't a problem solely for the atheist, the theist faces the same crisis in whether to invest in a specific view of God. You yourself acknowledge as much by your final statement that, "Knowing the truth of the Gospel and having the will to live according to it are two separate things." The person without such will simply manufactures a different God. The problem of will and bias isn't magically solved by positing a god. There are plenty of theists who consider themselves moral regardless of their relation with God.

[Cecelia]

Empathy, evolved or otherwise, gets you nowhere, because the feeling of empathy is just one among many other instinctual responses like disgust, contempt, fear and shame. You have no basis for privileging one set of feelings over another other your own personal inclination to do so.

It's really no different for religious people.  Just look at how people cherry pick the parts of their religious text that they like, and ignore the rest.  Look at how they used Christianity to justify slavery, to justify the treatment of gay people, and many other things.  We just don't get our instructions from a book that says to kill people (and then mostly ignore and justify it by calling it the laws of the time) for the things they do.  It's great when people ignore some of the bigotry that the book inspires, but that's just the differences between individuals the same as it is for atheists.

It's no coincidence that everyone interprets their religious text differently.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And Chad, you're showing your usual density by not understanding my point, which was that your moral code was constructed by humans as well. Reason and experience SHOULD inform one's construction of a moral code, but you Christians shirk that duty when you swallow a prefab morality which is clearly incoherent as shown in the Bible.