NationStates Jolt Archive

Posting this same topic again because every time I post on the old thread it says "Invalid_Session" or something so here you go.


I am not quite sure I understand the difference between 'day-to-day' morality opposed to the illustration in the picture, we use the same conscience. For your first quote and second point: They wouldn't do anything if they couldn't say what your doing is wrong, in that case who are they to tell me what to do. If a person did stop me or condemn my actions then obviously they feel such an action is wrong and therefore are not moral relativists.

The situation you proposed is an extreme. It is fallacious reasoning to judge a condition by the behavior of the extremes. Specifically, a craven coward might give their life in a selfless gesture in an emergency situation, whereas up to that point they had been the most selfish and cruel person. Does this one act of morality (admittedly this is a very vauge example) completely overturn a life of base immorality? Was this even a moral choice or simply the expedience of the moment?

Ideally, we all hope that our moral stances would not change when confronted with both every day tests as well as extrordinary challenges, but as we face the every day and common place questions, by definition, more often, they are the true barometer by which we can judge our actions. So, unless you are frequently killing children, this is clearly an extreme case and the imperatives of it may differ.


I am glad that my assumption, yes you heard me right, my assumption about your thinking was wrong. I forget what it was that promted me to type this but something must have. By the way though I'm not so sure I would change my faith to make it run parallel to the world.

Well, that's your faith and I support your right to view it however you would. I don't think I exactly change my faith to run parallel to the world. However, I do believe in an ongoing process of revelation and that what I feel to be true today in my faith may not be the case tomorrow and may not be true for someone else ever.


Ah yes this Ravi character. He happens to be my favorite Christian apologist.
Ravi Zacharias has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, President Fujimori's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and cohosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. As well, Mr. Zacharias has spoken at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and in 2003, at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he will address the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, being held in Mozambique.

Hmmm, thanks for the information. I will be sure to read some of his writings. While I may not agree with all religious thinkers as I believe a spiritual path is a highly personalized thing, I enjoy reading those who bring an open, honest approach to the discussion of faith and religion.


Do I understand the atheist/moral relativist no I don't, but I do understand the implications of a secular world that they want to see.

But I don't think you really do. You assume you do. You assume that, simply because an atheist or a moral relativist does not agree with your basic assumptions they must also somehow be against your ultimate conclusion. This is not always the case. An atheist and a theist can share the same set of moral conclusions, they have simply arrived at those conclusions via different pathways. Additionally, you have assumed that moral relativism is ultimately 'wishy-washy' due to your quoted experiences. However, this is again not always true (and by and large isn't true). All moral relativism amounts to is the acknolwedgement that people may see the same situation in different ways and place different weights on different moral principles. An excellent example of this is Les Miserable. Jean Valjean stole the bread which is breaking the law and, most likely, immoral. He did it with a good cause, however, and the question remains was the situation fair in the first place. If it wasn't, is it an accurate condemnation of his mores to break the law. Why this great fear of moral relativisim and atheisim. Many atheists I know are some of the best people because they understand the preciousness of life and hold it's value sacrosanct whereas many theists I know are just holding out for whatever may or may come after this, sure that any injustices they perceive as suffering in this life will move them up the ladder of the next.

People arrive at their conclusions by different paths, but it doesn't make those paths wrong or the conclusions any less valid, unless those paths are blindly followed and those conclusions are unfairly assumed.


and fine o.k. maybe not every single one but its a darn high percentage, if it isn't the more sensible atheists aren't talking)

But what is your basis for this? You say it and you offer no rationale other than "from what you've seen". Therefore, in a way, you're guilty of practicing your own form of moral relativisim by condemning an entire subset of humanity based on a limited population sample.


I would also like to contritely ask you to point out a lie in that creed. I can't really counter, filthy lies without knowing which ones and why they are lies.

Pretty much all of it. I know athiests who do not believe in a God, but do believe in a continued existance after death. Not all athiests "believe" in Marx, many theists "believe" in Darwin and since when did psychosexual analysis become a point of contention between theisim and atheisim? Why isn't everything okay as long as you don't hurt someone? Does this mean Christians in the Crusades were practicing the Atheist Creed as they slaughtered Muslims? Lots of people believe in sex before, during and after marriage. It's unfair to call this atheisim or moral relativisim. Many Christians who claim the title even think blow jobs don't count as sex. Are they wrong and, if so, what's your basis for judgement? It is an unfair charge to say athiests or moral relativists are more adulterous by nature and belief than theists. I can show you a good many Christians who have and continue to indulge in that particular vice. What, exactly, is the therapy of sin? Taboos frequently are silly. If one is silly, then why should it be allowed to stand? Many taboos are outlined in The Bible, yet good Christian women still continue to consort with men during their periods and men still tend to shave their beards. Why are you condemning people for having a positive outlook ("We believe everything is getting better, despite evidence to the contrary.") also, I think many atheists would agree that we live in troubled times. Evidence must be investigated. That's simple scientific principle. Also, not every atheist or moral relativist believes in New Age practices and the fact that he chose to include them argues for his profound and smugly self-satisfied misunderstanding of the issue. Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point. Buddha and Muhamed were good men as well. They were all great moral teachers. What's the beef here? Also, as a Christian, I worship a living God who's revelation in ongoing and current, not the dead words of men from some two thousand years ago which have been corrupted, mistranslated and misused for personal gain many, many times since. Beware of false idols. We do not worship the Bible, we worship a living God whom we can all have a personal relationship with. You don't have to be an athiest to believe that, on some fundamental level, all religions are indeed basicially the same and that they all tap the same wellspring. And as for "compulsory heaven", well, yes, I personally believe in that too, but I'm neither an athiest or a moral relativist. How can we claim to follow a kind and loving God of forgiveness and then, in the same breath, claim to know someone is going to Hell (which I personally don't believe in and actually wasn't a part of the Bible until later)? Masters and Johnson did good research. What's the problem with them? What's selected isn't average. If it's selected for, it's beneficial and then becomes average, but it doesn't start out that way. "What's normal is good," isn't that a rhetoric espoused by Christian limitors when they claim homosexuality is bad? Isn't Christianity, in some way, a strive for normalicy?

Then we start getting personal. "We believe that each man must find the truth." Each man must. Period. Otherwise his faith or lack thereof is not his own and is weak, fragile and brittle, incapable of withstanding the pressure true belief requires. Additionally, you sort of argue against faith here with "and reality will adapt accordingly, The universe will readjust, History will alter." Well, we have no actual proof that God exists in general or that the Judeo-Christian conception of God exists. Reality would seem to almost argue against it. Yet, in spite of this, we continue to believe and expect reality to catch up. You can't mock a belief in the concrete and then expect that same concrete to support you when it becomes convenient for it to do so. Many athiests do believe in an absolute truth as do many moral relativists. Again, this is gross generalization and it is insufferable.

Finally, we come to the end. "We belive in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought." This is a condemnation? This is something to be avoided? We should all be part of a hive mind? Where, exactly, does it say this in Christian thought or the Bible? Christ himself came to reject a creed.

The last paragraph is simply bunk. Those things happen with or without religion.


I didn't see what was nonsensical about it in the first place, my comment was a sort of cheap way a sweeping your allegation under the rug.

Well, it didn't work. :lol:


For your last point I will partly agree with you. There are some atheists that are more moral according to Christian standards than Christians themselves.

Well, at least we're in accord somewhere.

That sword and baby situation may be extreme but, the reason I use it is because the line between right and wrong is very clear. Whereas it would be more difficult to the average person to draw the line between right and wrong in a less extreme situation. A coward giving up his or her life on a whim, seems insane to me. If a person did that I would like to talk to him and question him as to why he too this course of action. If a person who is a moral relativist felt wrong about having me murder another human I would like to know why?

Before I forget this is that guy's website in case you haven't found it yet: www.rzim.org


You ask why I am fearful of the moral relativist and atheist. The reason is, and based on you post it appears you will disagree with me, I find that the ultimate goal of the atheists I am hearing from will produce a generation of men and women without shame for their actions and no sense of guilt. Atheists that do not share their brethren's hope are either in the minority or aren't speaking out against such hopes. It was Aldous Huxley who said, "I want this world not to have meaning, because a meaningless world frees me to my own erotic, and my own political pursuits." He is joined by many. When there is no meaning to life, and the secularized society takes hold it will take away the legitimate sense of shame in our heart's. What does this mean though? It will allow for the 'anything goes' mindset. This is why Turner writes that last paragraph.
If religion exists these things still may happen, obviously, we see that every day. But religion doesn't exist in the offender's heart, unless of course it has been mangled by power-hungry church leaders. (Did I mention I was Catholic :lol: )

My basis for the quote you asked about for my basis for the quote is that if not all, or perhaps not even most atheists believe in what it was I was talking about I ask why are they not outraged about the atheists speaking out for something they reject.

Laslty I am not sure you are reading the 'poem' right. Either that or I am not reading your post right. Anyway: If an atheist believes in a continued existence after death who sustains this existenceand where did they come up with that idea? I would think and I know your going to call this an assumption but most atheists do agree with many of Marxe's, Darwin's and Freud's ideas. Such ideas "free them [me] to their [my] own and erotic a political pursuits. Everything isn't o.k. if it doesn't include hurting anyone (by the way it said to the best of your definition hence there is no point of reference of what hurt is) I would certainly think as a Christian you would have to say you reject that idea. Atheists do not have to disbelieve this, for if they do believe such a statement is true and Turner is right they will not have contradicted themselves. This means that Christians who were involved in the crusade (though disobeying their own beliefs on behalf of their beliefs) may not have believed something was alright as long as it didn't hurt anyone, for heaven's sake (pardon the pun) they were hurting someone. I am sure lots of people do believe in sex before, during, and after marriage, atheists included. I don't see labeling this moral relativism is unfair, for moral relativism allows for such thinking. No matter if a 'blow job' is sex or not, it is wrong, remember 1Corinthians 6: 12-20. I think Turner means when he says the therapy of sin, (and I could be wrong) the practicing, or perhaps indulgence of sin. Much of this 'poems' statements are contradcitions of themselves the taboo line is one of them. For if an atheist thinks that forbiddens are forbidden, well why are they forbidding forbiddens. Turner was being sincere when he said "evidence must be investigated" but not when he said "and you can prove anything with evidence." Hey I said despite the horoscope part. Jesus was not a good man (relax I'll explain) He was either the Son of God or the greatest charlatan in world history. I think, and again I am speaking for my interpretation of the 'poem' seeing how many atheists believe that Jesus' good morals are basically bad, for they are resrticting and don't "free" a person to his or her "own erotic and political pursuits." I don't worship the Bible either, for G.K. Chesterton a fellow Catholic called many protestants 'bible-worshippers' But that is a whole other debate. The same except for creation, sin, heaven, hell, Gol, and salvation, thats meant to be read as quite a bit. If you do not believe in a hell I ask you where does the Devil reside, or do you not believe in Satan either? Also There are so many Bible verses referring to the Bible, I don't think they all were just added on. And f so why? the prospect of hell appears to be the least attractive part of Christianity. As for whats normal is good. I know I don't use that argument, hardly I think you have made an uh-oh assumption :D . I just find it easy to read from Romans chapter one verse 21 and on. each man must fine the truth IF IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM." That again allows for moral relativism, for the truth is no longer absolute, it is subjective. The point is reality can't possibly adapt according to something that is subjective like inabsolute truth. If an atheist does believe in an absolute truth I ask where does he or she think that truth comes from? Atheists rejected creeds of morality, Jesus rejected, well I wouldn't call it a creed or moral. Individual thought as it corelates to moral relativism, individual thought like, "There is no right or wrong I am free to do and think as I please and there will be no implications that I have to respond to." That is dangerous.

Now that I have typed all that I find that much of what we have debated about is for the most part all semantics (for the most part). The important thing is believing in Christ and obeying his word, to obey the will of the Father.

Couldn't we even argue what "moral" is? Wouldn't moral be the same as normal, in other words different people believe different things mean normal and different people have different views on what is moral. It's a pretty open ended question I think. What I believe to be moral and normal, you may not.. and visa versa.. Isn't it about what you personally believe. Or do we test it based on what is socially popular at the time? Because, that changes as well. What is moral and normal today to do, wasn't years ago. What we find not moral or normal today maybe be perfectly fine to do in 20 years from now. Isn't it really a social and cultural thing?

I think you may want to read the slightly olde thread on this.

Normal are not same with moral. Normal people maybe have moral, maybe doesn't have moral. Some people may have moral from the beginning of their birth, some are not. Religion is just one tool to pass the moral to these people. However, religion is not the first priority. Many atheists still can have moral by doing such meditations, without going to church or mosques every week.

Unfortunately, a lot of religious persons such as Christians and Muslims often misunderstood. They thought that their own religion IS the ONLY WAY to pass morality to the people. Due to this misunderstanding, they often see the others, even between the Christians and Muslims itself, as kafirs and unbelievers. Then they fought each others, destroying other people under politheism and atheism. And for what? Conquest, not for the sake of their so called 'religion'.

The Christians who launched Crusades, and the Muslims who launched Jihads were not Christians or Muslims anymore. They were becoming atheist barbars. They only used their 'religion' as a reason to destroy each others and finally to acquire lands from others. Religion was then become a political tool.

That's why so many atheists who regarded secularism is the best, because they divide the religion with politics. Beside, of all historical facts, atheists are more open-minded than the religious people. One day, you can go to Saudi Arabia and say loud, "Iam an atheist!". Then, the Arabs will say, "Oh you damn kafirs! You are not supposed to live in this planet!". One day you can go to China and say loud, "Iam an atheist!". Then, the Chinese will say, "Oh I see, you have no religion".

So, is atheism much better than monotheism or something?

I'm getting rather sick of this subject. The argument seems to be that Christians can point to a book that itemizes their morals, and then claim to be somehow more moral than everybody else simply because they have their ideals documented.

This is a bit like saying that the most law-abiding country in the world is that which has the best written laws -regrdless of how many people actually follow them.

In reality, there are moral people and immoral people, and everybody places their own value judgements on what means most to them and what they are willing to do in a certain circumstance. Religious upbringing has no real bearing on that, except that they might be able to point to a line in a book to say where they have strayed from the documented ideals.

Because we can look to the high-profile espousers of Christian morality.

Jim Baker ripping off the collection plate.

Swaggart geting caught repeatedly with hookers.

Limbaugh the drug addict at the same time as he heaps scorn on other drug addicts.

Every instance of child abuse by a clergyman, and every coverup of that abuse.

Every cult leader that draws their flock in via their mastery of the good book.

Waco.

Jonestown.


I'm not trying to paint Christians with a broad brush - just pointing to how claiming a moral superiority through religious affiliation and actually living up to it are two very diferent things.


In the end, I'll just paraphrase Ghandi when it comes to my view of living up to moral ideals:

"I think it would be a good idea."



But the moment you assume your affiliation with a group makes you inherently better, or more moral, than you have already sinned against your God.

The sin of Pride.

And you have already crossed the line that Jesus warned against: the throwing of the first stone.


Some people are moral. Some people are immoral. And people know the diference.


What building you go hang out at on the weekend has no bearing on that whatsoever.


-Z-

Couldn't we even argue what "moral" is? Wouldn't moral be the same as normal, in other words different people believe different things mean normal and different people have different views on what is moral. It's a pretty open ended question I think. What I believe to be moral and normal, you may not.. and visa versa.. Isn't it about what you personally believe. Or do we test it based on what is socially popular at the time? Because, that changes as well. What is moral and normal today to do, wasn't years ago. What we find not moral or normal today maybe be perfectly fine to do in 20 years from now. Isn't it really a social and cultural thing?

Absolutely, Stephi. The initial question was flawed as there is no legitimate way to quantify morality and therefore you could never really say who is more or less moral than who as there's no metric. This is even if you could come up with an universally agreed on definition of what morality even is.

However, Zuckoo and I are flying off on a sort of different tangent and it's a lot of fun! :D

Couldn't we even argue what "moral" is? Wouldn't moral be the same as normal, in other words different people believe different things mean normal and different people have different views on what is moral. It's a pretty open ended question I think. What I believe to be moral and normal, you may not.. and visa versa.. Isn't it about what you personally believe. Or do we test it based on what is socially popular at the time? Because, that changes as well. What is moral and normal today to do, wasn't years ago. What we find not moral or normal today maybe be perfectly fine to do in 20 years from now. Isn't it really a social and cultural thing?

Absolutely, Stephi. The initial question was flawed as there is no legitimate way to quantify morality and therefore you could never really say who is more or less moral than who as there's no metric. This is even if you could come up with an universally agreed on definition of what morality even is.

However, Zuckoo and I are flying off on a sort of different tangent and it's a lot of fun! :D

Excellent, carry on.. hehe.. I just find these "who is more moral" well sort of silly.. there are in fact good and bad people in every thing, whether they be Christians, Atheists, whatever. It's just such a generalization. It's a fun debate perhaps.. but I don't think any one can honestly come up with an answer that is legit based on the narrowness of the question.

I do not believe the statement that "we all have the same conscience".

That's like saying I have the same build that Arnold Schwarzenegger has. Technically each named muscle is present in our bodies but he has done much more with his than I have with mine.

Conscience is like a muscle. It grows stronger with regular disciplined use.

I dont think the question is flawed. We all have our concepts of morality, the answer to the question is just your personal opinion as to whether certain groups of people conform to your views of morality.

by the way, i think the answer to the question is - don't be stupid.

I am an atheist and I’ll try and explain my moral base to you.

First of all, let’s take at what I believe:

1) The universe is purely scientific, a bunch of particles and energies following physical laws. No gods involved.
2) As a human body is a part of the universe, it’s just made out of particles and therefore nothing special. What makes us a human being is not our body that looks like most human bodies, but our mind, that thinks in a human way. The mind is a product of the physical process that takes place in our brain. Therefore there is no soul and no afterlife, as the thinking process that we are is directly connected to the physical process in our brain. So as soon as this physical process ends, the thinking process stops and we won’t even know we ever existed, as there would be no more I to think about it. Another consequence is that our lives are meaningless, no goals, no purposes.

As our lives are meaningless then why should we continue to live? It’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself: It can be for your family and friends, because you have developed a vast interest in something (science for example) and want to devote a part of your live to it, help other people.... Or perhaps you could just say: hey, our lives are perhaps meaningless, but I live now, so I could just make the best of it and enjoy the ride. Another option is suicide, which is in my eyes acceptable, although it’s not that easy for most people to deal with it in our society. A couple of weeks ago, a girl in my village disappeared and later she was found death in a river. I was relieved to hear it was suicide (at least this is what the cops think of it) as this was the girls own choice, not something that was forced on her, like murder.

This last example brings me back to morality: why do I believe suicide is a better way to go than being murdered? The answer is empathy. You don’t want to be murdered, so you project this feeling on the victim of murder and conclude that murder is wrong. As most people don’t want to commit suicide, they’ll feel bad for someone who committed suicide, although it was that person’s own choice to step out of life and is therefore not that horrible.

So as you can see I use empathy as a base for morality. A few examples:

Abortion:

The people that say that abortion is murder do this because they project their own feelings of not wanting to be killed on the foetus. My point is that this projection is wrong. A foetus is not yet a human being because their brain hasn’t developed some sort of human thinking. The foetus doesn’t know it exists and it doesn’t feel it is getting aborted and therefore it does not feel the pain and the fear of a human that is murdered, so abortion is fundamentally different from murder. One can say that a foetus has the ability to become a human and by denying the foetus this ability to become a human you are denying the right to live to that human, that is true, but so do a sperm cell and an egg. So not having sex one night also makes you deny the right to live to a potential human being in the same way as abortion does. Therefore abortion is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
Conclusions:
-Women that abort their child are moral, but so are women that do not abort their child.
-Allowing abortion is a moral choice as this gives women the choice to abort or not to abort.
-Banning abortion is immoral as this forces women that want to have an abortion to keep their child, which leads to poverty, ruined lives of women and possibly of their children too and dangerous back alley abortion causing deaths. So therefore people that are against abortion (more precise: against allowing others to chose for abortion) are immoral.

Homosexuality and gay marriages:

Two consenting adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together should be allowed to marry, hetero or homo, as it does not hurt anyone.
Homosexual people are as moral as others.
People that are against homosexuality or against gay marriage are immoral, as they don’t allow others the rights heterosexual people have and by condemning/discriminating homosexual people they clearly damage the rights and lives of homosexual people.

Polygamy:

If all people involved are adults and agree: why not? Although women should be allowed to have multiple husbands as you don’t want to discriminate. The only problem here is that it would be too hard for the government: imagine one guy being married to 10 women, each of them being married to 10 men…It just wont work.

Bestiality, paedophilia…:

This doesn’t take place with the consent of all beings involved and the condition that all beings are capable of consenting, and therefore adult. So therefore these are clearly immoral.

Casual, out of marriage sex:

If it takes place between two or more consenting adults, I don’t see any problem, so it’s moral.
People judging casual, out of marriage sex are immoral. It’s not because they don’t want to be involved that others should not be involved, as long as nobody is hurt and all are consenting adults.

Adultery:

When you marry someone you make a promise that you will become monogamist. So by committing adultery you break this promise and cause grief to the one you married. Therefore it is immoral.
On the other hand, if you and the person you are married with agree that you see other women/men, I deem it moral. And anyone judging that is then again immoral.

A moral dilemma:

“Say that by killing one innocent child you would find a cure for aids, would you do that?”
Killing a child is immoral, but so is not killing the child as this kills millions of people. Therefore both choices are moral, as morality is still about what the right thing to do is, and in this case saving millions of lives or sparing the life of a child are both perfectly moral. I do think that killing the child and saving millions of people is the best choice for the world, but morality can never force anyone to kill an innocent person. So therefore they are both equally moral. If I had that choice, I would think the best thing to do is to kill the child, but still I would not be able to do it.

According to my moral system, a lot of religious and/or conservative people, and off course others are immoral because they are against abortion, or they don’t think homosexuality is right…
I’m not saying that atheists are more moral than Christians, but they certainly aren’t less moral.

I am an atheist.

My morality consists of a general trial-and-error policy of not treating people like sh*t.

That's pretty much it, the subject really does not enter my conscious thoughts often enough for me to be bothered to have a strong opinion about it. I just live my life, you know, without treading on too many people. If others like to get together in groups and write books about it, meh. Couldn't care less.

[Shrugs]

There is no point to this. The two factions have only drawn the line in the sand and there is no way any one from either side is going to cross that line. No one is going to get converted here. No one is going to be convinced that this is that or that is this.

So what are we left with? People on both sides will be more factionalized, people on both sides will be more likely to get upset with the other side, and people will bury their heads deeper in the sand.

It is a fundamental concept of Christianity that faith is the big kicker. If an athiest needs proof of a deity, then there is no point in working at that athiest. If an athiest can't believe by faith, there really is no point.

If a Christian can't or won't accept empirical data about a particular subject, then there really is no point in arguing it. It's really that simple.

So let's all just kick back with our own particular drink of choice, and watch the world destroy itself. As I have quoted before, I shall quote again:

Abandon all hope, ye who enter in.

In and of itself, atheism is morally superior to religion because religion requires one to subordinate one's mind to another entity--which is the most depraved act anyone can engage in and the most vile request anyone can make.

That sword and baby situation may be extreme but, the reason I use it is because the line between right and wrong is very clear.

Yes, but what about the day to day situations? Morality isn't just practiced on extreme cases and extreme cases are not a good judge of one's overall morality.


Whereas it would be more difficult to the average person to draw the line between right and wrong in a less extreme situation.

Yes, but that's where morality happens, in the grey areas. Does a life time of keeping incorrect change and stealing candy bars overrule one truly heroic act?


A coward giving up his or her life on a whim, seems insane to me. If a person did that I would like to talk to him and question him as to why he too this course of action. If a person who is a moral relativist felt wrong about having me murder another human I would like to know why?

Well, it doesn't have to make sense to you, it's their choice based on whatever principles they hold dear. There are any number of reasons a moral relativist might feel wrong watching you kill a child. Anything from percieving you as a threat to self or genetic line to feeling you're insane and potentially dangerous. The source for unease doesn't have to be divine in origin, it can be firmly rooted in self-interest and have a same effect.


Before I forget this is that guy's website in case you haven't found it yet: www.rzim.org

Thanks. I've looked over it a bit and it's interesting. I need to get more into it before I develop an opinion.


You ask why I am fearful of the moral relativist and atheist. The reason is, and based on you post it appears you will disagree with me, I find that the ultimate goal of the atheists I am hearing from will produce a generation of men and women without shame for their actions and no sense of guilt. Atheists that do not share their brethren's hope are either in the minority or aren't speaking out against such hopes. It was Aldous Huxley who said, "I want this world not to have meaning, because a meaningless world frees me to my own erotic, and my own political pursuits." He is joined by many. When there is no meaning to life, and the secularized society takes hold it will take away the legitimate sense of shame in our heart's. What does this mean though? It will allow for the 'anything goes' mindset. This is why Turner writes that last paragraph.
If religion exists these things still may happen, obviously, we see that every day. But religion doesn't exist in the offender's heart, unless of course it has been mangled by power-hungry church leaders. (Did I mention I was Catholic :lol: )

Heh, I was wondering what theisim you belonged to. I was guessing Catholic, but wasn't sure. :D

I think you're judging atheists by a somewhat nihilistic subset. Quite the contrary to your experience, most true atheists I've met attribute considerably more meaning to this life as they believe it is all there is and that arbitration of right and wrong comes from the human spirit and must therefore be zelously guarded and fiercely protected. Huxley, your quoted example. falls more into this category, regardless of his statement. His ecology essays gave rise to the modern environmental movement and his lifelong pacificism, with no religious base, barred him from ever becoming an United States citizen (something he desperately wanted to be) because he would not claim it to be religiously inspired.
This seems to be, at least to me, the action of a moral man: the denial of a desire in order to claim faithfulness to ones presumed beliefs.

I am uncertain why you feel athiesim somehow implies less meaning attributed to life. Differently meaning, surely, but not in any way less or counterproductive.

Furthermore, why does a secular society remove appropriate guilt and/or shame? Whereas a religious sense of shame or guilt may not be appropriate for all in a society (as religious mores differ), a society that constructs it's own agreed upon social mores then can legitimately expect members of that society who transgress against that moral construct to feel justified shame and guilt for breaking the morals they agreed upon?



My basis for the quote you asked about for my basis for the quote is that if not all, or perhaps not even most atheists believe in what it was I was talking about I ask why are they not outraged about the atheists speaking out for something they reject.

For the same reason more theists aren't outraged when alternative theisims are repressed or misrepresented. That's a human thing, not an athiest thing. Churches are quick to defend themselves but frighteningly slow to defend each other. For example, why was there not a greater outcry from the religious community over the legal prosecution of the Unitarian ministers in New York for performing gay weddings? Under Unitarian church doctrine, gay marriage is acceptable. Yet, when faced with a clear violation of church and state, many churches chose to remain silent because they didn't agree with the specific principle.


Laslty I am not sure you are reading the 'poem' right. Either that or I am not reading your post right. Anyway: If an atheist believes in a continued existence after death who sustains this existenceand where did they come up with that idea?

Continued existance after death is not singularly religious in inspiration. Some atheists believe in an energistic existance that continues seperate from the corporeal body, a "soul" of sorts. Some athiests believe in reincarnation, not with a religious drive, but simply a vast pool of potential 'life' from which we all come and to which we all return. There's no religious heirarchy and no greater purpose, just an cycle of endless return. And, true, some athiests simply believe that after death, that's all she wrote. The point is, there does not have to be a concept of divinity in order to have a concept of eternal, uninterrupted continuance. This is an assumption that it's tempting to make, but is ultimately unfounded. Additionally, even should someone be able to prove a continued existance after death, this in no way proves the existance of a directive force in the Universe, i.e. "God". The ideas do not depend on each other, unless the person involved makes that linkage. Which is perfectly fine, but you must remember it's a personal linkage and therefore can not be generally applied to everyone.


I would think and I know your going to call this an assumption

Hehe, yep, probably. :D


but most atheists do agree with many of Marxe's, Darwin's and Freud's ideas.

So do many theists. How one feels about evolutionary theory, economic theory or psychological theory does not necessarily have to impact how one feels about metaphysical theory. Personally, I am a Quaker that feels Evolution happens, Freud had some good observations but was just a little too fascinated by poo, and Marx is interesting, but not really applicable to human society as it currently stands. Life is, by necessity and definition, a smorgasboard of ideas and experiences. You miss something if you don't try them. Either you miss this great chance you've been given by some divity or you miss this great chance you've been given purely by chance. The point is, you can pick and chose and see what resonates to you. If it doesn't work, you can always pick again. Theisim and Marx, Darwin and Freud do not have to be mutually exclusive. Science and Religion can go hand and hand (and, in my opinion, should because they both feed different sides of the life), so long as they understand that one can not and should not "dominate" the other in their home court.


Such ideas "free them [me] to their [my] own and erotic a political pursuits.

Why is this bad?


Everything isn't o.k. if it doesn't include hurting anyone (by the way it said to the best of your definition hence there is no point of reference of what hurt is)

Why isn't it and who gets to make the call? I did see the "best of your definition" part and you're right, this arugement flaps in the wind because the author himself didn't define his terms.


I would certainly think as a Christian you would have to say you reject that idea.

I do, on a personal basis given the experiences and searching I have done myself. I can not in good concience, however, make this judgement for anyone else because I am aware of my own daily questioning and to assume that I am somehow more in tune with some UberMorality stream than some athiest or different theist would be to deny the central tennant of my own search: That it is mine. This is my relationship with God. It doesn't make me automatically more moral or less moral than someone who has reached a different conclusion. It can't because, if it does, then my conclusion becomes less valid.


Atheists do not have to disbelieve this, for if they do believe such a statement is true and Turner is right they will not have contradicted themselves. This means that Christians who were involved in the crusade (though disobeying their own beliefs on behalf of their beliefs) may not have believed something was alright as long as it didn't hurt anyone, for heaven's sake (pardon the pun) they were hurting someone.

Okay, I must admit, you lost me there. It sort of sounds like you're saying that, so long as they believed themselves to be right, they were right, even if we can see today that they were clearly wrong. This can't be the case, can it? Can you explain your reasoning here a little more because I got confused.


I am sure lots of people do believe in sex before, during, and after marriage, atheists included. I don't see labeling this moral relativism is unfair, for moral relativism allows for such thinking.

I only labeled it so because Turner labeled it an atheistic trait and you relabeled it a moral relativistic trait. Personally, I see no problem with sex whenever. I do see a problem with promiscuity, but I'm less inclined to call people who have frequent sex with multiple partners morally bankrupt than pray that they are being safe and worry that they are trying to solve one problem by substituting in another.


No matter if a 'blow job' is sex or not, it is wrong, remember 1Corinthians 6: 12-20.

Yes, well, again, it's only wrong by first Corinthians if you assume the Bible is the ultimate source of law, which many don't and even I, as a Quaker, view with a healthy dose of skeptsicim.


I think Turner means when he says the therapy of sin, (and I could be wrong) the practicing, or perhaps indulgence of sin.

Yes, but many theists practice this as well, execept they indulge in a hypocracy on top of whatever sin they're committing. Back in the day, the Papacy even sold indulgences to let people off the hook for sins they may not have even committed yet but were planning on. How is that a moral stance if it can be circumvented by a piece of paper anyone could purchase if they had enough money?


Much of this 'poems' statements are contradcitions of themselves the taboo line is one of them.

I agree with you. I would go even further to say that the contradictory nature of the poem is what makes it so obviously uninformed and, in a way, unChristian. It shows no true desire to speak to atheists, but instead makes a lot of assumptions about what the author thinks they believe based on his own biases. It's self congratulatory, smug and rather vile as, instead of seeking understanding, it gleefully wallows in ignorance.


For if an atheist thinks that forbiddens are forbidden, well why are they forbidding forbiddens.

Again, there are many secular reasons that have perfect legitimacy for forbidden things. Many atheists and theists show surprising agreement on general life principles, all that differs is the motivation behind them. However, since actions speak louder than words, regardless of the path taken, can we say the final destination is the same, yet one is better for the journey?


Turner was being sincere when he said "evidence must be investigated" but not when he said "and you can prove anything with evidence."

No, you can prove the rational facts with evidence. Proof is reasoning hand in hand with evidence (doh, who knew high school debate principles would ever bite me in the butt at this point in my life).


Hey I said despite the horoscope part. Jesus was not a good man (relax I'll explain) He was either the Son of God or the greatest charlatan in world history. I think, and again I am speaking for my interpretation of the 'poem' seeing how many atheists believe that Jesus' good morals are basically bad, for they are resrticting and don't "free" a person to his or her "own erotic and political pursuits."

You're really hung up on that phrase. Actually, Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point of him. According to Judeo-Christian theory, God sent him to us as a man to show us how to live as men. To assume he was anything other than mortal is to reject one of the central tennants of Christianity (this is something that greatly bothered me in Gibson's "The Passion" and the justification for the excessive violence he used, that it was supposed to show that Jesus was more than human. But if he's more than human, then the Bible and all of Christianity is wrong.) Jesus was a man who we can aspire to or he was a Superman that we can not. One way, he serves as an example, the other, he is simply a mockery of our broken lives and why should we strive to emulate the unattainable?


I don't worship the Bible either, for G.K. Chesterton a fellow Catholic called many protestants 'bible-worshippers' But that is a whole other debate.

Based on your previous quoting of it at me, you seem to. I could be wrong, but that is my perception.


The same except for creation, sin, heaven, hell, Gol, and salvation, thats meant to be read as quite a bit.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say here. Could you please explain further?


If you do not believe in a hell I ask you where does the Devil reside, or do you not believe in Satan either?

Actually, the concept of the Devil and Satan crept into the bible and the church rather later. In current translations, Lucifer makes an appearance in Chapter 14 of Isaiah with the following: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" -- Isaiah 14:12. In the initial Hebrew text of this passage, Lucifer was a Babylonian King, not the most favored of angels. Christian scribes are assumed to have mistranslated this (either as intentional error or as simple mistake) and now poets and religious theologians have managed to link the Devil, Satan and Lucifer together. However, this only removes Lucifer from the mix.

Again, in Hebrew, Satan is not a name, but a title, more properly referred to as "The Satan" and is is given to an Angel of God who acts as the adversary or accuser. This title is mentioned only 4 times outside of the book of Job and only 18 times in total within the Old Testiment. Let's examine The Satan in the book of Job.

In the beginning, God gives The Satan power over Job's possesions, but no power over him. The Satan then acts as the main sower of doubt, trying to convince Job that he only loves God because it is beneficial. However, when he can not wring this statement out of him, God gives The Satan the power to torment Job himself. Still no statement is forthcoming.

It is interesting to note that, at no time, is The Satan acting without God's express permission or, indeed, against his will. Additionally, The Satan never directly opposed God, simply Job, and then only under God's will. This argues that The Satan is not a permanent fixture and that the powers granted to the position are only given by God and only in specific situations. Therefore, it seems a reasonable assumption that many of the evil and craven acts committed by man are not the result of interference by The Satan, but instead of our own devising.

During the intertestamental period (roughly 300 BCE to 100 CE), the role of Satan took on a whole new significance. Suddenly God became associated with upmost Good while Satan became linked to darkest evil. No longer merely an appointed henchman, Satan was now a fallen angel who, along with a cohort of other fallen angels, sought the destruction of mankind and God. The reasons for this may have something to do with the emergence of Zoroastrianism in Persia (modern day Iran) and the prophit Zoroaster who's mythos (dating anywhere between 550 BCE and 6,000 BCE) is strikingly similar to that of the Christ. He performed miracles, taught the supremacy of one god "Ahura Mazda" and is generally credited with founding the first monotheistic religion (although this is obviously a very hard thing to claim). Zoroaster also taught of Ahura Mazda's twin brother, Angra Manyu, who served as the source of evil and destruction. Zoroaster believed that these two Gods would fight eternally, until finally Angra Manyu was defeated and, at that time, there would be a resurrection of the dead and a Final Judgement with subsequent division of all humanity into the righteous (who go to Heaven) and the evil (who go to...well, guess where). Thus, it seems that this is the framework the authors of the New Testiment grafted their conceptualization of Satan onto. The shift can be seen in Jewish writing of that time, a slow progression of God turning into the ultimate good while Satan emerges as the ultimate evil and the two are locked at each other's throats.

Why have I gone over all this, you may be asking. Although it's fascinating in and of itself, it serves to illustrate how the Bible itself has been influenced by other schools of thought.

Do I believe in Satan? Well, which one? Do I believe that people's illnesses are caused by demons and devils and unclean spirits? Nope.


Also There are so many Bible verses referring to the Bible, I don't think they all were just added on. And f so why?

I am also confused by this. What was your intent?


the prospect of hell appears to be the least attractive part of Christianity.


Yes, but it seems to still get alot of attention, perhaps even moreso than the message of Christ himself.


As for whats normal is good. I know I don't use that argument, hardly I think you have made an uh-oh assumption :D . I just find it easy to read from Romans chapter one verse 21 and on.

Yes, the words of Paul, the first man to think the word of the Lord God is best spread at the point of a sword. Not really what you might call the most understanding of the apostles.


each man must fine the truth IF IT IS RIGHT FOR HIM." That again allows for moral relativism, for the truth is no longer absolute, it is subjective. The point is reality can't possibly adapt according to something that is subjective like inabsolute truth.

Reality is far more elastic than you might think. Particularly if you follow the Many Worlds coceptualization of quantum physics.


If an atheist does believe in an absolute truth I ask where does he or she think that truth comes from?

If it is absolute, then it must not have "come" from anywhere. It must have always been there by fiat. Otherwise, for it to have "come" from somewhere, there must be something greater than it, which, by definition, means it is not absolute.


Atheists rejected creeds of morality,

No, they didn't. They rejected blind faith, sought out their own answers and arrived at different conclusions than we did, much as you and I have arrived at different conclusions given the same basic starting point. Yet, I certainly don't consider you to be a bad person and I hope you don't consider me to be one, even though we differ in our interpretations of faith.


Jesus rejected, well I wouldn't call it a creed or moral. Individual thought as it corelates to moral relativism, individual thought like, "There is no right or wrong I am free to do and think as I please and there will be no implications that I have to respond to." That is dangerous.

Yes, but it is not atheisim, is is psychosis. To reject cause and effect, at least that imposed upon us by living and profiting from society, is indeed dangerous. However, it can not be wholly accomplished. You can, for example, kill someone and say, "Well, I think I was justified so I will do whatever I want." There will be a consequence imposed upon you by society. Society, in an effort to protect itself and it's members, will remove you from it. You can deny this all you want, but will most likely be removed anyway. Atheists and moral relativists do not reject cause and effect or action and consequence, they simply say it does not have to exist within a religious context.


Now that I have typed all that I find that much of what we have debated about is for the most part all semantics (for the most part). The important thing is believing in Christ and obeying his word, to obey the will of the Father.

Hmm, well, only if you're a Christian and only if they make sense. Faith can't exist in a vacuum from society and reality. It must be held accountable. Otherwise it is no longer faith, but it is fanaticisim and the whole world suffers from it.

In and of itself, atheism is morally superior to religion because religion requires one to subordinate one's mind to another entity--which is the most depraved act anyone can engage in and the most vile request anyone can make.

I disagree with this for much the same reason I disagree with the idea that Theists are automatically morally superior to Atheists. Atheisim is as much a spiritual journey as Theisim and requires the exact same kind of subordination, but instead of a godhead, Atheists submit their will to the Universe in general. Neither one is better, both solve, one may be right, one may be wrong. Who knows?

I would think and I know your going to call this an assumption but most atheists do agree with many of Marxe's, Darwin's and Freud's ideas. Such ideas "free them [me] to their [my] own and erotic a political pursuits.
Well, you should probably stop thinking this, since something objective like this isn't based on opinion, but fact. I can't say, absolutely that Marx was wrong, but I can say that a good number of atheists don't agree with his philosophy. I can also say that whatever people "believe" (and I know there are a lot of dumb people out there- atheists that do believe Freud and creationists that don't believe Darwin- and lots of crazy combinations) there is strong evidence done by top researchers in their respective fields that hints that Freud was quite wrong and Darwin quite right (though Freud might have hit a point or two, Darwin definitely missed a couple- but overall) All I'm saying: it's pretty safe for me to say that NOT MOST atheists believe in the works of the three men you mentioned- not most of anyone believes in Freud anymore.
Jesus was not a good man
ooh we agree on something
I think, and again I am speaking for my interpretation of the 'poem' seeing how many atheists believe that Jesus' good morals are basically bad, for they are restricting and don't "free" a person to his or her "own erotic and political pursuits."
Yeah, not exactly...I just don't believe in self-sacrifice. It makes me sick to my stomach. And when I say that, I don't mean like how a mother sacrifices her getting a new hat in order to feed her baby- because that's not a sacrifice...I guess though, if you are the son of god, self-sacrifice would be different, because you don't really have a self. It's not like Jesus really had a choice other than to die on the cross. But like I said, don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, and let's even throw in don't rape
As for whats normal is good. I know I don't use that argument, hardly I think you have made an uh-oh assumption :D .
Yeah, neither do I. I just don't get why you would make generalizations like that, and I think it's good that Berk made one back, because I think that way it helps you see how silly it is. You're probably thinking, 'Why would someone think that most Christians believe that normal is good?' I don't think that's exactly how Berk should've put it though. I think it's actually the other way around. Most Christians think that a certain thing is good, because it's what their religion/church/bible teaches- or it's just a personal thought- and so then they assume that it should be the norm. So...It's not that they think what's normal is good, but rather they think what's good is normal.
Now that I have typed all that I find that much of what we have debated about is for the most part all semantics (for the most part). The important thing is believing in Christ and obeying his word, to obey the will of the Father.
:cry: I'm not important

Well I am a very scientific person but still believe in God though I am *very* NON-religious. I won't go preaching to the atheists; his or her to their own beliefs. IMO religion is not evil and it is much less corrupt than it was before; however that long-term corruption has put a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people, and i can't blame them

I am a Christian but I'm really not going to try and convince anybody's personal beliefs because I know that I'm not going to sway anybody's opinion. Everyone should just leave each other alone and accept what that person chooses to believe.

Well, in my opinion. Neither is greater, you can be athiest and be a murdering savage with no moral code, or a religious nut that kills for fun or whatever, but morals in my opinion are a different issue than religion. I think that religion was used in the olden days to enforce morals, not make them, only make sure people stay in line to prevent killings, robbery, and to keep the social class standing, for it would not be morally correct to treat a Noble as an equal back then would it? Though, some obviously took it into their own hands and used morals as an excuse for their own doings, such as gaining power, respect, wealth, and land.
But also, I would like to point out that the First Crusade was originally for a just cause. The Orthodox Muslims, not all of the Muslims, were attacking Christian pilgrimages, and the Europeans launched an attack against the Orthodox Muslims, then the kings and pope saw an oppurtunity for more land and power and wealth, and siezed that oppurtunity. But their were those who truly believed in a morally correct cause, the middle class Crusaders for instance.

Well Berklyvania that was a mighty long post, I will respond to it when I am more than just half awake though, as you can see the last time I posted around this time I couldn't even let you know what I was thinking, not to mention opening myself to be pounded with several unclarified statements. Ne nack tommorow though. :D Geez and I thought the last Quaker died when Nixon croaked. :lol:

Absolutely, Stephi. The initial question was flawed as there is no legitimate way to quantify morality and therefore you could never really say who is more or less moral than who as there's no metric.

We can always grade people via our own ethical code, which is what all people do, albeit subconsciously for the most part. Though there's certainly no universal scale for such things.

Very generally speaking, I find most religious people to be better people than non-theists. To me it's through luck though, theists believe a jolly lot of very silly things for the most part based on very little evidence. Then again most religious folk tend to apply their own morality to a religion anyway...picking and choosing which bits to believe. (How many Christians do you know that support all of Leviticus, for example?)

This is even if you could come up with an universally agreed on definition of what morality even is.

Morality is what is right. There's no universal morality (even if you're a theist, a fact most theists tend not to want to recognise - the fact that some creator-God type believes something is morally right needs not make one iota of difference to us people pottering around down here,) but as you and Steph have quite rightly said each individual has their own moral codes.