Atheism

[GuanoLoco]

If you are struggling with which religious texts to choose, you are in luck as there is a vast array to choose from.

If you are struggling with which religion appeals you you, you are in luck as there is a vast array to choose from. Each religion/denomination/sect/branch has its own favorite subset of texts, translations, interpretations and focus.

If you are struggling with which set of moral/ethical tenets appeal to you, you are also in luck. Just pick a religious flavor AND a geography AND a point in time and an absolute set will be prescribed for you.

If you are unclear as to an interpretation of some absolute moral or ethical tenet, just ask any official representative of said religion and a situation-specific interpretation will be provided for you.

So, lets get back to the conversation of comparing individual/relative morality vs. the absolute moral objectivity provided by religion.

Y'all were saying?

[critter]

... Without an absolute standard on which to base moral behavior though, it is the conclusion to which a person probably has to come. There simply isn't another rational way IMO to explain why the concept of morality exists. Yes, a group or tribe of people might get together and agree that rape, theft and murder is bad, but that's not morality, that's simply a tribal law or a social contract that seeks to benefit everyone.
...

In simplistic form it's more along the line of... early human steals food, gets caught, gets his ass thoroughly kicked or worse. Other's don't want ass kicked.. lesson learned.. theft=ass kicked or repercussions.. lesson propagates.

Same with other negative behaviors such as lying, cheating. When these behaviors are prevalent, the group suffers as a whole internally and group cohesion is lost. "We can steal from THEM over THERE but not from each other because when we steal from each other it fucks things up ..."

The notion that there is an absolute moral standard delivered by God (under the premise that God exists) is easily debunked by the indisputable fact of moral evolution occurring under, purportedly, the same God between Old and New testament -- from a conquering pillage and plunder code of morality to love your enemies, turn the other cheek. This is not to discredit faith, or the existence of God but more like a statement of the patently obvious to anyone on the outside looking in.

[ER_STL]

Man, I wish we were all sitting and discussing this over lunch. I rarely get involved in online discussion like this because this medium is less than ideal and time can be limited. Appreciate the responses....

In simplistic form it's more along the line of... early human steals food, gets caught, gets his ass thoroughly kicked or worse. Other's don't want ass kicked.. lesson learned.. theft=ass kicked or repercussions.. lesson propagates.

Same with other negative behaviors such as lying, cheating. When these behaviors are prevalent, the group suffers as a whole internally and group cohesion is lost. "We can steal from THEM over THERE but not from each other because when we steal from each other it fucks things up ..."

Again, this means that there is no right or wrong, only behavior that may help or hinder both the individual or the group as a whole. By this logic, I may be able to get away with theft, rape and murder if I'm capable and if it doesn't draw the ire of society. That's how a sociopath thinks.

The notion that there is an absolute moral standard delivered by God (under the premise that God exists) is easily debunked by the indisputable fact of moral evolution occurring under, purportedly, the same God between Old and New testament -- from a conquering pillage and plunder code of morality to love your enemies, turn the other cheek. This is not to discredit faith, or the existence of God but more like a statement of the patently obvious to anyone on the outside looking in.

I understand this point of view, along with the previous comments regarding both what appears to be conflict and inconsistency in the Bible. Short on time so I'll need to be brief:

• Most instances of conflict that are pointed out in the Bible are due to either a shallow reading of the text or a lack of understanding of at what it is the person is looking. Rob mentioned a similar phenomena for those seeking to discredit Evolution and arguing from what may be deemed an unaware position. That being said, there are certainly portions of the Bible that may leave even believers scratching their heads, and that's fair to disclose. I personally don't know everything there is to know about the Bible, but I'm learning. I also have a list of "what the heck?" questions.
  
• It's not appropriate to view the historical events of the Old Testament through a 21st century lense as if they would happen today. We don't live under Jewish law and we're not part of a Theocracy. Many of the events about which we read in the Old Testament are extreme in nature (read Joshua for example) and there's no denying that they can be tough to accept. They are often under the premise of God's judgement on mankind, which is clearly defined in the Bible as a real thing. That may not be easy to swallow and we may not like it, but Scripture makes it clear that there are eventual consequences for continued disobedience. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.
  
• There are seven covenants (or agreements) in the Bible between God and man, four of which were conditional, meaning that they were promises that depended on the behavior of the people to whom they were given. If you follow the Bible, we would be under the New Covenant, given to all after Christ's resurrection. In that covenant we are no longer under the Law, even though the moral components of it still guide our lives today (the ceremonial may not).
  
• It's my personal opinion - as well as most believers - that morality may be written on our hearts so that all mankind may be aware of the existence of right and wrong, even if many choose to harden/ignore it and act in their own self-interest. The moral components of what is in the Old Testament is simply a written record of that so that "we are without excuse".

Have a great day. Hope to contribute later if I can.

[critter]

Man, I wish we were all sitting and discussing this over lunch. I rarely get involved in online discussion like this because this medium is less than ideal and time can be limited. Appreciate the responses....

Yeah, same here. It would be extremely interesting, and especially so with others who are not offended by the mere existence of differing viewpoints.

Again, this means that there is no right or wrong, only behavior that may help or hinder both the individual or the group as a whole. By this logic, I may be able to get away with theft, rape and murder if I'm capable and if it doesn't draw the ire of society. That's how a sociopath thinks.

Right and Wrong are actually quite ambiguous terms. Whether one accepts that humans evolved or that humans were created *as is* one trait is undeniable, and that is that humans are social animals/beings. Survival depends upon cooperation and successful group dynamics. "Right" can be considered that which aids in group cohesion and cooperation -- therefore survival of the particular group of individuals. "Wrong" leads to the breakdown of group cohesion, cooperation with the opposite effect.

The Ten Commandments, for example, is a structure for the survival of a nomadic band of tribes. Broken down it can be -- "We are a united group under this one God. All other gods are false. These are behaviors to have and those to avoid for maintaining the cohesive survival of our group." This is also why the rules didn't apply to interactions with "other" groups, justified by "They have different gods, they're evil.. Our God commands us to wipe them out and take their stuff and especially women for boinkin' to add numbers to our group, to ensure OUR survival." That's the imperfect, simplistic Occam's Razor version.

So, yes.. there is no absolute right or wrong but rather those are defined by, rather oxymoronically, individual groups -- many of which coming to the same conclusions because humans share the same behaviors.

I understand this point of view, along with the previous comments regarding both what appears to be conflict and inconsistency in the Bible. Short on time so I'll need to be brief:

• Most instances of conflict that are pointed out in the Bible are due to either a shallow reading of the text or a lack of understanding of at what it is the person is looking. Rob mentioned a similar phenomena for those seeking to discredit Evolution and arguing from what may be deemed an unaware position. That being said, there are certainly portions of the Bible that may leave even believers scratching their heads, and that's fair to disclose. I personally don't know everything there is to know about the Bible, but I'm learning. I also have a list of "what the heck?" questions.
  
• It's not appropriate to view the historical events of the Old Testament through a 21st century lense as if they would happen today. We don't live under Jewish law and we're not part of a Theocracy. Many of the events about which we read in the Old Testament are extreme in nature (read Joshua for example) and there's no denying that they can be tough to accept. They are often under the premise of God's judgement on mankind, which is clearly defined in the Bible as a real thing. That may not be easy to swallow and we may not like it, but Scripture makes it clear that there are eventual consequences for continued disobedience. If you don't like that, take it up with Him.
  
• There are seven covenants (or agreements) in the Bible between God and man, four of which were conditional, meaning that they were promises that depended on the behavior of the people to whom they were given. If you follow the Bible, we would be under the New Covenant, given to all after Christ's resurrection. In that covenant we are no longer under the Law, even though the moral components of it still guide our lives today (the ceremonial may not).
  
• It's my personal opinion - as well as most believers - that morality may be written on our hearts so that all mankind may be aware of the existence of right and wrong, even if many choose to harden/ignore it and act in their own self-interest. The moral components of what is in the Old Testament is simply a written record of that so that "we are without excuse".

Have a great day. Hope to contribute later if I can.

I understand where you are coming from here. That used to be me as well.

[the Schwartz]

I am impressed with the depth of the discourse found here in this thread as I have begun to question a lot of things lately, including why, and how it is, that I have the Faith that I do.

I am not done considering this thread, but I do need time to digest all that is being said here before I can contribute meaningfully.....I think....

Thanks to Enel for getting this off to a wonderful start, I needed this to help sort out my thoughts.

[rob_s]

The only thing weirder than how obsessed some atheists are with picking apart believers is how obsessed some believers are with picking apart the atheists.

And vice versa.

I've always wondered with both groups, if you're so firm in your beliefs why are they so easily threatened by someone else's? and if they're not, why all the attempts to convert the other side?

i remember hearing years ago "if you aren't a liberal when you're young you have no heart, and if you aren't a conservative when you're old you have no brain". I'm betting there's a similar concept for religion.

[Doc_Glock]

Simultaneous with this thread, I have been advancing my philosophical education by reading, of all things, Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Reading the above and most of the related links has been educational to say the least.

[41magfan]

The only thing weirder than how obsessed some atheists are with picking apart believers is how obsessed some believers are with picking apart the atheists.

And vice versa.

I've always wondered with both groups, if you're so firm in your beliefs why are they so easily threatened by someone else's? and if they're not, why all the attempts to convert the other side?

Along those lines .....

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4).
“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5).

This must be one of those contradictions folks keep talking about.

[GuanoLoco]

The only thing weirder than how obsessed some atheists are with picking apart believers is how obsessed some believers are with picking apart the atheists.

And vice versa.

I've always wondered with both groups, if you're so firm in your beliefs why are they so easily threatened by someone else's? and if they're not, why all the attempts to convert the other side?

i remember hearing years ago "if you aren't a liberal when you're young you have no heart, and if you aren't a conservative when you're old you have no brain". I'm betting there's a similar concept for religion.

I'll try to be honest - feel free to call me on it.

I generally don't have any problem with expressions of personal religious beliefs as individual opinions or respectful discussions of various matters involving religion. Just don't get it 'on' me please.

When someone, usually a true believer, tells me in some way/shape/form how they/their religion is 'right', I am 'wrong', how good their beliefs/religion/org is in spite of evidence to the contrary, what they think I/other atheists are thinking and why this is wrong, or makes various interesting (usually demonstrably false, baseless or at least un-provable) claims then I tend to rise to the occasion.

A favorite test: There are 30 other flavors of religion (not including atheism and agnosticism) that I can buy at Baskin Robbins and they don't all agree with the point you are trying to make. All of them can't all be right, and my personal bet is that none of them are.

I don't expect to convert anyone. I might expose those with an open mind or unsatisfied doubts to looking at things from a different perspective.

It's a character flaw, what can I say.

Thinking: It probably comes from being force-fed religion for ~17 years - at least until I moved out of the family home over such conflicts. Hell I even refused confirmation at 13 or whatever.

Me: "So, this "Confirmation" thing means that as a consenting adult I publicly accept Catholicism as my religion?"
Them (Parents/Churchers): "Yes"
Me: "No thank you very much"
Them: Running out of ways to "make" son to things like accept Confirmation, Communion, Sing, Kneel, not climb out windows to escape weeknight Catholic Christian Doctrine classes, etc. -- but no end of ways to make me miserable about it.

Yea, I have residual issues over it. It's taken a few decades, but I've mostly recovered.

[ER_STL]

Right and Wrong are actually quite ambiguous terms. Whether one accepts that humans evolved or that humans were created *as is* one trait is undeniable, and that is that humans are social animals/beings. Survival depends upon cooperation and successful group dynamics. "Right" can be considered that which aids in group cohesion and cooperation -- therefore survival of the particular group of individuals. "Wrong" leads to the breakdown of group cohesion, cooperation with the opposite effect.

The Ten Commandments, for example, is a structure for the survival of a nomadic band of tribes. Broken down it can be -- "We are a united group under this one God. All other gods are false. These are behaviors to have and those to avoid for maintaining the cohesive survival of our group." This is also why the rules didn't apply to interactions with "other" groups, justified by "They have different gods, they're evil.. Our God commands us to wipe them out and take their stuff and especially women for boinkin' to add numbers to our group, to ensure OUR survival." That's the imperfect, simplistic Occam's Razor version.

So, yes.. there is no absolute right or wrong but rather those are defined by, rather oxymoronically, individual groups -- many of which coming to the same conclusions because humans share the same behaviors.

Gotta run so I’ll have to leave this for the day and you with a last response.

The point to which I was driving was that absent an absolute authority for what we define as morality, you can’t rightly define right and wrong in a naturalistic sense, as you’ve noted. Rather, you’re left with social contracts and learned behavior as the driver for how we as a society are supposed to behave. Thus, to use OJ’s imagery a few pages ago, while you and I might agree that raping little boys is reprehensible, the naturalist thinker can’t really say that it’s wrong. Yet, very few people can read a story about such a thing happening and not become disgusted, enraged and desirous of justice.

This is where I find that secular explanations for what most people experience as discernment between right and wrong (absolute if you’re a theist and relative if you’re not ) fall short. It simply seems more logical to me that morality is instead divinely inspired and defined. Of course, there’s nothing we can do from a scientific perspective yet as far as I’m aware to prove that, so I’ll have to simply say that I hypothesize that it is so based both on what I can observe and on what I experience. Maybe one day I'll be able to prove it and become rich...

Finally, in a general reply it’s interesting to see the number of people in the thread who are struggling with doubt or are perhaps reassessing their current beliefs, and I think that can sometimes be healthy. It’s also interesting to note the number of people with both a negative view towards organized religion in general as well as an indication that they experienced one or more unhealthy church or worship environment. We often joke that sometimes the worst thing Christianity has going for it is Christians.

The only thing weirder than how obsessed some atheists are with picking apart believers is how obsessed some believers are with picking apart the atheists.

And vice versa.

I've always wondered with both groups, if you're so firm in your beliefs why are they so easily threatened by someone else's? and if they're not, why all the attempts to convert the other side?

i remember hearing years ago "if you aren't a liberal when you're young you have no heart, and if you aren't a conservative when you're old you have no brain". I'm betting there's a similar concept for religion.

I can’t speak for anyone else but my intent isn’t to argue but rather to discuss. I don’t hold my ideas to be absolute and I can learn from the opinions of others. In your defense though, lots of people do do it and I suspect it’s for several reasons, the primary two of which are to reaffirm their own beliefs and because they simply like to argue.