scumble

I know some Christians like to say that the logical consequence of atheism is to not to have any morals, etc.
It's interesting to consider some thoughts on how Christianity is confusing.

One thing concerns accepting God's will. One thing I've taken on is the idea that suffering has some purpose, and we shouldn't question, say, our legs being lost through some accident - a quote to this effect goes something like this: "If God takes my legs away, that's fine with me, they were never mine in the first place".
If you take this line, where's the warrant for Christians to work against suffering of various kinds? Could they not be working against God? Why try to cure disease when there might be some reason for cancer appearing?

I'm sure you get the gist...

Tom Sawyer

Inconsistencies like that in Christianity have been pointed out here a number of times. One of the main ones has been that they accept that bed things happen for a reason and it's all part of a plan they can't understand, yet pray to God to have Him stop bad things from happening.

In terms of the morality question, most Christians believe that God wants them to help people in need (though why He put them in the situation where they would need help in the first place is another question) but when things go wrong, they comfort themselves by saying that it's all part of some kind of higher plan rather than having to accept the fact that sometimes shitty things happen for absolutely no reason.

mibby529

I think Asimov covered this in I, Robot, but I could be mistaken.

scumble

I thought it was most likely the case.

glenn_99_2000

Not only are Xians 'covered' as god's will for the good or bad (it doesn't matter which) that happens to themselves or the innocent, but if they know you're a nonbeliever, then any problems you get become proof god exists (he's punishing me). I get this from my wife a lot; you can't hide your humanity from a spouse! You learn to shrug it off, but it's sad, really, to imagine going through life trying to find god's will in the same noise we all experience. Making order out of chaos. Someday I hope she accepts that every bad thing that comes our family's way isn't punishment due to me coming out as an atheist. But, probably not in my lifetime... at the end of which she'll probably get the last word on the subject, given my health and all

Jon Curry

Just because God ultimately brings good out of that which is evil, this doesn't mean that Christians shouldn't do what is good. If I find a cure for cancer, this is good. If I fail to find a cure for cancer, then God might just bring good out of a cancer situation anyway. I don't know God's purposes specifically, so I just continue to do good knowing that God brings good out of my successes and can still bring good out failures. But I'm commanded to good anyway. There is no inconsistency.

MadMordigan

There is no inconsistency.

How can one possibly say this at the end of that paragraph with a straight face?

Perhaps if one tells oneself the Emporer is not naked often enough, they'll learn to ignore the bare arse.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: MadMordigan ]</p>

oneofshibumi

I believe that atheist are not moral, they are ethical. Morality refers to conforming to a standard of right behavior, in accord with that culture. Therefore, a cannibal is moral in accordance with his/her culture. Ethics means a discipline dealing with good and evil and with moral duty, applied universally. Ethics requires that a concept be supported by reasoning or logic. Biblical morality, is contingent on which passages that particular Christian Church or denomination considers important. Taking into account that there are more than 3,000 Christian groups, one can be concluded that Biblical morality, is always changing. Ethical considerations, are usually constant through time.

An example would be Kohlberg's statges of Ethical Understanding.

KOHLBERG’S Stages of Ethical Understanding

The PRECONVENTIONAL LEVEL: ethical behavior is externally controlled

STAGE 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. Children at this stage find it difficult to consider two points of view in a moral dilemma. Fear authority and avoidance of punishment as reasons for behaving morally.

STAGE 2: The instrumental purpose orientation. Awareness that people can have different perspectives in a moral appears, but at first this understanding is very concrete.

The CONVENTIONAL LEVEL: ethically understanding is based on conforming to social rules to ensure positive human relationships and societal order.

STAGE 3: The “good boy—good girl” orientation, or the morality of interpersonal cooperation. The desire to obey rules because they promote social harmony first appears in the contest of close personal ties.

STAGE 4: The social-order-maintaining orientation. At this stage, the individual takes into account a larger perspective—that of societal laws.

The POSTCONVENTIONAL LEVEL: individuals define ethics in terms of abstract principles and values that apply to all situations and societies.

STAGE 5. The social-contract orientation. Individuals regard laws and rules as flexible instruments for furthering human purposes.

STAGE 6. The universal ethical principle orientation. Right action is defined by self-chosen ethical principles of conscience that are valid for all humanity, regardless of law and social agreement.