philechat

Modern Christianity is certainly different from its original form (as described in the Bible). Could it be that it has already incorperated Pagan and Humanist values? Even (gasps) Nietzschean ideas?

Ensign Steve

Well, since you asked. Keep in mind I can only answer for myself, and do not profess to speak for anybody else, atheist or not. I am going with the second choice. I think there are deeper reasons for behaving ethically, etc. Why not just be dishonest? Because dishonesty is morally wrong, and I don't want to do things that are morally wrong. Why do I want to be a good person? I don't know. Where do moral objectives some from? Do we figure them out logically? Are they instictual? I don't know. One does not need to know the origin of natural laws to know that they exist, or to study them. The same applies to moral laws.

Quote:

Ok, WAIT a minute! You do in fact seem to be suggesting that logic and common sense will lead us to a life of savoring, well, "drunkenness, orgies, and the like". You really think this? If you don't, then why do you suggest that "this self-denial is inexcusable"? Hey, here's an effectively pagan atheist who believed that overindulgence in physical pleasure was wrong: Aristotle. I mean come on, you don't think, speaking as a reasoning citizen, there are actual, just crimes which we could label "immoral"? Or that misbehavior can ever cause harm? I'm not defending the verse you quoted word-for-word, and I'm definitely not being a prude at all--but I have to assume you support at least some of its flavor as a rational, moral being...For example, enjoying a drink is one thing. Enjoying it to excess is another (and I don't see why such excesses could be exactly what Jesus was talking about...) All I'm saying is reason doesn't necessarily entail hedonism. Surely you're not saying this either--in which case I'm not sure what your critique is.

At the risk of answering somebody else's question ...
I like Aristotle, but I don't think he had it right when it comes to virtue ethics. He got close, he gave us a good place to start, but his moral theory has a lot of holes in it. Besides, just because he is an atheist, does not mean that all atheists agree with him. John Stuart Mill was an atheist, and I like his libertarian moral theory on ethics much better than Aristotle's. John Stuart Mill says if it doesn't hurt anybody but you, then go ahead and do it. He would have been a big fan drunken orgies. There is a huge line between drunken orgies and murder. One of the acts is victimless, and that makes all the difference.

Jen

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by the_cave
Finally, I'd like to stand up for what I think is the real message of the Gospel. The real message is radical love--love for one's enemies, love for even the most reprehensible people imaginable.

I don't see anything admirable about loving reprehensible people. What is there to love them for - their moral degradation?

I also see no benefits to unconditional love when applied to normal adults. Like most things given unconditionally, it tends to be taken for granted. If I received a large sum of money every day whether I worked or not, before long I wouldn't value that money; the same goes for love.

the_cave

A drunken orgy without victims would be victimless, I agree. But I would not agree that a drunken orgy can't result in victims. I'm not saying they necessarily do; but they could.

the_cave

For the flawed humanity which they share with you and me, and which is all we're all built out of in the end. They're flawed, broken people, in need of healing, which is what we are, too.

I'd argue that love has levels. You don't have to open your doors to everyone every day, but can still try to help them out. What's to make a "reprehensible person" stop being reprehensible, if they're just going to be unloveable anyway? We at least have to hold out the promise of love to others, even if we can't fully give it to them right away. But we can start by giving them at least some...otherwise we're just dividing humanity into the righteous and the unrighteous--and guess which side we just so happen to end up on? Until one of us blows it...then we redraw the boundaries, as they slowly shrink smaller and smaller...

the_cave

I'm considering changing my handle to "Captain Caveman", just so there's no confusion

Fair enough, but I'm not sure that was the original question. The original poster did note that



So it seems they themselves already acknowledge the similarity of moral teachings, and yet still admire it when Jesus does it. So, I think that what they're inquiring about is how people value the content of those teachings, not necessarily the origin.

the_cave

Again, few take this literally, or believe it was meant literally--it's a hyperbolic statement, meant to get you to question your beliefs.

All exaggerations (when did he say he'd conquer the Romans?) But I'd be happy to adress specific passages.

Sure, I'll concede this in part. Righteousness plagues both believers and unbelievers. I don't argue that right & wrong don't exist (and are based on ideas of "good" & "bad"), but I'm arguing (this is a moral claim, I guess) that it's wrong to label individuals with those names wholesale (I'm assuming you'd agree?) We can label actions bad & good, or events, or thoughts, or desires, etc. But it's moral superiority that's wrong. This criticism I agree applies to religion where applicable (and I would agree it's often applicable). I'm just saying it's a struggle we all have to overcome.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by the_cave
For the flawed humanity which they share with you and me, and which is all we're all built out of in the end.

Not a good reason to love someone, IMO. I love people because of their good qualities, not because they happen to be human.

They're flawed, broken people, in need of healing, which is what we are, too.

I don't consider myself to be on the same level as, for example, Ted Bundy, so the comparison doesn't stand. I give love in response to good, not out of pity for "flawed, broken people".

I'd argue that love has levels. You don't have to open your doors to everyone every day, but can still try to help them out.

Levels of love? As in - tolerance, acquaintanceship, charity, compassion, friendship, romantic love and so on?

I wouldn't argue with that, but at the "lower" levels, I'd hesitate to call it love.

What's to make a "reprehensible person" stop being reprehensible, if they're just going to be unloveable anyway?

The fact that society will penalize them for being reprehensible?

We at least have to hold out the promise of love to others, even if we can't fully give it to them right away.

I don't make promises I can't keep. What's to stop the person taking my "promise of love" for weakness and being even more reprehensible, somewhat like an abusive partner?

But we can start by giving them at least some...otherwise we're just dividing humanity into the righteous and the unrighteous--

The righteousness or lack thereof of humanity is more like a spectrum than a rigidly black-or-white thing.

and guess which side we just so happen to end up on? Until one of us blows it...then we redraw the boundaries, as they slowly shrink smaller and smaller...

Goess which side I just so happen to end up on? I'll say this much; I don't consider myself reprehensible, and I don't expect anyone to love me either solely because I am human or solely because they think I am broken, flawed and in need of TLC. I would want someone to love me because they see good in me, and because that good balances out the times when I might "blow it". If that good doesn't balance out these mistakes, then the love should be withdrawn. I don't understand what you mean about redrawing shrinking boundaries, because I don't expect anyone to change their standards for me, nor do I expect to be offered love out of pity.

I would find that highly insulting, actually - which is why I don't offer it to anyone else.

Ensign Steve

And speaking could result in slander. And writing could result in libel. And life could result in death. And faith in god could result in suicide bombings. What's your point?

VivaHedone

I agree that drinking excessively is bad - but only because it leads to more pain than pleasure in the long run. Sex is different. What I argue against is the portrayal of pleasure by religion as dirty, sinful and impure, some type of temptation from Satan (i.e. the apple in Genesis). Religion has left us with an irrational and wasteful sense of shame and taboo surrounding our sensuality. This is, I believe, a monumentous evil.

Yes, reason does entail hedonism - gaining maximum possible enjoyment out of life (without harming others, that is). I also think it right that we should help others less fortunate than ourselves too gain enjoyment from life.

This does not mean reckless behaviour for short-term pleasure, but trying to maximise total pleasure - i.e. tolerating school for the benefits it wil bing later in life. Nor does it apply merely to physical pleasures, but mental and emotional enjoyment too.