Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Queen of Swords · 07-18-2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Keith
If you don't want to discuss God or religion with someone, it is your right to change the subject,

Religious person : "Aha! I won! The atheist couldn't even discuss the subject with me!"

walk away,

Religious person : "Look, look, he's running away!"

or avoid the topic in any way you wish.

Religious person : "Evasion. Obviously the atheist can't even address the points I raised."

So, Keith, do you consider that an interest in discussing one's views with religious people automatically means that one believes in their particular god? Or do you not know of any circumstances under which one can talk about religion and still remain an atheist?

Abel Stable · 07-18-2003, 05:56 AM

Quote:

for whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it" (Luke 9:23-24)

Well, this passage accounts for some of the popularity of martyrdom.

Quote:

If every word Jesus preached was meant to be taken literally...

I didn't say that, but the passage I cited was from the Sermon on the Mount...you know, the big day when he had the chance to speak to a huge crowd of people and communicate his message. I don't know how you could take it to be allegorical. He told the people he came to uphold the law...the entire law. His allegories were pretty clear that day (ie: don't hide the lamp under the bushel basket) and in this case he wasn't speaking figuratively.

Quote:

And what did Paul mean when he declared that "we are not under law but grace"? (Romans 6:15)

So who was the Son of God? Jesus or Paul? Jesus seemed to think pretty highly about the law - enough to assure the crowd that they were still bound by it...and always will be.

brighid · 07-18-2003, 06:04 AM

Ensign Steve,

I am sorry I have not got a chance to get back to this discussion. I will do my best to reply, but this discussion has really taken off and I have had little chance to read through but a reply or two yet.

Brighid

Joe V. · 07-18-2003, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
But it seems atheists can do little else but claim that God's moral law is arbitrary and inconsistent. This has not yet been proven.

And you have yet to prove that moral laws come from any god.

Quote:

Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense:

WE MUST OBEY GOD.

Your god never told me he left you in charge. What makes you think you have any right to speak for your god? Why should we listen to you? It isn't god that I lack faith in, I don't even believe there is one, it's the people who claim to speak for god, namely you. Why should I trust you?

- Joe

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Yes. Jesus upheld the ten commandments clearly affirming that we--not just the Israelites, are morally bound by them.

Jesus upheld the whole Law, not just the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are part of the Law. Read the passage from the Sermon on the Mount that Abel gave you.

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 08:52 AM

Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense:

WE MUST OBEY GOD.

Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it.

If God commanded me to kill my child, I would not obey God, and I would be morally right in doing so. You're saying that the moral to obey God overrides every other moral position. You're saying that there is nothing moral or immoral other than obeying or disobeying God. So you can't claim that murder, rape, terrorism, or any other action is objectively (or even subjectively) immoral.

Congratulations; you've completely eliminated moral standards.

It scares the living shit out of me that some Xians think like this.

This is the same argument used to justify the bombing of abortion clinics, murder of doctors that perform abortions, and even the acts of terrorism you find immoral such as the 9/11 tragedy. This is the same thinking that the terrorists used to justify hijacking and fly planes into the WTC. From your moral stance, you cannot condemn any of those actions as being immoral.

That is about as despicable and immoral as you can get.

Mageth · 07-18-2003, 09:06 AM

Keith said:

But it seems atheists can do little else but claim that God's moral law is arbitrary and inconsistent. This has not yet been proven.

And also said:

Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense:

WE MUST OBEY GOD.

Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it.

There, you just proved it for us. Under your system, we are only obligated to do what your God tells us to do and to not do what God tells us not to do. God tells some people to do one thing and other people to do the exact opposite. If God tells us to kill someone, we are obligated to kill that person. If God tells us not to kill someone, we are obligated to not kill that person.

It doesn't get much more arbitrary and insconsistent than that.

Biff the unclean · 07-18-2003, 09:39 AM

In the opening paragraph Carrie said "So anyway, I have this anger at Christians for being so stupid, and I loathe that they believe such silly things." Some defended her right to hold her own opinion. Others thought she was stereotyping.

Now on page 13 we have Keith the Christian saying "My whole point about atheism is that is seems to make objective morality impossible. It seems to necessitate arbitrary moral relativism."
And then following that with
"WE MUST OBEY GOD.
Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it."

I can think of nothing more immoral than a parent killing their own child. Not only would no decent human being do such a horrific thing no decent animal would either. Yet here is a Christian insisting that a human based morality is invalid. Morality must be based on the will of a god who is a character in some old book. We MUST obey this character even if his morals SEEMED way to severe.
Keith you are claiming that THE most immoral thing in the world becomes moral when god commands it. THAT is "arbitrary moral relativism." Arbitrary moral relativism to such a degree that sane and rational though must be suspended to even say such a terrible thing.

Who can blame Carrie for feeling the way she does after reading this Theistic defense of vile immorality?

Keith · 07-18-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"Why would god want us to know that he told the Israelites to do something it is immoral for anyone else to do? What significant knowledge can possibly be gleaned from the passage?"

Well, for one thing, so God can demonstrate His sovereign authority over all of creation. This point is critically important if we are to know God the way God intends for us to know Him.

Keith · 07-18-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien
"If you are not meant to live by god's example, why should you know about situations where god is not consistant with your ethics? As best as I can see, the only important thing the passage expresses, using your interpretation of it, is that god is not consistant morally."

Where God is not consistent with MY ethics? Why should God try to be consistent with my ethics, or anyone else's?

How would you know (without God) what is/isn't morally consistent? Let's say I have two sons, ages 16 and 17. I won't let my 17 year old drive because he has epilepsy which is not adequately controlled by medication, and he sometimes has seizures. I do, however, allow my 16 year old to drive, since he is heathy and he is a safe driver. Is my different "legal" standard concerning my two sons in this scenario proof that I'm morally inconsistent?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2003, 02:18 AM	#321
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Originally posted by Keith If you don't want to discuss God or religion with someone, it is your right to change the subject, Religious person : "Aha! I won! The atheist couldn't even discuss the subject with me!" walk away, Religious person : "Look, look, he's running away!" or avoid the topic in any way you wish. Religious person : "Evasion. Obviously the atheist can't even address the points I raised." So, Keith, do you consider that an interest in discussing one's views with religious people automatically means that one believes in their particular god? Or do you not know of any circumstances under which one can talk about religion and still remain an atheist?

07-18-2003, 06:04 AM	#323
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Ensign Steve, I am sorry I have not got a chance to get back to this discussion. I will do my best to reply, but this discussion has really taken off and I have had little chance to read through but a reply or two yet. Brighid

07-18-2003, 08:52 AM	#326
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense: WE MUST OBEY GOD. Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it. If God commanded me to kill my child, I would not obey God, and I would be morally right in doing so. You're saying that the moral to obey God overrides every other moral position. You're saying that there is nothing moral or immoral other than obeying or disobeying God. So you can't claim that murder, rape, terrorism, or any other action is objectively (or even subjectively) immoral. Congratulations; you've completely eliminated moral standards. It scares the living shit out of me that some Xians think like this. This is the same argument used to justify the bombing of abortion clinics, murder of doctors that perform abortions, and even the acts of terrorism you find immoral such as the 9/11 tragedy. This is the same thinking that the terrorists used to justify hijacking and fly planes into the WTC. From your moral stance, you cannot condemn any of those actions as being immoral. That is about as despicable and immoral as you can get.

07-18-2003, 09:06 AM	#327
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Keith said: But it seems atheists can do little else but claim that God's moral law is arbitrary and inconsistent. This has not yet been proven. And also said: Each human being has the exact same moral law in this sense: WE MUST OBEY GOD. Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it. There, you just proved it for us. Under your system, we are only obligated to do what your God tells us to do and to not do what God tells us not to do. God tells some people to do one thing and other people to do the exact opposite. If God tells us to kill someone, we are obligated to kill that person. If God tells us not to kill someone, we are obligated to not kill that person. It doesn't get much more arbitrary and insconsistent than that.

07-18-2003, 09:39 AM	#328
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	In the opening paragraph Carrie said "So anyway, I have this anger at Christians for being so stupid, and I loathe that they believe such silly things." Some defended her right to hold her own opinion. Others thought she was stereotyping. Now on page 13 we have Keith the Christian saying "My whole point about atheism is that is seems to make objective morality impossible. It seems to necessitate arbitrary moral relativism." And then following that with "WE MUST OBEY GOD. Now, for the Israelites, that would entail killing their child if their child cursed its parents. Even if the command seemed way too severe, God commanded it, and they were obligated (by God) to follow it." I can think of nothing more immoral than a parent killing their own child. Not only would no decent human being do such a horrific thing no decent animal would either. Yet here is a Christian insisting that a human based morality is invalid. Morality must be based on the will of a god who is a character in some old book. We MUST obey this character even if his morals SEEMED way to severe. Keith you are claiming that THE most immoral thing in the world becomes moral when god commands it. THAT is "arbitrary moral relativism." Arbitrary moral relativism to such a degree that sane and rational though must be suspended to even say such a terrible thing. Who can blame Carrie for feeling the way she does after reading this Theistic defense of vile immorality?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.