Atheist Morality

[Skeeter]

@Skeeter, thanks for addressing this to me, and for starting a new thread--that's a great way to do it. I'm sorry I didn't see it until last night. If you want to address a particular member, use the @ symbol followed by the user name, and it will ping me directly. Like this: @username.

If I wanted your particular input on this matter I would have drawn your attention to it. Your post was a good jumping off point to a discussion which you repeatedly refuse to have. Sorry, to have addressed your name directly. That was a rhetorical devise.

Regarding your post, forgive my obtuseness, but didn't you just restate what I said in mine, but with a lot more words?

You are welcome here if you choose to have a dialog, otherwise kindly stay out.

 

[Derf]

If I wanted your particular input on this matter I would have drawn your attention to it. Your post was a good jumping off point to a discussion which you repeatedly refuse to have. Sorry, to have addressed your name directly. That was a rhetorical devise.

You are welcome here if you choose to have a dialog, otherwise kindly stay out.

So you don't consider asking for clarification part of "dialogue"?

 

[Skeeter]

So you don't consider asking for clarification part of "dialogue"?

Not after the third time on the same exact issue. You are playing games.

 

[Right Divider]

Not after the third time on the same exact issue. You are playing games.

From the guy that just keeps repeating falsehoods over and over.

 

[Skeeter]

From the guy that just keeps repeating falsehoods over and over.

You should win an award for the most substance free responses. You would do well to describe WHY following each response because it could move things forward.

 

[Derf]

Not after the third time on the same exact issue. You are playing games.

Not if the clarification isn't provided. Perhaps you can't--I appreciate the up front admission. Saves us all time.

 

[Skeeter]

Not if the clarification isn't provided. Perhaps you can't--I appreciate the up front admission. Saves us all time.

You are being a noodge. You think you have upper hand by asking questions and not answering them. That is probably because you know that the case you hope to make is inherently weaker.

Last try:

Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible?

How do we sort out who has the closest pipeline to divine authority when everyone believes their own interpretation is close?

How can Christians claim a better foundation than anyone else?

 

[Idolater]

You are being a noodge. You think you have upper hand by asking questions and not answering them. That is probably because you know that the case you hope to make is inherently weaker.

Last try:

Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible?

Why do you presume the Protestant position here and ignore the Catholic position? Catholic bishops uniformly teach us about our inalienable human rights explicitly, and the institution of their teaching office is established in the Bible.

How do we sort out who has the closest pipeline to divine authority when everyone believes their own interpretation is close?

Protestantism, not Catholicism.

How can Christians claim a better foundation than anyone else?

Because of the death and Resurrection of Christ.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible?

No, because most of them don't even know what it says about morality, or worse, do, and think that their opinions are better.

It's a good thing morality isn't based on Christian consensus!

How do we sort out who has the closest pipeline to divine authority when everyone believes their own interpretation is close?

SIMPLE. You look at what scripture says.

How can Christians claim a better foundation than anyone else?

Because Christianity is true based on the fact that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Skeeter]

No, because most of them don't even know what it says about morality, or worse, do, and think that their opinions are better.

It's a good thing morality isn't based on Christian consensus!

Interesting.

SIMPLE. You look at what scripture says.

Is the scripture precise enough? Does it have reasonable internal consistency? Does the reason for the vast array of differences between what Christians believe involve the answer to these questions?

Looking at the Bible objectively is a banning offense in these parts, so I will not give you my proposed answers.

Because Christianity is true based on the fact that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15.

I see how actually rising from the dead proves that it is possible to do so and Christ knew how, but how does it follow that everything else about Christianity must also be true. Isn't it possible that everything else is false?

 

[Right Divider]

Looking at the Bible objectively is a banning offense in these parts, so I will not give you my proposed answers.

Please stop with these sorts of lies.

 

[Skeeter]

Please stop with these sorts of lies.

Which sort do you prefer?

 

[Idolater]

... I see how actually rising from the dead proves that it is possible to do so and Christ knew how, but how does it follow that everything else about Christianity must also be true. Isn't it possible that everything else is false?

Not reasonably, no.

 

[Right Divider]

Which sort do you prefer?

None, actually. But I was pointing to one specific one that you made in that post.

Stop trolling and get with some discussion.

 

[Skeeter]

None, actually. But I was pointing to one specific one that you made in that post.

Stop trolling and get with some discussion.

This is my thread and you are off topic.

 

[Derf]

You are being a noodge. You think you have upper hand by asking questions and not answering them

Said the man who asked a bunch of questions without answering any.

. That is probably because you know that the case you hope to make is inherently weaker.

Or because I hope you'll think through your position better? Guess that's too much to ask for.

Last try:

Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible?

Yes. "Christians" are little Christs. There are some folks that claim Christ without being his, which could skew your perception of us, and perhaps of him, but it's your responsibility to find the truth by seeking it diligently.

How do we sort out who has the closest pipeline to divine authority when everyone believes their own interpretation is close?

At least Christians (most of them) believe in a standard of right and wrong that is 1. Infallible, and 2. Established by someone greater than any creature (including humans) and 3. Accessible to us.

How can Christians claim a better foundation than anyone else?

Besides the answer already provided (the resurrection of Christ), we also claim to know the one who made everything, including you and me. And He claims authority over His creation, to give and revoke laws as necessary.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Interesting.

Is the scripture precise enough?

It's clear enough that a child can understand it, at least, the principles contained within.

Does it have reasonable internal consistency?

It's certainly robust enough to last for 3500 years, despite having multiple errata creep in through human transcription error over the centuries, but if you compare, say, the Dead Sea Scrolls, to today's Hebrew Old Testaments, they're practically identical.

And that's before you get to the fact that the Bible was written by about 40 different authors.

Does the reason for the vast array of differences between what Christians believe involve the answer to these questions?

It's tied into it, yes.

Looking at the Bible objectively is a banning offense in these parts,

No, it's not, not if it's truly objectively. What's bannable is being intentionally blasphemous.

so I will not give you my proposed answers.

I see how actually rising from the dead proves that it is possible to do so

Then you're seeing things.

Under normal circumstances, it is impossible for a man to rise from the dead, let alone to raise himself.

Men being raised from the dead shows that there is a Being Who is not bound by that rule, Who is capable of bringing the dead back to life, miraculously (supernaturally).

And since it's possible for that being to raise men from the dead, therefore, if He were to have come to earth as a man, and claimed that if he is killed, that he can raise Himself up from the dead, then when He is killed and raises Himself up from the dead, as He did, it shows that He IS that Being, whom Christians call God.

Jesus Christ did EXACTLY THAT, and it shows that He is God.

and Christ knew how,

Because He is the Creator God, come as a man to die for your sins, who wants to have a relationship with you, to love you and be loved by you for eternity.

but how does it follow that everything else about Christianity must also be true.

Because if Jesus, who claimed to be God, really did rise from the dead on His own power, then it shows that He is God. The entire Bible is about God's relationship with His creation. Jesus said to the Jews: "If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me." Moses, if you recall, wrote the first five books of the Bible and Job. If what Jesus said was true, then what Moses said in those books was true, and if what Moses wrote was true, then it's likely that the rest of the Bible, the foundation of which is Moses' writings, is also true.

Isn't it possible that everything else is false?

Let me put this into perspective for you:

The Book of Mormon claims that American Indians (or at least some tribes) are descendants of Jews and had massive cities before the europeans arrived. That means they would have had some sort of economy, and currency. Not one coin mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been found, aside from all the evidence that it's a buch of hooey anyways, like genetics showing that the Indians don't have the appropriate genetic markers if they were descendants of Jews or the lack of any archeological evidence for such cities.

On the other hand, EVERY SINGLE COIN mentioned in the Bible has been found in multiples, and on top of that, aside from the fact that most if not all of the locations mentioned in the Bible have been found, there is a tribe of Africans who claim to have descended from the Jews, and they even have the genetic markers to prove it!

Even more about the coins is that we even have historical data for values associated with certain coins going all the way back to Joseph's time! We know how much a slave would have been sold for during those times, and it matches with what Joseph was sold for, which was about twenty shekels of silver.

The point being that such details reinforce the story told the by Bible as being true. It's not just a collection of make-believe stories, it's a record of History as kept by the children of God, as wicked as they were, which also lends credence to what they said about themselves, as most nations would paint themselves in a better light than did Israel in their record keeping.

It shows that even the finer details of the Bible are true, and not just the major claims.

 

[Skeeter]

It's clear enough that a child can understand it, at least, the principles contained within.

I disagree. It is vague frequently. Relating a parable always involves interpretations that can differ.

And, if a child can understand your basis for ethics then they are not complex enough. Ethics are fraught with dilemmas ( ie, overlaping priorities) that even those with high IQs must try hard to work out. The pretend certainty of an alleged authority is sometimes the easy way out, allowing people to follow rather than think.

It's certainly robust enough to last for 3500 years,

If I were a noodge I would call that the fallacy of appeal to popularity. Instead, I suggest consider that the staying power of the text has to do with the emotions of fear and passion rather than the logical cogency of the words.

No, it's not, not if it's truly objectively. What's bannable is being intentionally blasphemous.

Intentional bias is read in all the time. Using the pronouns she or they when referring to the deity can occur out of respect for females and the attempt to stop the habit of using the male pronoun as the default.

Questioning God's logic can always be seen as blasphemous even though it may be a straight, well-intended analysis.

Under normal circumstances, it is impossible for a man to rise from the dead, let alone to raise himself.

It's healthy to be skeptical of this. I agree.

Men being raised from the dead shows that there is a Being Who is not bound by that rule, Who is capable of bringing the dead back to life, miraculously (supernaturally).

If its supernatural why does there have to be a being?

And since it's possible for that being to raise men from the dead, therefore, if He were to have come to earth as a man, and claimed that if he is killed, that he can raise Himself up from the dead, then when He is killed and raises Himself up from the dead, as He did, it shows that He IS that Being, whom Christians call God.

That does not necessarily follow. Life might be in the matrix, and a computer glitched.

Jesus Christ did EXACTLY THAT, and it shows that He is God.

One miracle doesn't mean there is blanket legitimacy. Snake oil salesman weren't Gods neither.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I disagree.

That's nice.

It is vague frequently.

Then you're not paying attention well enough.

Relating a parable always involves interpretations that can differ.

The Bible is more than just parables. And usually, the parables Jesus spoke, He explained them to His disciples privately to them, so that the meaning of them is clear.

And, if a child can understand your basis for ethics then they are not complex enough.

Why does it have to be more complex than that?

Ethics are fraught with dilemmas (ie, overlaping priorities) that even those with high IQs must try hard to work out.

There are no situations where one must commit murder to avoid stealing, or commit perjury to avoid sexual immorality.

Do not murder, steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, or covet. On these five commandments are built the foundation of most modern legal systems.

The pretend certainty of an alleged authority is sometimes the easy way out, allowing people to follow rather than think.

Whatever that means...

If I were a noodge I would call that the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Your knowledge of what constitutes which fallacy is poor, and if you did so, you would be incorrect.

An appeal to popularity relies on "how many people (population, popularity) believe it" to assert that something is correct.

If I were making the claim "because it has lasted 3500 years, therefore it's correct," that would be an appeal to tradition, not an appeal to popularity.

But I'm not making EITHER of those claims.

I'm stating that the Bible is robust (as in, internally consistent, as you put it) enough to have lasted for 3500 years, despite errors creeping in, that it remains largely unaffected by such errors.

Instead, I suggest consider that the staying power of the text has to do with the emotions of fear and passion rather than the logical cogency of the words.

You asked me "Does it have reasonable internal consistency?" To which, I replied yes, it is robust enough to have lasted for 3500 years without much change.

In other words, it's both "emotions" AND "logical cogency."

Intentional bias is read in all the time.

What bias are you referring to?

Using the pronouns she or they when referring to the deity can occur out of respect for females and the attempt to stop the habit of using the male pronoun as the default.

The problem is that intentionally calling God using female terms goes against how He (yes, "He") describes Himself.

I thought you liberals were all about respecting people's pronouns. Guess not, eh?

Never in all of Scripture does God refer to Himself as female, and calling Him by using female terms does nothing but insult Him.

EDIT: In addition to the above, you might think that you're attempting to respect women (how you get to the point where you think that is another matter entirely, of course), but all you're doing is blaspheming God, and committing idolatry by placing women on the same level or above God.

ALSO, Using "they" isn't quite as wrong, since God is triune, He is three Persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. They are one God.

Questioning God's logic can always be seen as blasphemous even though it may be a straight, well-intended analysis.

There's no "straight, well intended analysis" if you intentionally attribute things to Him that He (says He) is not.

It's healthy to be skeptical of this. I agree.

Being skeptical of something is one thing. Recognizing that something cannot happen is quite another.

If its supernatural why does there have to be a being?

Because the effect cannot be greater than the cause. You and I as humans are persons, therefore the source of humans must be a person. We are living, therefore the source must be living. We can love, therefore the source must be loving. We can have relationships, therefore the source must be relational. We can be good, therefore the source must be good.

If you can tell me what non-being thing is living, personal, relational, good, and loving, then I'll concede that it doesn't have to be a being.

That does not necessarily follow.

Yes, it does.

Life might be in the matrix, and a computer glitched.

Jesus said He would raise Himself up on the third day. Are you calling Him a liar?

One miracle doesn't mean there is blanket legitimacy.

Duh. Which is why there's more evidence than just that.

Snake oil salesman weren't Gods neither.

Jesus wasn't a snake-oil salesman.

 

[marke]

You are being a noodge. You think you have upper hand by asking questions and not answering them. That is probably because you know that the case you hope to make is inherently weaker.

Last try:

Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible?

How do we sort out who has the closest pipeline to divine authority when everyone believes their own interpretation is close?

How can Christians claim a better foundation than anyone else?

God establishes moral values that humans must learn and live by in order to avoid His condemnation for immorality.