Atheist Morality

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Which of the fundamentals of Secular Humanism do you disagree with?
There is some overlap. I arrive at my conclusions independently of any group. Anyway to answer your question, these two seem optional and nonessential.
  1. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.
Art is optional.

  1. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.
Good enough is good enough. Not everyone needs to be involved with it.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Extraordinary claims need more solid evidence because plausibility is low.
Yes, which is why the blood of the martyrs is part of the case for Christ. There literally is no more solid evidence available to establish, sustain, substantiate and support something like the Resurrection, back in the 1st century. No cellphone cameras.
That Jesus was a historical individual is possible. The odds are against even that. There is 1/3 chance he ever even existed.
A position held by precisely one scholar, Mr. Richard Carrier, and if there was ever a man who had an axe to grind with Christ, it is this man.

And the point here is not to impugn Mr. Carrier, but just to say that if there was ever someone who would want to put the odds that Jesus existed at zero, it would be this man; and he put the odds at a mere 2-to-1 against.

Point is, even for a notorious despiser of Christ, Mr. Carrier must admit that the chances that Jesus Christ was real and walked this earth are 33%.

Which would be a hall of fame batting average (.333), to put it in context.
The miraculous claims are not supported by much of anything.
Except blood.
 

Derf

Well-known member
In an honest discussion, we agree on foundational terms together.
This might lead to a superficial agreement that falls apart when foundational truths are discussed. But it's a start.
No, but I am willing to accept that people who call themselves atheists are atheists, and the people calling themselves Christians are Christians.
That's more than Jesus was willing to accept.
Luke 6:46 (KJV)
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
I never made that claim while you claimed Christians have an upper hand because they believe it.
Because it is the only way to avoid just arguing about opinions.
Extraordinary claims need more solid evidence because plausibility is low. That Jesus was a historical individual is possible. The odds are against even that. There is 1/3 chance he ever even existed. The miraculous claims are not supported by much of anything.
That's why the resurrection is central. It validates both the miraculous claims and his authority to set right and wrong in a single event.
 

The Phoenix

BANNED
Banned
I think even God has deemed that every human has to determine for him/herself what is morally and ethically right and what is not. Otherwise, it would be exceedingly unfair for God to judge us for choices that we DIDN'T make.

Nice try, but wrong.

What God has done is given man the free will to choose the good or the evil. Damnation waits for those who choose evil Nobody talks about hell more than Jesus.
 

marke

Well-known member
And right in the range of when the Flood happened. Curious that!

Curiouser and curiouser.
Some fairy tales are not that old. Evolution, for example, is not yet 200 years old. The Chicxulub explanation for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs is not even 40 years old. Speculations that dinosaur soft tissues can survive dozens of millions of years are not yet 20 years old. Irrational assumptions the earth is in danger of global warming are barely 30 years old. The Trump/Russian collusion fairy tale is not much more than 5 years old and the lie that democrats won the 2020 election without fraud is not yet even 2 years old.
 

marke

Well-known member
There is some overlap. I arrive at my conclusions independently of any group. Anyway to answer your question, these two seem optional and nonessential.

Art is optional.


Good enough is good enough. Not everyone needs to be involved with it.
Most humanists prefer to remain in ignorance about life after death until they die in their stupidity.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
What do you think I was 'trying'?

But first we have to determine what good and evil, are.
I suppose that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of the knowledge of good and evil then. The American framers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which presume and interpret a moral theory that is based on self-evident and inbuilt, individual, absolute and universal human rights. Republicans hire judges who believe in this sentence, their record, rulings, judgments and opinions reflect and express this belief. For short, we call them "Originalists". Many call them Republicans. But they're really just Americans. Call them "Classical Americans", except Republicans purged out the slavery residue left behind by such founders as Jefferson, and refined and purified the Constitution (and constitution). We're doing this through the Supreme Court first of all.

I think we need an amendment codifying nine Supreme Court justices, to ensure that the Democrats can't simply expand the Court, which is something the Chinese government might do, to achieve and preserve a single party state.
 

PureX

Well-known member
If you do not yet know exactly what good and evil are then you should first seek to know and understand God.
Sure, but first we would have to decide which concept of God we should seek to know, as there are many depending on where and when we live. Some gods in some cultures were presumed to see human sacrifices as "good". If we lived in those times and places, how would we know any different? Even in our own time and place, there are significant difference in how God is being presented to people. So we have to weed through the different possibilities and determine which we think is right. And even then we can't ever really be certain. We have to stay in an 'open and seeking' mode.
 

PureX

Well-known member
I suppose that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of the knowledge of good and evil then.
I do think an awareness of 'God' is innate to humanity. And that we do naturally seek to understand it better. Our history would certainly bear that out.
The American framers wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which presume and interpret a moral theory that is based on self-evident and inbuilt, individual, absolute and universal human rights. Republicans hire judges who believe in this sentence, their record, rulings, judgments and opinions reflect and express this belief. For short, we call them "Originalists". Many call them Republicans. But they're really just Americans. Call them "Classical Americans", except Republicans purged out the slavery residue left behind by such founders as Jefferson, and refined and purified the Constitution (and constitution). We're doing this through the Supreme Court first of all.
Unfortunately, the framers were incorrect in assuming that the universal truths they proclaimed were unalienable and self-evident. In fact, they were not even unalienable and self-evident TO THEMSELVES. As it was not evident to themselves that the equality of "all men" they wrote about should include men of different ethnic, racial, and economic origins, and women. The point being that although our presumptions of self-righteousness are universal, our actual righteousness tends to be quite rare, and seldom acknowledged. The nation's founders were no more righteous than anyone else back then, and the republicans of today are no more righteous than anyone else is, nowadays.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Sure, but first we would have to decide which concept of God we should seek to know, as there are many depending on where and when we live. Some gods in some cultures were presumed to see human sacrifices as "good". If we lived in those times and places, how would we know any different? Even in our own time and place, there are significant difference in how God is being presented to people. So we have to weed through the different possibilities and determine which we think is right. And even then we can't ever really be certain. We have to stay in an 'open and seeking' mode.

You could spend several lifetimes trying to determine which religion is the correct one that way.

A simpler and easier way (that doesn't take nearly as long) is to look at the exclusive claims made by each of them. The correct one is the one where the claims made, exclusive to that religion, are all true.

For example, which religion claims that it's Founder not only died, but raised Himself from the dead?

Answer: Christianity.

Another example: Which religious text starts small, but just keeps growing, and doesn't reach it's climax until much later on?

Christianity.

It started with two people being created by a triune God, and the story's climax is still yet future!
 

marke

Well-known member
Sure, but first we would have to decide which concept of God we should seek to know, as there are many depending on where and when we live. Some gods in some cultures were presumed to see human sacrifices as "good". If we lived in those times and places, how would we know any different? Even in our own time and place, there are significant difference in how God is being presented to people. So we have to weed through the different possibilities and determine which we think is right. And even then we can't ever really be certain. We have to stay in an 'open and seeking' mode.
You can find God in His Word, the Bible. Looking for God while ignoring the Bible will prove fruitless.
 

marke

Well-known member
I do think an awareness of 'God' is innate to humanity. And that we do naturally seek to understand it better. Our history would certainly bear that out.

Unfortunately, the framers were incorrect in assuming that the universal truths they proclaimed were unalienable and self-evident. In fact, they were not even unalienable and self-evident TO THEMSELVES. As it was not evident to themselves that the equality of "all men" they wrote about should include men of different ethnic, racial, and economic origins, and women. The point being that although our presumptions of self-righteousness are universal, our actual righteousness tends to be quite rare, and seldom acknowledged. The nation's founders were no more righteous than anyone else back then, and the republicans of today are no more righteous than anyone else is, nowadays.
Regardless of the spiritual understanding you, the framers of the Bill of Rights, or the heads of nations who do not honor God and His people, possess, all humans are given unalienable rights by God.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Regardless of the spiritual understanding you, the framers of the Bill of Rights, or the heads of nations who do not honor God and His people, possess, all humans are given unalienable rights by God.
Only to then be ignored and denied by each other? That does not seem a reasonable conclusion.
 

PureX

Well-known member
What are you trying to say, that you don't think all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights?
It appears that there is a difference between a right given by God, and rights being respected by men.

As an example, a right given by God might be freedom of thought, or of physical autonomy, which no man can usurp or deny. Whereas a right that men can disregard and subjugate, such as the right to life and liberty, would not likely be a right conferred by God, would it? If so, that would make men more powerful than God, as men can negate and deny these right to each other.

Men like to imagine that their own idea of an unalienable right is the same as a God given right. But in truth this is almost never the case. It's really just men presuming that their own idea if righteousness is God sanctioned. So as to justify forcing their idea of righteousness on everyone else. And yet, although we can constrain and control the behavior of others, we cannot constrain or control their hearts, or their minds, or their spirit. So I think it's these that are God given and unalienably and rightfully ours. Even though we are constantly trying to usurp, deny, and control them in each other.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It appears that there is a difference between a right given by God, and rights being respected by men.

Rights are God-given. If it's not given by God, it's not a right.

As an example, a right given by God might be freedom of thought, or of physical autonomy, which no man can usurp or deny. Whereas a right that men can disregard and subjugate, such as the right to life and liberty,

Sorry, but the right to life is a God-given right, not man-given. Liberty (for starters) is just an extension of the right to life.

No man has the right to take another man's life.

would not likely be a right conferred by God, would it?

God said...

“You shall not murder. - Exodus 20:13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:13&version=NKJV

And...

"“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. - Genesis 9:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:6&version=NKJV

Not man.

If so, that would make men more powerful than God, as men can negate and deny these right to each other.

Again: If it's not given by God, it's not a right.

Men like to imagine that their own idea of an unalienable right is the same as a God given right.

Do you agree or disagree that it's a good thing when men recognize the rights God has given man?

But in truth this is almost never the case.

Because you say so?

It's really just men presuming that their own idea if righteousness is God sanctioned.

Not really.

So as to justify forcing their idea of righteousness on everyone else.

So then what did Paul mean by the following?

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Romans 3:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:31&version=NKJV

And yet, although we can constrain and control the behavior of others, we cannot constrain or control their hearts, or their minds, or their spirit.

To the extent that the law (God's righteous standard) is enforced, to that extent men's hearts ARE constrained!

It's when evil is NOT punished swiftly that men's hearts become evil and unconstrained, out of control.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

So I think it's these that are God given and unalienably and rightfully ours.

"These" being...?

Even though we are constantly trying to usurp, deny, and control them in each other.

Men don't have the right to enforce the law. Only the government does.
 

marke

Well-known member
It appears that there is a difference between a right given by God, and rights being respected by men.

As an example, a right given by God might be freedom of thought, or of physical autonomy, which no man can usurp or deny. Whereas a right that men can disregard and subjugate, such as the right to life and liberty, would not likely be a right conferred by God, would it? If so, that would make men more powerful than God, as men can negate and deny these right to each other.

Men like to imagine that their own idea of an unalienable right is the same as a God given right. But in truth this is almost never the case. It's really just men presuming that their own idea if righteousness is God sanctioned. So as to justify forcing their idea of righteousness on everyone else. And yet, although we can constrain and control the behavior of others, we cannot constrain or control their hearts, or their minds, or their spirit. So I think it's these that are God given and unalienably and rightfully ours. Even though we are constantly trying to usurp, deny, and control them in each other.
Let's take this a little slower. You have an inalienable right not to be murdered by me but I have no inalienable right to murder you for reasons I think are right.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Rights are God-given. If it's not given by God, it's not a right.
There are divine rights, civil rights, natural rights, and voluntary rights. "A right" is just a linguistic term for a ceding of choice. Divine rights are given by God. Civil rights are given by social agreement. Natural rights are determined by the laws of physics, and voluntary rights are afforded by individual choice.
Sorry, but the right to life is a God-given right, not man-given.
If that is the case, how is it that mankind has the ability to ignore, defy, and countermand that right? How is it that nature, too, is able to ignore, defy, and counteract that right? Even some lowly insects can deny you your right to live.
Liberty (for starters) is just an extension of the right to life.

No man has the right to take another man's life.
And yet we do it all the time. So apparently we DO have that right if we deem it unto ourselves.
If it's not given by God, it's not a right.
How do we know a right was given by God if men can ignore it whenever they choose? Why should we care that God gave us a right when men can ignore it whenever they choose?
Do you agree or disagree that it's a good thing when men recognize the rights God has given man?
I think very few men recognize the difference between a divine right and a divine gift. Because they much prefer to presume that their own desires and ideas of righteousness are "divinely right".

God gives us each the gift of life but He does not guarantee it to us.
Men don't have the right to enforce the law. Only the government does.
Governments are created by men to serve men.
 
Top