Question for atheists: What governs how you live your life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For Christians who believe in the Bible, there were acts of miracles and the evidence of God's existence.

Does this sort of proof exist among other religions?

Of course. Roman gods cured the sick or made women fertile. Hindu statues exude milk. This "proof" is ubiquitous among the gullible and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Don't you understand that making up an imaginary god to justify your actions does not solve your good vs. evil problem?

Do you understand that people have justified very bad things on the basis of the authority of their god?

So saying "This is good because God told me" or "this is bad because God told me" does not get us any further, because "God" tells different people different things. In the Civil War he told the south that they were right and the North that they were right. He told the Aztecs to sacrifice children and the pope to cover up child abuse and move the abusers to fresh parishes.

So how then, when different people have different conceptions of right and wrong, do we determine what is right and wrong? We as a society engage in a debate about it, and set laws according to the outcome of the debate, based on our interests as a society for maximising the common good.

You are shaping God by the action of people and that's faulty. God's principles are unchanging. He gives us free will and it is from that free will that man has warped and/or interpreted his teachings. We are the ones who emphasize what we want as it suits us. BUT, none of that changes God's Word. It is unchanging. The only thing that changes is man.

Whether you believe in it or not, think of the Bible. Is an updated version, with entirely different text, published every year to suit society and/or man?

My understanding is that there was an update a couple of thousand years ago. Can you explain why, if his principles were unchanging, he needed to bring out a new edition? In fact, in this thread we have been explicity informed that the OT, which apparently set the rules for a while, is now superceded.

I would also point out that the bible did go through a large number of changes in the first century or two after christ.

How do you know that another update won't be needed? The mormons claim that it was.

Don't forget there are literally dozens of "Bibles", and that's just in English.

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

At least Muslims actually believe there text was 100% written by god. The bible is such a bizarre cut/pasted, random selection of contradicting stories, all plainly and admittedly written by human beings, assembled over centuries.

Actually, Muslims believe the Quran was "written" by Muhammad (who, BTW was illiterate and simply "recited" what he said God had told him).

If anything, dozens of people all over the world, over many centuries, writing essentially the same things is more valid to me than just one guy writing it all himself. YMMV.

Boy, is there ever a lot teetering on that word "essentially".

Well, is that not true? Just look to the Book of Gospels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, many Christians do what is pleasing to God by obeying his commandments. Has nothing to do with prayer, Bible study, etc. Just obeying his commandments. Which are really the same "laws" dictated by society.

So, they are not the same. The bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". But we don't kill witches.
Similarly:
Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19
or:
When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening

You see, there is some stuff from the bible we follow, and some we reject. Many of our laws have no basis in religion at all.

FYI: Most Christians follow the New Testament. Many things mandated in the Old Testament were done away with with Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. He made the "ultimate sacrifice" and, as such, we are no longer bound by OT laws. Jewish people, who don't believe in Jesus, follow the OT.

And this is the part that is every bit as much human interpretation as an atheist consulting their own moral sense of right v wrong.

Can you explain? I'm having trouble following.

Sure! You said you're not reliant on your own sense of morality. You just follow the Ten Commandments. Because that is God's Word. But it was pointed out to you that the OT has a long list of pre- and proscriptions. So why not follow them as we'll. to which you replied, essentially, because the Bible says we don't have to follow those anymore. But many others read the bible and come to a different interpretation. So you're no longer making a strict appeal to the word of god, but rather your interpretation of the word of god (or worse yet, a professional interpreter's translation of the word of god, that has been interpreted by some religious authority figure).

So your absolute morality is nothing more than a flawed human attempt at interpreting a holy document and deriving moral laws therefrom.

I'm sorry, still not totally following, but I'll give it a shot:

I never said I'm not reliant on my own sense of morality. But, what I will say is that my morality is shaped by my (Christian) upbringing and I've found it to be a great foundation upon which to build and live my life.

Yes, I follow God's commandments. re: OT/NT...a lot of the distinctions have to do with sacrifices and, with Jesus's death, the need for sacrifices was no more. Whether folks choose to continue following them is their personal choice.

And in that sense you're doing the same thing atheists do. PP responded to this by saying there was no human interpretation going on; she just followed God's Word. My point was that "God's Word" is a human construct. Whether it's which part of the Bible to adhere to, or which to ignore. There's tradition, there's authority figures, there's "revelation" which is essentially your internal moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat others the way I would like to be treated.

That pretty much covers everything.

That's lovely. The Golden Rule.

But it could just as well be, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Or, "I want your gold, so I will kill you now."

If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

Did you even read this thread? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse again?

To me: you think your mythological God gives your system of morals greater authority.

I believe my innate sense of right and wrong suffices.

So far I haven't massacred any sects that disagree with me, nor molested any altar boys. So I'd say that makes the score like, me one billion, religious folks negative infinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

But if your Absolute Authority has such a system of morality that He dictates good and evil and morality to his followers, why are the so many variants on what is good and what is not?

Are you saying that Christians today approve of the mass slaughter of the Crusades? Or the wholesale torture of the Inquisition? Or the murder of witches in Puritan New England? All of these were done by Christian churches on the institutional power based on the morality of their God. Look in the news today. You can't even get an agreement from the various denominations of Christianity on what is acceptable morality. They all have their own interpretation. Are you going to say that the Catholics have a more true sense of morality than the Protestants? Or the Episcopalians? The Eastern Orthodoxy?

Religion is only one aspect of morality. Each individual has their own sense of morality and builds it from many sources. Some build it entirely on religion, others build it partially on religion and some do so entirely absent of religion. But not having religion in no way means that you have no sense of morality. If you can't understand that, then you have completely disregarded God's gift of Free Will and turned religion into a moral crutch. You don't think about morality at all, you've had it handed to you on a plate and you have been brainwashed to only think that what your church, religious leader or whoever has prescribed as moral is moral. It is perfectly fine to use your religion as the foundation for your sense of morality and then build upon it. But don't make your church your sole arbiter of what is and is not moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Since we're rational atheists (and because it sounds like the kind of stuff we see from our religious cousins on Facebook all the time) we're going to need a cite on this one.

The atheist blogger who converted:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html

The argument from conscience:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Every culture has deviants - even atheists

I find it curious that none of these people ever seem to explain why they choose their particular god of choice. Of all the thousands and thousands of gods, and thousands of morality codes those gods have bestowed, why that one?

Can you provide any evidence of "other gods" proving their word/existence either through action or deed?

No religion can do that, because their only way of verifying or proving "existence" comes only from those within (and they all do that)

For Christians who believe in the Bible, there were acts of miracles and the evidence of God's existence.

Does this sort of proof exist among other religions?

Um. You need to get out more, or take a basic comparative theology course. ALL religions say they're right, and ALL religions have their own "miracles" or internal proof.

I understand other religions and what they believe. Not really sure why you find it necessary to be rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, many Christians do what is pleasing to God by obeying his commandments. Has nothing to do with prayer, Bible study, etc. Just obeying his commandments. Which are really the same "laws" dictated by society.

So, they are not the same. The bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". But we don't kill witches.
Similarly:
Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19
or:
When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening

You see, there is some stuff from the bible we follow, and some we reject. Many of our laws have no basis in religion at all.

FYI: Most Christians follow the New Testament. Many things mandated in the Old Testament were done away with with Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. He made the "ultimate sacrifice" and, as such, we are no longer bound by OT laws. Jewish people, who don't believe in Jesus, follow the OT.

And this is the part that is every bit as much human interpretation as an atheist consulting their own moral sense of right v wrong.

Can you explain? I'm having trouble following.

Sure! You said you're not reliant on your own sense of morality. You just follow the Ten Commandments. Because that is God's Word. But it was pointed out to you that the OT has a long list of pre- and proscriptions. So why not follow them as we'll. to which you replied, essentially, because the Bible says we don't have to follow those anymore. But many others read the bible and come to a different interpretation. So you're no longer making a strict appeal to the word of god, but rather your interpretation of the word of god (or worse yet, a professional interpreter's translation of the word of god, that has been interpreted by some religious authority figure).

So your absolute morality is nothing more than a flawed human attempt at interpreting a holy document and deriving moral laws therefrom.

I'm sorry, still not totally following, but I'll give it a shot:

I never said I'm not reliant on my own sense of morality. But, what I will say is that my morality is shaped by my (Christian) upbringing and I've found it to be a great foundation upon which to build and live my life.

Yes, I follow God's commandments. re: OT/NT...a lot of the distinctions have to do with sacrifices and, with Jesus's death, the need for sacrifices was no more. Whether folks choose to continue following them is their personal choice.

And in that sense you're doing the same thing atheists do. PP responded to this by saying there was no human interpretation going on; she just followed God's Word. My point was that "God's Word" is a human construct. Whether it's which part of the Bible to adhere to, or which to ignore. There's tradition, there's authority figures, there's "revelation" which is essentially your internal moral compass.

Actually, what I find more accurate is that atheists follow religious principles (usually taught in their upbringing), yet reject the authoritative figure who governs the principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat others the way I would like to be treated.

That pretty much covers everything.

That's lovely. The Golden Rule.

But it could just as well be, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Or, "I want your gold, so I will kill you now."

If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

Every individual is already his or her own authority, since as you have already pointed out we can only interpret God's will since it is not revealed to us directly.

This is why we have society and laws and government. Because your Absolute Authority really doesn't do anything. Because it is not real. Do you understand?

This really is the fatal flaw in the theist argument that hasn't been addressed yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

But if your Absolute Authority has such a system of morality that He dictates good and evil and morality to his followers, why are the so many variants on what is good and what is not?

Are you saying that Christians today approve of the mass slaughter of the Crusades? Or the wholesale torture of the Inquisition? Or the murder of witches in Puritan New England? All of these were done by Christian churches on the institutional power based on the morality of their God. Look in the news today. You can't even get an agreement from the various denominations of Christianity on what is acceptable morality. They all have their own interpretation. Are you going to say that the Catholics have a more true sense of morality than the Protestants? Or the Episcopalians? The Eastern Orthodoxy?

Religion is only one aspect of morality. Each individual has their own sense of morality and builds it from many sources. Some build it entirely on religion, others build it partially on religion and some do so entirely absent of religion. But not having religion in no way means that you have no sense of morality. If you can't understand that, then you have completely disregarded God's gift of Free Will and turned religion into a moral crutch. You don't think about morality at all, you've had it handed to you on a plate and you have been brainwashed to only think that what your church, religious leader or whoever has prescribed as moral is moral. It is perfectly fine to use your religion as the foundation for your sense of morality and then build upon it. But don't make your church your sole arbiter of what is and is not moral.

Not the pp, but everything you just described speaks to man's actions. In everything you're saying, when has God's Word changed on the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Since we're rational atheists (and because it sounds like the kind of stuff we see from our religious cousins on Facebook all the time) we're going to need a cite on this one.

The atheist blogger who converted:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html

The argument from conscience:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Every culture has deviants - even atheists

I find it curious that none of these people ever seem to explain why they choose their particular god of choice. Of all the thousands and thousands of gods, and thousands of morality codes those gods have bestowed, why that one?

Can you provide any evidence of "other gods" proving their word/existence either through action or deed?

No religion can do that, because their only way of verifying or proving "existence" comes only from those within (and they all do that)

For Christians who believe in the Bible, there were acts of miracles and the evidence of God's existence.

Does this sort of proof exist among other religions?

Um. You need to get out more, or take a basic comparative theology course. ALL religions say they're right, and ALL religions have their own "miracles" or internal proof.

I understand other religions and what they believe. Not really sure why you find it necessary to be rude.

No, it's clear you don't understand other religions and what they believe. Pointing this out to you is not rude. If you truly think that only YOUR religion has "proof" of it being "right," you clearly demonstrate a profound lack of objective thinking. Religions are religions because they believe them to be true - they all have their own personal "proof." If they didn't, then they'd just be opinions. You clearly are incapable of thinking beyond your own bubble of your specific faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, what I find more accurate is that atheists follow religious principles (usually taught in their upbringing), yet reject the authoritative figure who governs the principle.

Just because many atheists follow principles that some religions also follow does not make them religious principles. As demonstrated in this thread already, there are principles that do not derive from religion that are followed by atheists, and many in religions that are not followed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I treat others the way I would like to be treated.

That pretty much covers everything.

That's lovely. The Golden Rule.

But it could just as well be, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Or, "I want your gold, so I will kill you now."

If every individual is his/her own authority, and there is no Absolute Authority, then your guiding principle can be anything or nothing, and it's all the same, which is to say, meaningless.

Every individual is already his or her own authority, since as you have already pointed out we can only interpret God's will since it is not revealed to us directly.

This is why we have society and laws and government. Because your Absolute Authority really doesn't do anything. Because it is not real. Do you understand?

This really is the fatal flaw in the theist argument that hasn't been addressed yet.

We follow God's commandments; those commandments are directly related to morality. God is the author and Authority on what is good/evil, right/wrong. He still gives us the free will to choose to do good/evil, right/wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A well-known atheist blogger recently converted to Catholicism. Why? Because of this question:

On whose authority do I claim an act as good or evil?

This is also known as the argument from conscience.

This is the question every atheist ultimately needs to answer. No atheist on this thread has been able to do so yet.

That's why they are still able to be atheists.

Since we're rational atheists (and because it sounds like the kind of stuff we see from our religious cousins on Facebook all the time) we're going to need a cite on this one.

The atheist blogger who converted:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2012/06/this-is-my-last-post-for-the-patheos-atheist-portal.html

The argument from conscience:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Every culture has deviants - even atheists

I find it curious that none of these people ever seem to explain why they choose their particular god of choice. Of all the thousands and thousands of gods, and thousands of morality codes those gods have bestowed, why that one?

Can you provide any evidence of "other gods" proving their word/existence either through action or deed?

No religion can do that, because their only way of verifying or proving "existence" comes only from those within (and they all do that)

For Christians who believe in the Bible, there were acts of miracles and the evidence of God's existence.

Does this sort of proof exist among other religions?

Um. You need to get out more, or take a basic comparative theology course. ALL religions say they're right, and ALL religions have their own "miracles" or internal proof.

I understand other religions and what they believe. Not really sure why you find it necessary to be rude.

No, it's clear you don't understand other religions and what they believe. Pointing this out to you is not rude. If you truly think that only YOUR religion has "proof" of it being "right," you clearly demonstrate a profound lack of objective thinking. Religions are religions because they believe them to be true - they all have their own personal "proof." If they didn't, then they'd just be opinions. You clearly are incapable of thinking beyond your own bubble of your specific faith.

I said nothing about being right, nor that my religions was "the only way". I merely was asking about evidence of miracles, existence, etc.

But again, your tone has turned from a basic debate to one of hostility so I'll choose to not respond to this particular sub-thread again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, what I find more accurate is that atheists follow religious principles (usually taught in their upbringing), yet reject the authoritative figure who governs the principle.

Just because many atheists follow principles that some religions also follow does not make them religious principles. As demonstrated in this thread already, there are principles that do not derive from religion that are followed by atheists, and many in religions that are not followed.

Such as?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, many Christians do what is pleasing to God by obeying his commandments. Has nothing to do with prayer, Bible study, etc. Just obeying his commandments. Which are really the same "laws" dictated by society.

So, they are not the same. The bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". But we don't kill witches.
Similarly:
Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19
or:
When a woman has a discharge of blood, which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening

You see, there is some stuff from the bible we follow, and some we reject. Many of our laws have no basis in religion at all.

FYI: Most Christians follow the New Testament. Many things mandated in the Old Testament were done away with with Jesus' birth, death and resurrection. He made the "ultimate sacrifice" and, as such, we are no longer bound by OT laws. Jewish people, who don't believe in Jesus, follow the OT.

And this is the part that is every bit as much human interpretation as an atheist consulting their own moral sense of right v wrong.

Can you explain? I'm having trouble following.

Sure! You said you're not reliant on your own sense of morality. You just follow the Ten Commandments. Because that is God's Word. But it was pointed out to you that the OT has a long list of pre- and proscriptions. So why not follow them as we'll. to which you replied, essentially, because the Bible says we don't have to follow those anymore. But many others read the bible and come to a different interpretation. So you're no longer making a strict appeal to the word of god, but rather your interpretation of the word of god (or worse yet, a professional interpreter's translation of the word of god, that has been interpreted by some religious authority figure).

So your absolute morality is nothing more than a flawed human attempt at interpreting a holy document and deriving moral laws therefrom.

I'm sorry, still not totally following, but I'll give it a shot:

I never said I'm not reliant on my own sense of morality. But, what I will say is that my morality is shaped by my (Christian) upbringing and I've found it to be a great foundation upon which to build and live my life.

Yes, I follow God's commandments. re: OT/NT...a lot of the distinctions have to do with sacrifices and, with Jesus's death, the need for sacrifices was no more. Whether folks choose to continue following them is their personal choice.

And in that sense you're doing the same thing atheists do. PP responded to this by saying there was no human interpretation going on; she just followed God's Word. My point was that "God's Word" is a human construct. Whether it's which part of the Bible to adhere to, or which to ignore. There's tradition, there's authority figures, there's "revelation" which is essentially your internal moral compass.

Actually, what I find more accurate is that atheists follow religious principles (usually taught in their upbringing), yet reject the authoritative figure who governs the principle.

Some may; some may not. They may follow any of a number of cultural constructs. As far as "the authority figure that governs the principle" we've yet to see why that's relevant. Could be "God" could be "Odin" could be Jim Jones.