This is red. :p

Also, going on a muderous rampage is ok if you only take out the evil and corrupt, Boondock Saints style.

Obi, why don't you shed the fraud that is Christianity and find out for yourself, instead of asking other people?

^ Yay. The first person to attack someone's religion in this thread

You've answered your own question: "logic" has little, if anything, to do with personal/social morality. You keep asking people to refine "what's right", when that requires an answer that has eluded everyone (both theist and atheist) since the dawn of time. You simply cannot state any universal "rights" or "wrongs"- after all, your own sense morality is merely cribbed from an old book, making it no more "right" or "wrong" in any formal sense than Raskolnikov's. No one can sit down and draw up a definitive list of "right" or "good" moral actions/behaviours because "right" and "good" are not properly defined in themselves.

Obi, you keeping changing the questions you are asking, which is very annoying. You started by asking "why an atheist should believe in moral responsibility", which I think peopel have answered to the best of their abilities. Now you're asking "What makes him [an atheistic who commited a "bad" act] bad?"

It seems like you're now trying to force people into a position where the only way they can validate atheism is to define morality itself in some kind of universal form. While this may be embodied in "God's will" for you, for others it is an intangible concept.

Maybe to clarify things for you, it'd help if you tried to answer the questions: "Why do you believe in God?" "Why do you believe that's right?" "What's to stop you from ceasing to believe in God?" "Why is your brand of religion any more valid than any other?"


You're asking people to define what "right" and "wrong" are in terms that are not personal. Unless the greatest philosopher of all time regularly vists Massassi, you'll never find an answer.

You don't understand. I claim to know the difference between right and wrong. Wrong is falling short of, or transgressing God's law. You're saying right and wrong are sort of a non-standard essence that sort of floats out there, and that that we can't be sure of. I suppose that you're saying that even though there is a God, there is a right and wrong that exists. Am I right?

I'm not changing the topic. I just constantly need to clarify my self because people keep assuming I'm saying things that I didn't. For instance I never said that an Atheist HAD to kill people but some assumed I did. So I clarified my self.

If you want to answer the question "What makes him [an atheistic who committed a "bad" act] bad" go right ahead.
That's what I've been asking all along.

If morality is not universal, what is it? Do you choose the morality that suits you best?

Because God has chosen to reveal him self to me. It's not something you can explain to a non-Christian. Asking that question is like saying prove that you exist.

http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/

+1

And I claim to know the difference between right and wrong. Everyone claims to know the difference between right and wrong. That's the trouble. You want me to define what EVERYONE thinks right and wrong is. That's impossible. It depends upon the individual. Even people within a specific religion have different notions of right and wrong.




I'm saying there's not a fundamental "right" or "wrong", because both are merely words used to describe concepts.



That didn't make sense. Please clarify it.
Assuming you meant "isn't a God", you're again asking me to define what are intangible concepts. "Right" and "wrong" are just that; concepts. We use concepts to explain things that are intangible. You can't nail down exactly what or why morals are.



No one claimed you said atheists HAD to kill people, you asked "what's stopping them from killing people". And you got several answers. Then you changed to asking "what bad means".



...



Good questions. You are asking complex philosophical questions, and then expecting simple answers. Do you see the problem here?



Or saying "prove morals exists"? (that was a rhetorical question by the way...)

This is the thing that amuses/annoys me so much about religion; it provides ludicrously simple answers ("Because God.") to virtually everything. It almost forces you NOT to think, because everything can be neatly explained as "Because God".

How did you know God revealed himself to you? Do you ever wonder WHY God's words are the way they are? If not, why not?


And again, you end up answering your own questions Obi. You say that God is not something you can explain to a non-Christian- just as morals are not something you can explain properly to anyone who isn't yourself. You keep asking people to explain things without ever explaining things yourself.


In short:

Do I think there is some all-encompassing sense of "right" and "wrong" that is embedded in the universe? No. Do I think the world would be a better place if everyone followed what I think is "moral"? Yes.


Again, so you're clear on the questions I want you to answer Obi :

Do you ever wonder WHY God's words are the way they are?
If not, why not?
You said "God revealed himself to me"- so do you take the Bible literally? Or do you interpret it? How do you know which is right?
How do you know that it was definitely God in the Christian (assuming you are Christian) sense that "revealed" himself to you?

"Just because", or some derivative thereof isn't acceptable- afterall, no one else's answers so far have been "just because".

[Cue some witty, witty person posting "just because". Haha. Very funny. NO ONE ELSE thought of that you clever, clever person.]

J-... Just because.

¬_¬

You're confusing "wrong" with "sin." They're not the same thing, even though they overlap quite a bit. A "sin" is easy to define: something that displeases God. "Wrong" requires a bit more to define it. Many things must be taken into account to determine if something is "wrong." To determine a sin, you only need to determine if God finds an act unsatisfactory.

DogSRoOL, I have to say.. (in general) I may not agree with all of your views, but you sure present them well. You show more tact than pretty much the rest of massassi combined. so, anyway, keep it up

I know I'm coming into this a bit late, but I'll try and catch up:

But if God (who says selfishness is wrong) is out of the equation, why are the people doing good "selfishly" worse than the other? Who says it's wrong to be selfish?

Well, definetically (woo new word), you're wrong. We are automatically condemned to hell by doing wrong. But, we have a way out.

Exactly. And love by the way "is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Thus, we're not doing what we do, just so *we'll* make it to heaven, but because it's right (and not "we think it's right," it is right, because God says so, and because He's God, (and He created the universe) He has the authority to decide what is right and wrong). Obi's question basically stems from that. Christians "hear it straight from the big man" so to speak, but ahtiests have no compass. They wander aimlessly in the way that seems to take them where they want to go. (I'm not saying that we Christians don't sometimes misinterpret the compass at times, just that we have one.)

No. Christians don't kill people because we love our fellow men. We don't love them because God told us to, but because God told us it's right to love them. Basically it's possible to love people even if you don't believe in God. It's just not required.

Where do you get those as being basic rules of structured society? The native americans had *no* concept of ownership of property, and I doubt anyone here would argue that they didn't have a "structured society."

No, he's not saying he would do those things, he's saying that he doesn't understand how athiests decide that those things are wrong. Again, think of the compass. We (Christans) don't do those things because we have a compass that points us away from that. Athiests have no such compass. Sometimes they turn away from it, sometimes not. But how do they decide which way to turn?

Empathy, guilt, fear? What causes those things? You could kill someone and 100 years from now, it won't make any difference. You will cease to exist when you die, so you won't have any guilt of it, and you won't have any *memory* of guilt. (you won't just forget, it'll be like you never existed in the first place). Fear? Fear or what? As soon as you die, you'll have no memory of life. What motivates you? What motivates these responses in you? They are all emotions that are only useful if you believe that there is an eternal life (or eternal set of lives) in which your actions in this life affect the outcome of the next.

Not to be a grammar nazi, but weather refers to rain and wind and sunshine. Whether would be the word you're looking for.

Freelancer, I'm going to officially suggest that you withdraw that remark or I'll take action by bringing it to the attention of an admin. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you just didn't realize what you said or how it sounded (read, whatever).

I know you're answering Obi, but I'd like to answer these questions.
1) Why do you believe in God?
I believe in God mostly because I've seen Him do things in my life that if taken individually would not prove His existance, but when you look at all the events/occurances as a whole, God is the logical (not the only possible answer, but definately the most probably and logical answer) answer. Any other doubt is covered by faith (believing something because you want to, rather than because you have proof, which people don't seem to like these days, but I have no problem with it).

2) Why do you believe that's right?
What's right? Believing in God? or following Him? I believe in God for the reasons mentioned above. I follow and obey Him because I believe he has the right to be followed and obeyed, since he created me. (An (overly simple but basically accurate) analogy would be a computer program. A programmer "creates" a program, and the program does what the programmer wants it to, because he created it. The main fallacy in this example being that 1) computer programs don't have free will (but if they did, would it be right for them to do what their creator wanted them to?)) (I use way to many parenthesis.)

That's frankly not true at all. Religion forces you to think more than you would otherwise. For example, imagine if religion did not exist. There would be no concept of morality. We would basically be animals. If you made me mad, I'd kill you, and have no guilt, no sense of right or wrong. I'd have no reason to ever question my actions or the right or wrongness of them. But, throw religion into the mix, and suddenly I'm thinking. "Is this right or wrong?" "What will the consequences for my actions be?" etc. Religion/morality is what catapults humanity ahead of the other animal life. Further, Christianity (at least) does not encourage people to write things off as "Because God." Instead, we're encouraged to question God (inquizatively, not accusitively), and constantly question ourselves to ensure that we're acting within God's will. We're also encouraged to look at the "why" and "how" behind things. God always tells us why when he asks or commands us to do something. (If you don't believe me, check the bible, and you'll see that whenever God told anyone or tells us to do or not to do something, He tells us why or why not.)

Define "better." Why would it be good for the world to be a "better" place? Would it make life easier for others? Who's to say a hard life is not a good thing?

Well, given what I actually wrote, you're right. I meant to add "under salvation" somewhere in there, but apparently forgot. "Because God..." is simply a vague answer. It's kind of like "electricity runs my computer." True, but incredibly lacking in detail. Simply saying "because God..." doesn't make it false (or true, either). Just very general and unspecific.

Which are almost identical things...You can argue semantics if you want, but since God tells you what's "right", and if you don't do what's "right" then you'll go to hell, then it's because God told you to while threatening you with eternal damnation.



No concept of the ownership of property? So they were totally fine with other tribes running off with whatever they could take from them? And what about jewellery and weapons? Were these not personal?



...because Christians never decide to "turn away from their compass"...

Atheistis decide which way to turn based on their own moral values. Which, given that God bestowed free will upon everyone, should technically be what everyone does.




A mixture of social conditioning and instinctive responses resulting in chemical reactions in the brain. I'm not a biology major, but that's pretty much the gist isn't it?

Fear, especially, is one of the most basic human emotions; it's caused by not wanting to face repercussions of your actions (be they harmful physically, emotionally etc.).



Yes, but given that we live *now*, we act according to how we feel *now* and in the immediate future. I don't act according to what I won't feel when I'm dead...




Again, you *completely* miss the point. Not only did I point out what there is to be afraid of (reactions based on your actions, which, depending on their nature, could cause you physical/emotional pain. That's what there is to be afraid of), but again you're trying to rationalise actions based on the fact that "once you're dead you won't feel anything anymore". How does that eliminate fear/pain/whatever in the present? You're experiencing it *now* and may continue to do so.



Again, it's nature vs nurture; probably a mix of social and cultural conditioning and instinctive responses



No they aren't. They are useful and necessary for surviving and experiencing the present.




God is by his very nature (omnipotent, omniscient etc.) the most *illogical* conclusion. There is no parallel nor frame of reference from which to conclude that it must have been an omnipotent being; given that there is *literally* no way of proving it was God, it is not logical at all.



Again, it's "because God". Whenever you keep asking "why" to ANYTHING moral/emotional/whatever, it eventually comes down to "because I say so". Sure, it happens when you question an atheist, but at least there's usually some kind of preamble.


2) Why do you believe that's right?
What's right? Believing in God? or following Him? I believe in God for the reasons mentioned above. I follow and obey Him because I believe he has the right to be followed and obeyed, since he created me. (An (overly simple but basically accurate) analogy would be a computer program. A programmer "creates" a program, and the program does what the programmer wants it to, because he created it. The main fallacy in this example being that 1) computer programs don't have free will (but if they did, would it be right for them to do what their creator wanted them to?)) (I use way to many parenthesis.)[/quote]

Your parents created you. Do you have to follow and obey their every command too?




How so? Morality is largely based on the principles needed to create and perpetuate stable society. Religion is merely a tool to reinforce those principles.



Again, you make these statements that are meaningless; why aren't atheists all running around killing each other if this is the case? Religion is not the be all and end all of morality.



Except you're not. All you're considering is "what did the Bible say about this?".



No, that would be the fact that our brains have far greater potential than animals, giving us the capability for rational and existential thought.



Question God? Since when? I have never seen, from you nor anyone else questioning God's motives. Questioning God without questioning his existence is completely fruitless; since belief in God requires believing he is perfect.




Which would be why religion has been one of the biggest oppressors of scientific/progressive thought in the history of mankind?



Again, you missed the point. I was saying that if everyone followed my own personal moral "code" (for want of a far better word) then the world would be better from my point of view (not as in my personal well being, but rather the world would seem closer to what I think the "ideal" would be).


Religion is a social tool; an easy way to scare lots of people into conforming to certain principles and as a simple way of explaining complex things. That's not necessarily always a bad thing.

That's the trouble; it's so vague that it can be used to "explain" *anything*- it's the equivalent of answering "where do you live" with "in the universe". It doesn't, in fact, "explain" anything at all.

Except that within Christianity, such faith in God is fraudulent. Being "scared" into loving God just isn't love. Period. And because of that, that person's actions become selfish, another violation of teachings. While they may do good, it's still done bitterly. And you can easily pick out such people based on their attitudes. It does, just not significantly. The idea, I think, is to explain "why" rather than "how." Though the two words are closely related, there's a slight difference.

I see. What exactly is "wrong" then. Are you DogSRoOL, the person who determines right or wrong?

I determine what's right and wrong.

Obi_Kwiet... master of the Socrates Method. Except for the whole learning/teaching part of it.


Possible answers:

-Doing what is right is giving each individual his/her due.
- The right thing to do is to establish and keep loving relationships.
- It is right to follow your own rational self interest. Sacrifice yourself to no one and sacrfice no one to yourself. Everyone is an end, including yourself. Altruism is wrong; selfishness is right.
-Morality is a false concept constructed to keep humans from straying from the herd. We should reject it and realize that we are Sisyphus. Instead of taking the eternal action of pushing a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down as a punishment, we shoud learn to embrace it.

Right and wrong are (by their nature) subjective, and relative to each other. What I mean is that you can't define "right" without comparing it to "wrong," and you can't define "wrong" without comparing it to "right" (whether directly or indirectly). Try defining them with another method. Can't be done.

Please note that the Bible makes far more references to sin than it does to right and wrong. It defines "evil" based on sin.

There are rare times when something "wrong" may not be a sin, and that depends on the definition of "wrong," which as I said, is relative. Sin, however, is not relative (within the same religion, anyway). It may be "wrong" of me to stay up late because I have to get up early the next morning, but I doubt seriously that it's sinful.

Proverbs 14:15
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

This is silly.

Dude, Ewoklover, that is the coolest website ever.. seriously..

Forgive me if I'm not understanding what you're saying, but it seems (to me) that it should be very easy to define right and wrong based on independent principles. (Or, at least, to define one by an independent value and the other as it's opposite.)

For example, I could say that something is 'right' if it increases human happiness, and 'wrong' is therefore something that hinders happiness.

There's no way in hell I'm reading all of these post. I don't even really need a thread like this to boost my post count, even though I'm using it to boost my post count O_o

Oh yeah, and there's always this:

Thankfully I realised several threads ago Obi not only has no idea what he's talking about (fairly obvious), but also has no inclination to properly inform himself.

I also find it amusing how offensive a lot of this stuff is to me as an atheist, but as soon as anyone says anything against christians it's only THEN people start calling for us admins to step in. If I was to step in a lot more than Freelancers post would be edited if all slights on belief systems are going to be policed.

I love you.

And then you must examine the action as well. It's not always so clear. Example: If I murder someone, is it wrong? If I murder someone to save another, is it wrong? The latter question requires a comparison of right and wrong, and all the circumstances surrounding it. It can get rather complex. What if I murder someone to save another, but the one I save is a murder, too? It can just keep compounding like that, in theory. like what? Asking questions isn't offensive, last I knew. When it's something so blatant and downright rude, then yeah.
This is why I've generally quit debating religion and resorted to merely being informative on it (in case nobody noticed).

common sense? (seems many ppl (I wasn't commenting on the thread, but on life in general) don't use it)
Your consience? (call it whatever you want; whether you're atheist or not, you still make judgements on "right and wrong" and the like)

Speaking of conscience, everyone's is different -- it is molded by experience. If I were to judge some action, say cloning, I would have a different point of view than someone who has only heard the good qualities of cloning; thus, I am against cloning (because I believe that God is the only one permitted to give life), but if the other person doesn not believe what I do, or does not know what I do, their judgement is going to differ from mine.
Morality is similar -- one person will have different morals based on their teachings, upbringings, etc.

or this

I'm pretty sure Jaiph is referring to the implication that because he is an atheist he is without any concept of morality. The problem (as CookedHaggis mentioned) is that Obi wants a simple, absolute answer to a question that is inherently complex and relative, both with or without religion. Which of course is nigh on impossible to answer.

eg Killing someone is generally wrong since everyone is entitled to live. but killing someone in self defense is ok.

eg. One of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill" but elsewhere in the bible it tells you to kill adulterers and people who work on sundays. Some may argue that these passages aren't relevant, but I'm yet to be aware of what part of the bible tells you what is relevant or not.

These are obviously crappy examples since I'm too lazy to type out something more in depth but hopefully the point is obvious enough. i.e. general consensus defines morality. You are punished (either by law or by god) if you break this consensus.

Run wins. Nothing anyone can say can make that cease to be.

What Obi's trying to say is that an athiest isn't obligated to uphold any specific morals. Most do, of course, uphold their own sense of morality. He wants to know why, and I think that's been answered fairly well in this thread. There are exceptions to nearly every rule. Based on both the teachings of the NT, and the actions of Jesus, we can see that some of the OT has been made obsolete. For example, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Based on it, nobody is fit to cary out punishment for a crime.
(Also, I can't recall any verse that says to kill those who work on Sundays. "Remember the Sabbath, and to keep it holy.")

It was also answered fairly well in the last thread on this, but Obi continually ignores everything and everyone, obviously seeking an answer that will fit a pre-defined mold in his head.

I read most of the thread, but I decided to just reply to the initial question.

Most people act in a roughly morale way because it is instinctual. If no one was bound by morales or ethics, society would degenerate into chaos and anarchy. The natural state. But in the natural state the human species can not survive as we would prey on each other until we were all dead. So instead of killing each other, groups of people would work together in order to survive and prosper. Laws and religion force this kind of co-operation on a larger scale. Social animals also have this innate sense of what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable when interacting with each other. They just don't have the intelligence to realize this.

Go Thomas Hobbes.

Hmmm, I can't seem to find that verse referring to death for Sunday workers in an online bible. I know my copy of the bible has it in leviticus somewhere, but I haven't read it since I "went atheist" ;). I did find reference to killing people who took the Lords name in vain though from here
Leviticus 24:16. Amusingly though 24:17 says that anyone who kills anyone will be put to death. Woo! Endless paradoxical fun

Although I'm aware that the NT invalidates some of the OT and that there are exception to rules, the selection of rules to be valid seems to be a little arbitrary. Eg. Even though I gave the example of killling adulterers etc, that's obviously a stupid rule, but what interests/irritates me is that the same logic doesn't apply to other rules. Why is the kill adulterers rule invalid, but the homosexuality one isn't? I'm pretty sure there are other examples, I just can't remember them off the top of my head. Plus I'll concede that these things vary depending on bible version, so my copy may be different to the one you are referring to.

NB: I am not and do not want a homosexual debate out of this, nor am I arguing that the bible is invalid, I'm purely curious. That's it.

Few people even know what that means. Heck, the majority of Christians, even, think that using the Lord's name in vain means saying "Jesus Christ" out of context.
Not really. It would be the equivalent of a death sentence.
But you'll note that the majority of sins in the OT are punishable by death. It reinforces the verse "the wages of sin is death." I hadn't realized that until just now. If I'm right, the NT by it's very nature abolishes all OT death sentences.

I'm not sure what you mean. I think it was punishable by death.

Indeed. English is a horrible language. We lack many, many words used in the Bible's original languages (Hebrew and Greek, mostly, and a bit of Aramic (the language Jesus spoke)).
I'd like to point out that the King James version is the least reliable. It contains mistranslations up the wazoo, and contains verses not found in any manuscripts dating before the 16th century (or possibly the 15th).

Out of curiosity, what actually is meant by taking God's name in vain? I was always told it's using "God" or "Jesus" or some equivalent as an exclamation, ie "Oh My God!", i'm curious how accurate this is.