Biblical Morality vs Atheist Morality

Post Reply New Topic

As we all know, fundamentalists tend to attack everybody who even slightly disagrees with them, and are very willing to deny physical reality for the sake of their misguided beliefs. One of their arguments against Evolution or against any other religious beliefs (and especially atheism) for that matter is that it is "immoral" and that the Bible is the ultimate source for morality.

Well, I say that they are not only delusional, but also by definition evil. Anybody who even bothers to actually pay attention to the bible will immediately notice the sheer amount of cruelty and it's praise of it all. The bible, especially the old testament, tends to be inherently contradictory, misogynist, racist, among other intolerances that it seemingly promotes (you can read more about them here: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ ). And of course, some will ignore it, but to my surprise I find that most who actually are fundamentalist actually do agree with bible morality . Take the KKK for example, they use the bible all the time to justify their acts, and if you read it, they are completely correct! They, along with a good deal of other people here in America at least, are actively working to try and turn this and other nations into a Christian theocracies.

Now of course, not ALL atheists are moral, but if you compare humanist morality (Which atheists and moderate religions adopt) to the bible morality, you can instantly see that it is much more forgiving, kinder, and better since it actually aims to help other people and condemns any and all bigotry and intolerance.

But of course, the fundies tend to think otherwise (they will even call a moderate Christians heretics by the very fact that they don't follow the bible literally...).

You can view some arguments here:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/ ... lity.xhtml (Atheist morality)

and

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/ ... lity.xhtml (Bible Morality)


And decide who you agree on.

I agree. I think it's insulting to think that just because I am harshly logical and don't believe in a God means that I have no moral compass.

Maybe I would find there opinion more credible, but last time I checked, it was the Christians and Muslims who have racked up the highest body count.

Ok, you know what I argue? There is no way at all that you can prove one side evil or the other good. Let's just look at this statement: "the Bible is the ultimate source for morality."

If that statement is true, then by definition they CAN'T be evil because evil is synonymous with immorality. So therefore we must disprove that statement.

Well, then we fall into the issue of what falls in as a moral truth. Well, there we are blind. What CAN constitute a moral truth? How do we derive moral truths? I would argue that it has been well established that moral truths cannot logically be established.

This essentially means that all moral statements are not logical statements but doctrines taken on faith and this leads to the issue that there is no determining factor on morality and thus the only way we can judge any moral view as immoral or evil is if we hold to a moral view that contradicts it. Which is a useless thing to do.


Actually, I think the existence of anything you would term a moral compass is a proof that you aren't as harshly logical as you think. Morality is usually taken as a transcendent code that should bind human behavior. I mean, it is a simple thing to simply assume morality, but morality should not be assumed. We can assume biological behavior towards ends that our society has deemed moral, but the issue of something being deemed moral and moral direction and stuff like that, really has to be questioned, especially as logically there is no way to derive morality from any factual basis, which is something your next sentence, which I didn't quote, fails to recognize despite the existence of Hume's argument for a very long period of time.

You know AG, sometimes I'm convinced that you argue a point you don't believe in just to test your debating skills, and that of your opponents.

Anyways, you haven't read the arguments of the opposing viewpoint, that morality is a product of evolutionary psycology. A good book on this subject is "The Science of Good and Evil" by Dr. Michael Shermer.

Read the book and then lets have this debate.

Naturalistic fallacy anyone?

I think I have done that a few times, I tend to enjoy cutting down people's notions of truth. I do honestly hold to the notion of morality as an irrational thing for beings to have and in the past have denied the power and importance of theist morality and atheist morality, arguing that egoism is the most rational moral view.

That is because it really isn't an opposing view point. I don't define morality as something that is even biological and whether human moral ideas are biologically driven or not is not important to me as it doesn't make any difference to me.

Yeah, like I actually buy books. I usually only buy books if they are under $5. You can get quite an education off of cheap books if you know where to check, such as from internet resources, libraries, and library book sales.

I just have a viscerally negative reaction to the American redneck version of biblical morality. There’s this subliminal hatred for all people that don’t adhere to specific “roles”. Maybe there was some benefit derived from this attitude 2000 years ago, but it just seems pointless, crude, and oppressive today. There’s really no point in attempting to deconstructing it or discuss it logically.

IMO the "is-ought" distinction is completely overblown. Our claims of what is good and what one ought to do are derived from the workings of our brains, which are an "is," and thus a "transcendent" conception of morality is impossible, all so-called "transcendent" moral systems, such as Kantianism or religious doctrines, are rationalizations of innate moral instincts and cultural norms.

Being moral, ethical, and/or humanitarian has absolutely nothing to do with faith nor religion, in any way, shape, and/or form.

You can be all of those things without having faith nor religion, although I do have faith (I just choose to not force it upon others).

An analysis of morality can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magaz ... ref=slogin

Yes, and your opponents would obviously say that your opinion is wrong. Ok? So? Even though the origin of moral feeling may be found from psychological impulses, we still feel the impulse to create "transcendent" moral systems because of the existential nature of moral systems Let's just look at it this way: if morality is absolute then morality must be something above men and thus transcendent, if morality is merely relative to man himself though then the notion of moral truth disappears as there is no way to assert one man's idea over another, this ultimately ends up being moral nihilism, the idea that there are no moral truths because they cannot be established. This is why the issue of "oughtness" is so important. Because, even if we argue that there is a common biological basis, morality still is a result of cultural norms as well, and there is no way we can objectively say one is better than another, not only that, but our biological instincts are a contradictory and self-serving system anyway as noted by Sand's article.

Ok, why not faith? I mean, I could agree with the notion that being humanitarian has nothing to do with faith nor religion, but not the first 2 and given that humanitarian is not a synonym of moral or ethical necessarily, we still run into an issue of asserting a true morality or true ethic for a person to adhere to, and if one does not have a transcendent ground for either then where does the notion of a "correct" or "better" one come from? As well, if both of those are merely constructs, then what makes ethics or morality meaningful in the first place? I mean, adhering to a random construct really has no objective value and thus talking about doing or not or even trying to say one is better is meaningless nonsense.

Ahh, yes. Those fundamentalists are the ones who only play these games. Frankly, there are fundamentalists in every spectra. You, for example.

There is no clear consensus of how old the world is to many "Abrahamists". Those with scientific backgrounds, will they believe the world is 7000 or so years? I highly doubt it. Will they believe Adam and Eve were actual people? I again doubt it. Will they believe Atheism exists without morality, I do not doubt this. Will they accept you? Yes, but still you will be wrong to them, as you are wrong to me, as I and they are wrong to you.





Ah, if only we could all live in Atheistic countries like Soviet Russia. How prettier a world that would be.





What do you mean by forgiving, kinder, and better? I find these words contradicting to my reality. The world is not a kind, forgiving, or even tolerable place to its inhabitants. Is the world immoral?

We are not created equal, and as such I will not treat others as equal. I will not speak to the person bagging my groceries as I would speak to the president, or vice versa.

We should treat each other as we would like to be treated ourselves with each other's respective strengths in mind, but certainly not with blind 'morality'.





You are not suppose to follow any form of religious scripture literally. Only fools do such a thing. That or those diagnosed with asperger's.





I like the fact you decided to share a plethora of resources from unbiased authors to base our opinions from.

No, they actually might. There would be some who would shift to Old Earth Creationism, but there are also some who invoke the idea that "miracles don't have to make sense".

Nope they would. Faith triumphs other elements and a conservative Christian perspective can often be very fideist.


Once again, there are many groups who do that. Conservative Christianity does believe in that and invokes the notion of biblical inerrancy. You are right, many religious folks and perhaps even strongly religious folks are not hardliners on these dogmas, but some others are very strongly in favor of dogmas and this is not based upon intelligence but rather faith as theologians are likely not stupid people.

The main problem here is the definition of the term Yom/Yaum. Evangelicals outright declare that it literally means a day in any context. That is incorrect. Therefore, they are incorrect and merely follow their own beliefs. No one can declare how "old" existence is.




Nope they would. Faith triumphs other elements and a conservative Christian perspective can often be very fideist.
[/quote]

Adam and Eve could have been many people. Their titles/descriptions give more significance to the story than their actual historicity.



Once again, there are many groups who do that. Conservative Christianity does believe in that and invokes the notion of biblical inerrancy. You are right, many religious folks and perhaps even strongly religious folks are not hardliners on these dogmas, but some others are very strongly in favor of dogmas and this is not based upon intelligence but rather faith as theologians are likely not stupid people.[/quote]


I'm pretty sure everyone has faith in something, whether it is in the Creator or in the economy.

That being said, many "literalists" do not understand the power removed from a story once it is brought into literal descriptions. Does it matter if Moses parted the waters? or would it be more powerful as a metaphorical parting of the waters?

Take for example Baghavad Gita, can anyone actually believe that Arjuna and Krishna actually had hours long discussions between the two armies? or was there something stronger, more real going on?


I do happen to believe in the infallible nature of scriptures, but in order for that to occur, the stories cannot be completely taken as literal. It would be incredulous.

I can only see this working if we are taking a descriptive approach. It may be the case that morality is derived from these things, and indeed it might coincide more or less with them, but that is not necessarily to say that that is what "morality" genuinely is unless we do not permit abstract concepts as meaningful. I think it may be beneficial in terms of a model to view morality this way, but this is a redefinition of the word.

I know that the word for day used does not necessarily literally mean day which is why they can shift to old earth creationism, however, you are not referring to scientific background but rather scriptural background when you make your counterargument.


So? You are appealing to a scriptural interpretation that they don't believe in.


Yes, but these stories involve the divine, which means that there is always an out for those who believe in their literalness. I mean, I am not arguing how scriptures *should* be interpreted, I am arguing that one can interpret them a certain way and that non-scriptural knowledge or intelligence cannot be blamed for this.