CDZ A Question For Atheists

[oldernwiser]

I find it difficult to pay much attention to the pronouncements anyone who professes to base his lifestyle rules on a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of what some alleged prophet might have said in a language no one still speaks, thousands of years ago, that wasn't even written down for the first thousand or so years..
IMNSFHO worshiping "scripture" is indeed a fools endeavor..
Eventually mankind will evolve beyond this level of foolishness, but i'm certain that nobody here will live to see and enjoy those glorious times..
In the meantime, the old " do unto others..." thing has worked for me for 7+ decades..!!

You're right - every time the Holy Word is re-translated from one language to another, meaning is lost.
I have a problem with the way the first established Bible was created - not by the hand of God as some have explained to me, but by a committee going over a bunch of scrolls and deciding what should be included, and kicking out what they felt was contradictory to the story THEY wanted to tell.

My morality is enforced right this minute - if I steal or kill, I'm punished for it right now. If your morality is scripturally bound, then your punishment comes after death and that gives you plenty wiggle room (if you have already offended your god, then what keeps you on the straight and narrow after that?). Levitican Law and Islam to some degree had that covered: if you stepped out of line, it was permissible to immediately send you to your maker for judgement in the most painful and horrific way. But, isn't that assuming the role of god in making the judgement in the first place?

 

[Spare_change]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

 

[Syriusly]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

Why do you think there was no morality before scripture? I learned 'right from wrong' from my parents, from my grandparents, from friends and other family, and from reading.

Just because I don't believe in your fairy tales doesn't mean that there is not wisdom in the teachings of Christ or Moses or St. Augustine or Buddha.

You seem to think that without your faith you would be out murdering people- and I don't get that.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws really aren't "based on scripture". It's more the other way around. The laws of the community/village/tribe were long established before we invented supernatural beings to ascribe them to.

I would suggest that what you say isn't supportable.

Man has long recognized "supernatural beings", whether they be the god of water, or the God of salvation.

When primitive humans come together into a community, that requires cooperation. And that means ground rules are going to be set down first thing -- where you get to sit, what my job is, who gets to use that hut, what everybody's status is in the pecking order. That has to come first simply to survive and operate as a community. Any heavy ponderations on the nature of the universe is going to come after that.

But scripture and law are the same thing. Cooperation is only the willingness of others to live under the same scripture/law.

"Scripture" and "law" are NOT the same thing, and both are only tangentially related to morals.

Is the Tora not scripture/law for the Jews?
Is the quron not scripture/law for the islamic?
Is the Bible not scripture/law for the Christian?
Are a countries laws not scripture for it's citizens?

Is the Tora not scripture/law for the Jews?- scripture not law- Jews don't get to stone adulterers because the Torah says its okay.
Is the quron not scripture/law for the islamic?
Is the Bible not scripture/law for the Christian? Scripture not law- Christians don't get to burn witches because the Bible says its okay.
Are a countries laws not scripture for it's citizens?

No- laws are mandatory- and not scripture. Scripture is a written guideline that you choose to follow.

 

[Syriusly]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

I would suggest that, in truth- you are wrong.

And ignorant.

 

[Spare_change]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

I would suggest that, in truth- you are wrong.

And ignorant.

Rule No. 4. When you cannot generate a cogent and coherent response, attack the poster.

Ya dun gud.

But, let me ask you a simple question .... for atheists, who is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong?

 

[Pogo]

I find it difficult to pay much attention to the pronouncements anyone who professes to base his lifestyle rules on a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of what some alleged prophet might have said in a language no one still speaks, thousands of years ago, that wasn't even written down for the first thousand or so years..
IMNSFHO worshiping "scripture" is indeed a fools endeavor..
Eventually mankind will evolve beyond this level of foolishness, but i'm certain that nobody here will live to see and enjoy those glorious times..
In the meantime, the old " do unto others..." thing has worked for me for 7+ decades..!!

You're right - every time the Holy Word is re-translated from one language to another, meaning is lost.
I have a problem with the way the first established Bible was created - not by the hand of God as some have explained to me, but by a committee going over a bunch of scrolls and deciding what should be included, and kicking out what they felt was contradictory to the story THEY wanted to tell.

.... and then burning all the books that didn't follow that script.

Council of Nicea, 325 CE. Where Jesus was also elected by a majority (but non-unanimous) vote to deity status. Three hundred years after he was gone.

 

[oldernwiser]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

 

[Spare_change]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

 

[oldernwiser]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

 

[Spare_change]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

 

[Wuwei]

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

I'm truly sorry that you can't trust atheists, but I forgive you for your intolerance.

 

[oldernwiser]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

Really? Have you ever stoned your neighbor for working on a Sabbath?
Have you never yourself, lied, stolen, cheated, or hit someone in anger?
Have you ever served in the military or worked for defense contractor?
Have you ever looked at your best friend's wife, girlfriend, car, boat, whatever and thought "Damn!"?

I'd go on, but I think you get the point. Morals are malleable by nature. Codifying them as if writing them down makes them somehow mean something more only increases your own angst when you fail to meet unrealistic goals. There is a certain level of smugness when you cite your morals and compare them to mine which I find irritating because we all know that NO ONE follows that code - no matter where it comes from - 100% of the time. I take responsibility for my own actions and have to answer to myself whereas Christians have already been forgiven for the things they may do and aren't forced to accept responsibility at all. This makes your morality superior to mine? I don't think so.

Oh yeah, here we go ----

You're escaping down a rabbit hole, my friend.

The question was whether the rigid moral code inflicted by Christianity, or the malleable set of rules of convenience used by atheists is preferable. Nobody spoke about compliance. Christians recognize that they will fall short - but they clearly understand the ramification of falling short.

Atheists, on the other hand, since they are responsible only to themselves, are predisposed to find a convenient excuse for their actions - since they only have to answer to themselves, then they are the only ones who can establish the moving target. Atheists will never fall short - since they get to make up their own rules as they go along. Relativism ensures you will never be judged harshly.

Does that mean my moral code is better than yours? Nope -- it just means that mine is more rigid. And, mine has consequences.

I understand the topic, and responded to it directly pages ago. Your comment made an inference that simply doesn't hold - that an atheistic viewpoint is more susceptible to corruption than one based in scripture.

You can't be serous that scripturally based morals means that you never have to fumble for a flimsy excuse for your actions. If they're egregious enough, you'll either spend your whole life trying to think of a way to explain it your creator, or, you'll simply rationalize that since you're now beyond redemption you have nothing else to lose. On top of that, since I believe in a personal moral code, I'm free of the temptation to look at others and raise myself above them because I consider that I more closely follow what's written down than they.

And you very clumsily avoided the fact that no matter what, you always have free will. I think atheists are just more honest about it.

... whatever helps you sleep at night. Truth is something different ... but then, it is this very relativism that makes atheism suspect.

I have absolutely no trouble sleeping. I don't have to lie to myself, because they're MY morals and I can change them whenever they don't fit with the way the world works. I don't have to worry about how I might measure up to others. That's what REALLY bothers you, huh?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have wondered from time to time just what you base the rules of life on?
Morality started based on scripture. But an atheist does not follow scripture.
If you destroy scripture then you destroy morality.

You of course may argue life is based on laws. Fair enough but what were those laws based on? Now if someone kicked in your door and stole your stuff and raped your wife and killed your kids you would say that is wrong based on the law BUT as already stated those laws were based on scripture.

How does an atheist base any rules on anything WITHOUT that base in scripture?

morality isn't based on scripture. Unless your an immoral idiot who can't figure out basic right from wrong on his own.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Primates generally follow the ten commandments except for those related to God.

Edit:My attitude is not to try to convince religious people here that they are following a wrong path. But I think your question has been answered as far as how (some) atheists view their morality.

I would suggest that, in truth, atheists, being relativists, have no moral code. They only have a set of malleable rules that are adjusted/perverted to meet their convenience in a particular situation.

And you would be arrogantly wrong.

 

[Spare_change]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

I didn't say I was the "ultimate arbiter" of my own actions, whatever that means.

I'm saying if you need a religion to tell you lying, stealing, cheating, and killing is wrong - then you probably lack some basic things in your brain that most normal people have (like the capacity to experience empathy).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why do morals have to be based on "scripture"?

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

Nonsense.

Individuals are perfectly capable of conducting moral, responsible lives absent the authoritarianism of subjective, errant religious dogma.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's the question - if your morals aren't based on 'scripture', just exactly what ARE they based on?

They're based on how I was raised by my atheist parents.

And, where did your atheist parents get them? What is the foundation of your moral code?

Only a sociopath needs a book to tell them basic right from wrong.

Only an egomaniac believes he is the ultimate arbiter of his own actions.

Nonsense.

Individuals are perfectly capable of conducting moral, responsible lives absent the authoritarianism of subjective, errant religious dogma.

Atheists actually commit far less crime than those with religious beliefs. While 2.5% of the general population identifies as atheist - less than 1% of people in prison are atheist.