Is there a God of atheism?

[Emily Lake]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

Irrelevant. I can point to a large number of muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, pagans, and atheists who do NOT agree that "God" is the "Moral Objective Standard".

So unless you're positing that non-christians aren't human, then your premise is demonstrably flawed.

 

[Emily Lake]

The 'foundation of morality' as you mention - in a reality which doesn't have this as a commandment. Should allow people to freely care only about themselves and not care for the feelings of others, if they choose to

This reads as if the entire concept of evolution as it applies to social species was something you've missed in your education.

Ok. The concepts of moral subjectivity and moral objectivity seems to have gone over you. Perhaps this concept understanding was not taught in your evolution classes.

Moral subjectivity is what we have. Moral objectivity is something most people wish we had.

Aside... I also draw a distinction between moral subjectivity and moral relativism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

That is the crux of the moral issues with Christianity.

All may agree god is the source of an objective absolute morality. However Christians disagree based on the 'holy babble' what that morality is in practice.

Conservative Christians argue homosexuality is wrong because it is explicitly stated in Leviticus, yet rationalize not following the food rules. Another is divorce and fornication. Jesus explicitly in the gospels reinforces marriage and considered fornication a serious offense.

The bible as a whole can be quote mined and interpreted to fit someone's view.

In contrast Buddhism at its core has a set of explicit requirements regarding social practices and behavior. Each artcle is fleshed out with deatail in scriptures.

The Noble Eightfold Path

Right understanding (Samma ditthi)
Right thought (Samma sankappa)
Right speech (Samma vaca)
Right action (Samma kammanta)
Right livelihood (Samma ajiva)
Right effort (Samma vayama)
Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
Right concentration (Samma samadhi)

Ther was at heory I heard back in the 70s Jesus had traveled to India.....

A co-worker told me a story that on Buddha's death bed, he asked Jesus to forgive him. I informed him that Buddha was said to have existed hundreds of years before Jesus.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know, this makes me think. Moral objectivity is contradictory to faith.

We've seen the threads, about how faith is important, and that objectively knowing a god exists steals whatever from the choice of belief.

So we have in this thread a person making an argument that there is moral objectivity in Christianity. But how can that be said with certainty? If their belief in their god is a decision made in faith, ie, they admit to them not objectively having proof that their god exists, how is it remotely possible to have an objective moral code from said faith in a deity?

 

[Emily Lake]

I said his statement was erroneously misleading, a misrepresentation of believers since we're "supposed" to be taking the angle from the atheist view. Stating the notion that when Christians aren't agreeing with moral issues, for example, then this should mean "All Christians are wrong; automatically and therefore there couldn't be any Moral Objectivity'.

Not sure how the conclusion was made. Has he factored-in the simple equations, the simple things like for example : Some Christians may have studied more than others resulting in knowing more than others? Some may practice (abide) by the Moral Laws more closely than others. Christians are made up of a variety of people, each with their own individual minds.
Even if there should exist a common Objective Moral law ( in the Christian world). People will still be individuals under the same law.

I'll counter by observing that irrespective of the amount of study, or the degree of practice of any individual... the different sects of christianity don't agree on what is and is not moral.

If there is an objective morality handed down as law by some cosmic critter with dissociative identity disorder... then which sect is correct with respect to what those morals are?

FFS, even if you assume that the different sects are all tarnished by being filtered through imperfect human minds... the book itself doesn't even agree on what the rules are. And that's just completely ignoring that fact that the Council of Nicea handpicked which books were considered part of the Bible, and which were rejected as apocryphal!

 

[TomC]

And that's just completely ignoring that fact that the Council of Nicea handpicked which books were considered part of the Bible,

Cynical as I am,
I'm pretty confident that the elites of the day included the OT is because it provides the moral smorgasbord that made it possible to indulge their ambitions in a scriptural way.

Jesus' Message didn't do that. Hard to chase wealth and power based on Jesus and Paul. Genesis and Exodus and such did so in spades, because they were from a much more violent and tribal culture.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't see that as cynical at all. I mean, the council was pretty blatant about their intent: pick a set of books that would let them govern christians, and invent a set of doctrines that could be enforced as policy.

The idea that the bible is the direct word of god, scripted by it, and handed down from on high in some flash of miracle light is verifiably untrue. For all intents, christianity as a codified religion was invented by that council. And it lasted for a good long while in that form, until Luther cam along and felt the need to vandalize a church door.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do you mean there are more than one? If you can show those differing books that would clear up a few things. Cheers.

I can't speak for Rhea, but I have a firm opinion on that.

The Christian Bible isn't really a book, it's a collection of books. Books from across the centuries and wildly disparate cultures. With wildly different moral principles and ethical codes. Christian Scriptural Morality is not objective in any sense of the word. It includes everything from ugly bronze age teachings to the Beatitudes and Golden Rule. It's a moral smorgasbord where anyone can justify almost anything with a bit of Scripture. And they have, for centuries. From the oppression of women to the global orgy of looting, slavery and genocide known as "Euro-Christian Colonialism".

What Christians consistently mean by "objective morality" is "interpreting and prioritizing Scripture to suit myself". That's rather the opposite of objective in any real sense of the word.

Most of the modern moral improvement in modern world are the result of people(including Christians) dropping scriptural morality for the far more objective morality of Secular Humanism.
Tom

And over the millenia those books have gotten lots of different translations. I wonder how many different translations, how many different "bibles" Learner has actually read. They are extremely different. "The bible" is shit. It is meaningless except as something to worship for some people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If their belief in their god is a decision made in faith, ie, they admit to them not objectively having proof that their god exists, how is it remotely possible to have an objective moral code from said faith in a deity?

Because in christianity and its ilk you get to be your own deity. You're just not allowed to say it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one agreeing on what it is.. doesn't mean that someone isn't right. But then I see the context you're making here - the 'existence of Moral Objectivity is defined by a commonality'. Well in that context though different, that's fine by me, I was not refuting that point. My point was: the Moral Laws were defined, passed and declared. What Christian understands from it is irrelevant. The Moral Objective stands.

What is the Moral Objective standard again? Specifics please.

 

[steve_bank]

Meme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A meme (/miːm/ MEEM)[1][2][3] is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures.[5] In popular language, a meme may refer to an Internet meme, typically an image, that is remixed, copied, and circulated in a shared cultural experience online.[6][7]

I think meme describes religion, especially Christians.

They don't answer questions because they really can't. Responses, thoughts, and actions are mostly from imitation.

A convert learns to speak and act like Christians he or she is around. There is no undetsnding, only feelings and emotions.

 

[TomC]

If their belief in their god is a decision made in faith, ie, they admit to them not objectively having proof that their god exists, how is it remotely possible to have an objective moral code from said faith in a deity?

Because in christianity and its ilk you get to be your own deity. You're just not allowed to say it.

In an important way, it's even more subjective and convenient than that.

In Christianity, anybody can create a God in their own image. A god who agrees with them about everything they consider important. Then they can justify ugly moral behavior with:
God said it.
I believe it.
That settles it!

And never need to question the morals or ethics, or bother with other people who do.
Tom

 

[Learner]

The Two Greatest Commandments.

How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

So if you hear a voice in your head telling you to murder sacrifice your son on an altar, you should do it?

No. I'd more likely not trust what I'm hearing in my head. Abraham was chosen, no one else. But If I did listen and God didn't stop me, like Abraham was stopped, then that voice in my head was not God's and I would have just killed my son.

38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40

What if I hate myself and want to hit myself in the head with a hammer? Then, I should love my neighbor in the same way by murdering them. That's subjective, not objective.

I see ok. Hate your neighbour as you hate yourself?

(Wording matters)

If, however, the commandment was "love everyone," then it would be objective except that love needs an objective definition first.

The contradictory one in the bible doesn't work.

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments!

Do they really??? How does stoning a gay person derive from love your neighbor as yourself?

Show your work.

Work, like what Jesus says?
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..?

And your work?
Can you show me were you get the idea that Christians are supposed to do this,stoning people? Have you found were Christians have done this?

 

[Learner]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

Irrelevant. I can point to a large number of muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, pagans, and atheists who do NOT agree that "God" is the "Moral Objective Standard".

I can point to the same thing, agreeing with your premise about OTHER faiths. But that's irrelevant to the Christian God

So unless you're positing that non-christians aren't human, then your premise is demonstrably flawed.

No I'm not posting that. You are in error.

 

[Learner]

Do you mean there are more than one? If you can show those differing books that would clear up a few things. Cheers.

I can't speak for Rhea, but I have a firm opinion on that.

The Christian Bible isn't really a book, it's a collection of books. Books from across the centuries and wildly disparate cultures. With wildly different moral principles and ethical codes. Christian Scriptural Morality is not objective in any sense of the word. It includes everything from ugly bronze age teachings to the Beatitudes and Golden Rule. It's a moral smorgasbord where anyone can justify almost anything with a bit of Scripture. And they have, for centuries. From the oppression of women to the global orgy of looting, slavery and genocide known as "Euro-Christian Colonialism".

What Christians consistently mean by "objective morality" is "interpreting and prioritizing Scripture to suit myself". That's rather the opposite of objective in any real sense of the word.

Most of the modern moral improvement in modern world are the result of people(including Christians) dropping scriptural morality for the far more objective morality of Secular Humanism.
Tom

And over the millenia those books have gotten lots of different translations. I wonder how many different translations, how many different "bibles" Learner has actually read. They are extremely different. "The bible" is shit. It is meaningless except as something to worship for some people.

There are thousands of translations yes. Language translations of many nations. Are you saying by the logic you apply here, this is the reason why they're so supposedly different, because they're in different languages? I would expect an instruction manual in German would guide someone to correctly build a cabinet, which is exactly constructed like the cabinet built by another person who read the Greek manual.

But of course you must be talking about the Bible "changing" through a fair amount of time, instead. Could you highlight those "major" differences?
The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' halts that idea - it suggests instead, the differences are quite trivial, plus grammatical errors. Regardless of (language) translations, the bible hasn't changed.

 

[James Brown]

No. I'd more likely not trust what I'm hearing in my head. Abraham was chosen, no one else. But If I did listen and God didn't stop me, like Abraham was stopped, then that voice in my head was not God's and I would have just killed my son.

That sounds like the old formula for identifying witches. Everyone knows that witches float, so throw a suspect in the river. If she floats, take her out and hang her for being a witch. If she drowns, then good news. She wasn't a witch.

How do we know that Abraham was chosen by God? Because God stopped him from murdering Isaac.

And how do we know that God stopped him? Because Abraham told us so.

And why do we believe Abraham's story? Because Abraham was chosen by God.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Two Greatest Commandments.

How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

So if you hear a voice in your head telling you to murder sacrifice your son on an altar, you should do it?

No. I'd more likely not trust what I'm hearing in my head. Abraham was chosen, no one else. But If I did listen and God didn't stop me, like Abraham was stopped, then that voice in my head was not God's and I would have just killed my son.

So much for faith.

If, however, the commandment was "love everyone," then it would be objective except that love needs an objective definition first.

The contradictory one in the bible doesn't work.

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments!

Do they really??? How does stoning a gay person derive from love your neighbor as yourself?

Show your work.

Work, like what Jesus says?

Jesus? Wasn't he the guy that changed the objective moral code into a subjective one?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Two Greatest Commandments.

How difficult do you think it is, in your minds (the posters who responded to me) for Christians or anyone else for that matter, to grasp or understand these two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

So if you hear a voice in your head telling you to murder sacrifice your son on an altar, you should do it?

No. I'd more likely not trust what I'm hearing in my head.

No one should. That's called mental illness.

Abraham was chosen, no one else.

Err, Abraham heard voices.

But If I did listen and God didn't stop me, like Abraham was stopped, then that voice in my head was not God's and I would have just killed my son.

If you stopped, then it's because you knew in your heart that you were hearing voices. You knew in your heart that the idea of faith being better than critical thinking is bogus.

38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40

What if I hate myself and want to hit myself in the head with a hammer? Then, I should love my neighbor in the same way by murdering them. That's subjective, not objective.

I see ok. Hate your neighbour as you hate yourself?

(Wording matters)

Uh, no. It says to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. If you don't love yourself, then you can't love your neighbor.

I mean, let's say we make a scale on how much you love yourself. A scale from 1 to 100. If you love yourself at 25, then you are commanded to love your neighbor at 25. If you love yourself at 50, then you are commanded to love your neighbor at 50. If you love yourself at 90, then you are commanded to love your neighbor at 90.

So, again, a better wording would be "Love your neighbor." BUT then, why just your neighbor? Why stop there? Or why make people think you only mean to love people close to you? A superior being would choose wording that is unambiguous and not subjective based on how much you love yourself and instead say something like "Love everyone."

If, however, the commandment was "love everyone," then it would be objective except that love needs an objective definition first.

The contradictory one in the bible doesn't work.

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments!

Do they really??? How does stoning a gay person derive from love your neighbor as yourself?

Show your work.

Work, like what Jesus says?
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..?

And your work?
Can you show me were you get the idea that Christians are supposed to do this,stoning people? Have you found were Christians have done this?

Putting gays to death has been very commonplace in history. Educate yourself.

The fact that early Christians and Jews were putting to death gays and others who violated laws from Leviticus and Deuteronomy can be inferred from the texts of the laws and later on, in stories of the Gospels when Jesus is alleged to say only someone perfect can cast the first stone, contradicting known, practiced laws.

Medieval times:

Sodomy in medieval secular law - PubMed

In the 13th century, legislation dealing with sodomy and other moral crimes was strongly influences by the prevailing Catholic ideology. As a result, affenders were sought out by members of the lay confranternities, tried in the courts of the Inquisition, and generally punished with the death...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Middle Ages, Netherlands

Buggery Act 1533 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Colonial America

Colonial Australia

Modern Uganda

You should also note that there is stoning of gays in Nigeria by Islamic sharia courts because Islamo-Judeo-Christianity has the same roots in the Old Testament.

Some other Christians in modern times and their views...

Manny Pacquiao posts Bible verse that states gay people should be killed

Manny Pacquiao is not backing down from his stance against homosexuality.

www.latimes.com

Fred Phelps: How Westboro pastor spread 'God hates fags'

Pastor Fred Phelps, head of the Westboro Baptist Church, has died, aged 84. Despite being widely disavowed, his message of hate became world-famous.

www.bbc.com

Now that that is quite settled back to YOUR CLAIM. You wrote that the prophets and commandments are derived from two laws such as love your neighbor. So, SHOW how an order to kill gays comes from Love your neighbor.

Show how this:
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
comes from this:
Mark 12:31: "The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’"

You haven't done it yet. You've just tried to switch the burden but failed.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. I'd more likely not trust what I'm hearing in my head. Abraham was chosen, no one else. But If I did listen and God didn't stop me, like Abraham was stopped, then that voice in my head was not God's and I would have just killed my son.

Or.. or... and hear me out on this... or you could step back and say to yourself "this voice in my head is a crazy psychopath regardless of whether it's actually god or not" and just not kill your kid.

 

[Emily Lake]

If the Christian God was the Source of Objective Morality, one would expect Christians to agree on moral issues. The evidence for that isn't very compelling.

Again... more misleading conceptual errors. I mean think about it. For example: Even if some people abide by the Moral law and some people don't. The Source of Objective Mortality would still be the Source of Moral Objectivity'!

The only thing that Christians agree on is that the vast majority of their fellow brethren are wrong about what Christians should do.

We can test a conceptual thinking.

Can you tell me or show me if there are any Christians "disagreeing" with the narrative that 'God is the source of Objective Morality?'

All Christians agree that God is the Moral Objective Standard.

Irrelevant. I can point to a large number of muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, pagans, and atheists who do NOT agree that "God" is the "Moral Objective Standard".

I can point to the same thing, agreeing with your premise about OTHER faiths. But that's irrelevant to the Christian God

If less than half the people on the planet agree that there's an objective moral standard put forth by god... what makes you think that the minority is correct?

So unless you're positing that non-christians aren't human, then your premise is demonstrably flawed.

No I'm not posting that. You are in error.

We agree that your premise is flawed.