Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

Hey why argue with JimL about morality when you can let him argue against himself? And lose!

Odd how some can be so blind and still believe that it's others who can not see.

[seer]

The undeniable fact is that Christian morality has been based upon the moral values of the day; historically the bible has been made to support those values via the interpretation of scripture. This was true of anti-miscegenation laws and it was true of slavery and much else. And it is true of homosexuality.

You keep telling me that but you fail to offer evidence that interracial marriage is prohibited in the Bible. Slavery, like in most other nations at the time was allowed. But so what?

Paul is taken literally by those opposed to homosexuality (Jesus never mentions it) and interpreted according to perceived historical context by those who support it...as is becoming more common in the free world.

Jesus upheld and fulfilled the Old Testament law. And what do you mean take literally? How else is one supposed to take the fact that homosexuality is sin? And Jesus never mentioned rape either, so?

[seer]

And in what way would this form of governance be in our best interests as both a society and as individual members thereof?

You are missing the point, it comes down to what one thinks is better for society, what one's ideal society looks like. Mine would be one where all men loved God, their fellow man and did not practice sin.

[shunyadragon]

You are missing the point, it comes down to what one thinks is better for society, what one's ideal society looks like. Mine would be one where all men loved God, their fellow man and did not practice sin.

The morals of cultures and societies are not determined by what on thinks is moral, though what one thinks is moral may get an individual in trouble and get punished by the society or culture.

[JimL]

You are missing the point, it comes down to what one thinks is better for society, what one's ideal society looks like. Mine would be one where all men loved God, their fellow man and did not practice sin.

Again, from your perspective, in what sense would this form of government be in the best interests of society and in the best interests of individual members thereof?

[Tassman]

You keep telling me that but you fail to offer evidence that interracial marriage is prohibited in the Bible. Slavery, like in most other nations at the time was allowed. But so what?

It is not my job to argue how Apartheid was justified by scripture merely that it was so justified. Just as the largest Protestant body in the US, i.e. the Southern Baptist Convention came into being for the express purpose of defending slavery.

The social mores of the day have historically been justified by scripture. Just as the social mores regarding homosexuality are more accepting today than in previous eras, with the majority of Christians (according to Pew Research) approving it.

[Tassman]

You are missing the point, it comes down to what one thinks is better for society, what one's ideal society looks like. Mine would be one where all men loved God,

What about those who do not believe in a god?

their fellow man and did not practice sin.

“Sin” is defined as that which separates one from God. So, again, one must believe in a god in your “ideal society”...and not just any god but your god. Many don’t. Will they be forced to conform to your beliefs in your “ideal society”?

[seer]

It is not my job to argue how Apartheid was justified by scripture merely that it was so justified. Just as the largest Protestant body in the US, i.e. the Southern Baptist Convention came into being for the express purpose of defending slavery.

Nonsense Tass, if some Christian group starting teaching that adultery was a moral good, and you pointed to them to show an example of moral disagreement with Christians I would go back to scripture. Men have biases and will ignore Scripture when it suits them.

The social mores of the day have historically been justified by scripture. Just as the social mores regarding homosexuality are more accepting today than in previous eras, with the majority of Christians (according to Pew Research) approving it.

Again Tass, the Pew poll was not a universal poll (US Christians only), and the same poll showed that the majority Christian who went to church or studied the bible once a week or more did believe that homosexuality was sin. So it is the Biblically illiterate that think otherwise. In other words those who take their faith more seriously, by a large margin, believe that homosexuality is immoral: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-la...homosexuality/

[seer]

What about those who do not believe in a god?

My ideal won't come about until Christ returns, then they will be consigned to outer darkness. Remove from civilized society.

[seer]

Again, from your perspective, in what sense would this form of government be in the best interests of society and in the best interests of individual members thereof?

I told you. Either that or I'm not understaning you. See as a Christian I believe that men were designed for a purpose, and that purpose is to love and obey God and to love their fellow man. That is in the best interest of the individual and society as a whole.

[Sparko]

You are going beyond the degree of morality required for the survival of the species. Abortion ahas been around for the known history of civilizations and it has had no impact on the survival of the human species.

It is actually KILLING of human beings. Each and every one of them did not survive.

But you prove my point. You don't believe in a standard of morality that goes beyond personal beliefs. You tried to pretend to by giving a definition of "good" that means "assures human survival" but even then you decide you have to qualify that when pushed.

Not killing our own offspring is pretty much the definition of assuring human survival.

Under your new strict rule, basically everything is moral unless it results in global nuclear war or release of a pathogen that can wipe out the human race.

[Sparko]

I will assume that you would agree with me that the moral against stealing is in the best interests of society, and so in the best interests of the members thereof in general, Sparko. Yes or no? If you agree, then tell me what it is that makes it so?

you previously said that some things are moral even if nobody agrees on it. So how does my agreeing with you or not make a difference?

[JimL]

I told you. Either that or I'm not understaning you. See as a Christian I believe that men were designed for a purpose, and that purpose is to love and obey God and to love their fellow man. That is in the best interest of the individual and society as a whole.

Why do you say that those behaviors, what is it about them that are in the best interests of the individual and of society as a whole?

[JimL]

you previously said that some things are moral even if nobody agrees on it. So how does my agreeing with you or not make a difference?

Yes, I did say that, and I also said that divine law need have nothing to do with it but rather that morals are based on sound reason and logic based on experience. So, if you agree that a moral against stealing is in the best interests of society and ergo in the best interests of the members thereof based simply upon sound reason and logic, then the idea that they need be objective realities, decrees sent down from god is a flawed argument.

So, do you agree that a moral against theft is in the best interests of human society?

[seer]

Why do you say that those behaviors, what is it about them that are in the best interests of the individual and of society as a whole?

Because Jim, that is what we were designed for. And we we work as we are designed there is harmony and peace, genuine brotherhood.