I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
Hey it's your friendly neighbourhood perfectibilist here and I'm happy to see this thread back again!
Can someone, summarize what are the Old and New Testaments, and give a comparison between the two?
The Old Testament was before Jesus was born, roughly. The main idea of "testament" is "romise", where everyone was killed in a flood by God and Noah's Ark was the remnants of civilization and nature in general. The promise was to never do that again.
The New Testament is a different promise, of which I cannot remember. I remember this being touched -- very briefly in school, but rather than learning of the teachings we learn about the people who follow it, because... you know, I'm going to go to a Christian Wedding.
I wouldn't call it ignorance, Sir Nicho. Does this influence any validity of your previous points? Not really.
they just seem to sort of give up.
Not sure why they would do that. Did they lose their integrity of belief? Did we convince them of anything?
It would be quite upsetting to see otherwise. As far as I know, it could be construed as "running away" from the argument, as, seemingly the case on AtheistGames, they can't sufficiently back it up.
Happy to see Dair5 here though, I agree with a fair amount of what he says and whilst he has devoted himself to Christianity (right?) I don't think that constitutes nearly enough reason to dislike him.
Does this influence any validity of your previous points? Not really.
Err....no. It might. I don't know, since we're practically starting on a new footing here. It does reflect a certain degree of ignorance IMO. Anyway, thousand thanks.
No problem. I couldn't call it ignorance, perhaps you're simply not educated on the subject but that hardly supports the argument that you're ignorant. Maybe I just perceive that word harshly. Nonetheless, it's much to consider that you, good sir, will likely gain little to nothing in learning this.
Yes, there used to be plenty back that. But AtheistGames...sorry ArmorGames seems to have too strong an atheist community, so maybe it has scared them away?
reminds me of a pics mage sended me a few weeks ago
I'm not denying that Christianity does impart such morals; what I was trying to bring across is that atheism in itself will not lead to a world without morals. Just because I don't believe in a Supernatural Being doesn't mean I'm a lying cheating crook.
I've always sort of wondered about this. If there is no God what stops you from being amoral? Hypothetically, if there was no fear of being punished (by the police) why not kill/rob/assault someone? Where does your moral code come from? Also, whats the point of having a moral code?
family, friends, sporting club, school. all your surroundings.
religion is not the 1 and only place you learn morals. and religion doesn't learn you morals that you don't learn anywhere els.
whats the point of having a moral code
people whitout morals are unpredictable and usualy not in the right way. however this has nothing to do whit believing in a religion yes or not because you learn morals from all your surroundings and not only from religion.
if there was no fear of being punished (by the police) why not kill/rob/assault someone?
hmmm how did we call that again? let me think..... ow yea i remember. commen sense
beside because atheists have no fear for some magic dude flying on his cloud watching all the people. doesn't mean they don't respect the law as it is.
If there is no God what stops you from being amoral?
If there is no God what stops you from being amoral?
Well, first off, we're going to have different views of what is moral or not.
For those though, I can list a few reasons...
1) I do not want to harm others. 2) Since things only live once, it's a crime to take that away from them. 3) Laws (society) are for the benefit of the whole and keep peace and order. 4) Raised to not steal/kill/attack someone.
Hypothetically, if there was no fear of being punished (by the police) why not kill/rob/assault someone?
And this is where I think that atheists -are- "better" (in a moral sense) than theists. We do what is right because it is right, not because we're scared daddy is going to spank us.
In psychology, there's something called Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development. Theists, in the arguments they use (and by statements such as used above by you) put themselves at the first stage, aka, the most immature.
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional) 1. Obedience and punishment orientation (How can I avoid punishment?) 2. Self-interest orientation (What's in it for me?) (Paying for a benefit)
Whereas Atheists, in general, are at level 2 and 3.
Level 2 (Conventional) 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity (Social norms) (The good boy/good girl attitude) 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (Law and order morality)
Teamwork is natural for us, how else would we have hunted? We were not lone wolves, we were intelligent, co-ordinated and influence (as opposed to adaptive) creatures. Of course we still are, however our technological prowess and form of society changes most of this. Moral codes can be natural as well, there are observations of primate species indicating this.
Morality's fundamentals relies on the lack of hypocrisy -- "I wouldn't want this done to me so... why should I do it?" Take being mugged. You lose your money, possibly take a hit or two, could be in shock and you will always suffer a bit from your pride. You are not right in taking what is rightfully his / her possession.
I developed my morals from the age of 6, following that philosophy, after saying "It's not fair". That kind of constitutes a natural state in itself... you consistently hear of kids being like that -- I was familiar but for some reason, I grew from that.
Which is what makes me the perfectibilist teenager I am now.
Every natural harm I can think of is for very logical and fair reasons, including sustanance and protecting one's kin. Of course, when primitive societies were developed things quite easily could've changed, which in a sense demonstrates a "flaw in humanity"... one that has been sated from the start and should be dissipating right now.
Whereas Atheists, in general, are at level 2 and 3.
I'd have to say I develop my morals as universal, so I limit my judgement based on the exact relevent information... a similar situation wouldn't be a "been there, done that" situation.
Funny, level 2's conformity reason seems to be invalid for me, being as my kind stature has been seen as a negative trait by my peers...
Law and Order I feel is an immensely required factor in all moral codes, giving one the freedom of his / her own judgement without consequence is too much to give people, at least in this state of development.
1 not all atheists think the same about morals.
You can say that about anything ^^ so we'll just go to the basic and broad spectrum, concerning all atheists: 1) All atheists have no belief in a deity. This can be the "I believe God is not real", or "I don't believe God is real"... both are different things, of course.
2 despite the differences of how we have gotten our morals we still have about the same morals.
Being able to dismantle and see the reasoning in them is the primary objective. Other factors including experience would need to be quite severe in order to sufficiently offset a moral code, to the point of it being... very bad, I'll say.
so religion is not the sole provider of morals =)
I don't know where MageGrayWolf is right now, but I think he would mention how a lot of religious folk attribute THEIR moral grounds to their religion or who / what they worship.
religion is not the 1 and only place you learn morals. and religion doesn't learn you morals that you don't learn anywhere els.
That's very true I grew up totally ignorant of all religions. I thought Jesus was some Mexican guy. Obviously, without religion, we learn morals from society but there's no reason given for having morals. For some people there's no benefit of having morals. Religion gives you a reason for being moral. If you have learned a moral code from society, why follow it without a reason or without benefiting from it?
i just stated it because i often hear religious folk say (and think) that atheism is a religion and all atheists believe this and that.
the point i wanted to make whit it is that atheism has nothing to do whit believe or religion. all atheists are individuals.
Being able to dismantle and see the reasoning in them is the primary objective. Other factors including experience would need to be quite severe in order to sufficiently offset a moral code, to the point of it being... very bad, I'll say.
the point i wanted to make whit it is that it doesn't matter that we don't have a religion that teaches morals because there are many many many other ways of getting these same morals.
I don't know where MageGrayWolf is right now, but I think he would mention how a lot of religious folk attribute THEIR moral grounds to their religion or who / what they worship.
i know. and that is why i said it. the point i made here is that they are wrong.
Every natural harm I can think of is for very logical and fair reasons, including sustanance and protecting one's kin.
Okay then, let me rephrase...
1) I do not want to cause unnecessary harm to others, whether it is physical pain or emotional.
Funny, level 2's conformity reason seems to be invalid for me,
So you're saying that at no point in your life you did/did not do something because it was expected of your and others did so as well? I find that extremely hard to believe.
I don't know where MageGrayWolf is right now, but I think he would mention how a lot of religious folk attribute THEIR moral grounds to their religion or who / what they worship.
Which is basically what I said with this.
And this is where I think that atheists -are- "better" (in a moral sense) than theists. We do what is right because it is right, not because we're scared daddy is going to spank us.
If you have learned a moral code from society, why follow it without a reason or without benefiting from it?
Well, firstly, I wouldn't follow it if I didn't have a reason. That reason may be because it makes sense, is fair, keeps peace, promotes happiness, etc. Secondly, there are reasons to follow things without receiving a benefit from it. Probably the best example are taxes. The government takes part of what you earn and applies it for the good of the whole.
For some people there's no benefit of having morals.
That doesn't mean they should be immoral.
Religion gives you a reason for being moral.
Yeah, but that's control through lies, which in itself is immoral. Humans are more than capable of following something, even if they sacrifice something of their own, purely because they believe it's right. This need not be through indoctrination or lies either -- purely through sheer will.
If you have learned a moral code from society, why follow it without a reason or without benefiting from it?
To fit in. From the miniscule bit I know of Neuroscience, it is exceptionally naturally important to be social. It's a little difficult to elaborate, anyone who hasn't interacted with another human being, I'd feel would be quite... insane, to say the least. I'll just throw out the source: God is in the Neurons
i just stated it because i often hear religious folk say (and think) that atheism is a religion and all atheists believe this and that.
People who know nothing of the subject, making the choices for it. That's annoying.
It has happened once or twice in real life... trying to convince them that all atheist means is that you don't have a belief in a deity is surprisingly, stupidly hard.
all atheists are individuals.
As was the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to give the simplest explanation of what an atheist is, being as saying what all atheists don't have (belief in a deity) is much easier than going the other way around.
the point i wanted to make whit it is that it doesn't matter that we don't have a religion that teaches morals because there are many many many other ways of getting these same morals.
I know... I am supporting your arguments, just going more indepth on the subject... and I did go a little off topic with that quote, but nonetheless, I felt it was necessary to bring up the sometimes harmful effects of experience.
