Atheism

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Celeval

That infallibility is limited, though. The only infalliable things that the pope does are very specifically noted and defined - around theological matters. The term is 'ex cathedra', to essentially state that the pope is speaking a truth from his seat. It happens exceedingly rarely. There's nothing in the office of the papacy that says the pope is immune to mistakes, either intentional or otherwise. Nor is there anything that says he knows all - or any - of God's plan.



And perhaps that "miss for some reason" is because they hit bullet-proof glass.



Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

Times are different and people are different. If Christianity were started today, we'd have an entirely different bible.

Think of Lot. God wanted to save him right? He was the last good guy in Sodom (or Gonorrhea, wherever). But what do we know of Lot? He was willing to give his daughters to a crowd of dudes that wanted to rape the 2 angels that showed up! WTF?! And god sees him as a good guy?

In those days, apparently, it was more important to show great hospitality to a male stranger than the welfare of you children. How times change.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Cork

I view the above statement differently. Man was made in Gods image and as such Human beings look like what God looks like. 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. I don't think it goes much beyond that.

My take on "Man in God's Image" is, possibly, the granting of free will and intelligent thought... or, perhaps, a belief in morality. I don't think any of us would argue that mankind is an essentially moral race - not that everything that man does is moral, but that there are moralities that people follow (of vastly different types).

But that's a personal thought, not necessarily one taught by the Catholic church. Oddly enough, the stuff I quoted in the other thread came from a larger Vatican document specifically talking about "imago Dei" - the Image of God. This is an idea heavily explored in very different directions... there is no agreement among Catholic or Protestant scholars (I don't know much about Judaic or Islamic teachings) for what exactly this means.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I would like to add that I'm thrilled with how this thread has gone. its very rare that discussions of this topic don't succumb to subby-isms or bubba Wheels-assaults before ever getting this far.

Kudos to you all for posting with integrity and manners.

+1

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

IMHO if God is omnipotent then there is no such thing as freewill (because he created us knowing exactly what we'd do all the time). Some Christians believe in this scenario, some don't.

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Right, but the fact that the Original Sin was eating of the tree of Knowledge was no mistake. That is significant. Also significant is that the first repercussion of that is the fact that Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their nakedness... And many churches today still teach that Original Sin was Adam and Eve's sexual awakening. Which is why all of us are tainted by Original Sin as we're all born out of sex.

For what it's worth, they didn't disobey God... he warned them, and they suffered the stated consequences (by literal reading, which is implied by discussing the story to begin with). His warning (Genesis 3:3) "You shall not eat from it, or touch it, or you will die." The implication in reverse is without eating from the tree, Adam and Eve would live forever in Eden.

My thoughts for Original Sin touching us all is pretty straightforward - none of us are in Eden. The casting out of Eden affected each of us.

[BrianD]

I won't claim any special veracity for this site, but I have found a bunch of interesting reading at hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org. The site has a bunch of essays on a number of topics and claims to be comprised of authors of pretty wide-ranging backgrounds. Lots of discussions on apparent conflicts in the bible and their resolutions based on ideas of conservative and liberal Christians. I find myself to be much more agreeable to the liberal interpretations.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Celeval

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

omnipotent implies omniscient as part of the definition - at least that's what I was always taught. but that's relatively incidental to your point. just one of those things that always compels a reply from me.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

A question for somebody who is the know: Has the catholic church ever said that the bible is to be interpreted a certain way or to be taken literally?

Historically, I'm not sure. Recently, this is from Pope Paul VI, 1965:

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

omnipotent implies omniscient as part of the definition - at least that's what I was always taught. but that's relatively incidental to your point. just one of those things that always compels a reply from me.

Reasonable thought.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

The standard is "higher" not because of some superiority. It's higher because the religious in this example are claiming that the universe is designed by a higher power that is worthy of worship. If that is the case, then people begin to expect that the world should some how live up to such a scenario. Just as I have a different expectation from a book written by an author to entertain me versus a meaningless jumble of letters.

If the world was not designed by any intelligent being but simply came to be, there's no reason to expect anything of how it works. Does that make sense?

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'd argue that being 're-told' doesn't come into it, according to Christianity the bible is written/inspired by God which tends to indicate that the behaviour held up as 'Christian' within it is the behaviour God wants/rewards in people? ... otherwise the bible would contain a lot more gladiator Christians than it does

Well, yes. I was thinking more of the stories of the saints, and Christians v. Lions in Roman times than Biblical.

[Celeval]

Sheesh - didn't mean to take over the thread, but this is what I get for just going through a Multi-Quoting everything I wanted to respond to.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Historically, I'm not sure. Recently, this is from Pope Paul VI, 1965:

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

Celeval, thank you.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Celeval

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

it depends on your perspective really.

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

Being a programmer I often interpret things in terms of my job.

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs. Within these programs there are people going about their lives; Anyone watching the program with no knowledge of Gods programming might think the people look to be real and independant - however God knows the random number generator inside and out and also setup the universes database, hence to him everything is pre-programmed and he KNOWS there is no freewill or random happenstance in the program and indeed can predict what will happen at any point during the running of the programs (which is a trick I'd love to be able to do ).
(many apologies for the geeky analogy but hopefully it explains the problem with someone knowing exactly what choices will be made at the point at which he creates something - it turns them into automations)

PS - I was also taught that Omnipotent covered everything, where I've used that word consider it to cover all aspects of Gods power/knowledge/prescent - i.e. a being with limitless power who is all knowing and everywhere in all times at once

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs.

So god is Will Wright?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So god is Will Wright?

Speaking of which once I get this crunch out the way I need to give Spore a whirl

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

Knowledge of a thing to come doesn't necessarily imply influence (or use of influence) over that thing.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs. Within these programs there are people going about their lives; Anyone watching the program with no knowledge of Gods programming might think the people look to be real and independant - however God knows the random number generator inside and out and also setup the universes database, hence to him everything is pre-programmed and he KNOWS there is no freewill or random happenstance in the program and indeed can predict what will happen at any point during the running of the programs

And yet, I'd bet you'd love to actually insert actual intelligence and decision making into FM. Realism ftw! If accepting the premise that God is omnipotent, then He can.

PS - I was also taught that Omnipotent covered everything, where I've used that word consider it to cover all aspects of Gods power/knowledge/prescent - i.e. a being with limitless power who is all knowing and everywhere in all times at once.

No worries. Semantical difference, we all know what we're talking about.

[Autumn]

Regarding the origin and creation of the Bible, as an example of a religious text, Wikipedia has it covered pretty well.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

It gives a good sense of the amount of human decision making (and therefore politics) that goes into the creation of a religious text over time.

[JediKooter]

Shifting a bit...What would be wrong with a person who is atheist running for public office (mayor, state assembly, president)? I ask this, because there are laws (don't know if they are still on the books), that did not allow for atheists to run for public office in certain states. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional, but, the question still remains.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

it depends on your perspective really.

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

Well, if God or some hgiher power exists, it probably exists outside of time. In that case it could know how all of history will unfold without that meaning that free will isn't in existence.

There's lots of problems beyond this, but I think we can't assume that some higher being is constrained by time the way we are.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Shifting a bit...What would be wrong with a person who is atheist running for public office (mayor, state assembly, president)? I ask this, because there are laws (don't know if they are still on the books), that did not allow for atheists to run for public office in certain states. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional, but, the question still remains.

Nothing. Why were the laws made? Probably out of a fear that morality came from religion and atheists were immoral. *shrug*

[Ajaxab]

I also want to add props to everyone's patience with my (many) questions.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Speaking of which once I get this crunch out the way I need to give Spore a whirl

Still debating if I should get it. They have Spore Evolution or something like that for the iPhone, but, my wife has a monopoly on the iPhone, so I don't think I'll be playing it anytime soon.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Nothing. Why were the laws made? Probably out of a fear that morality came from religion and atheists were immoral. *shrug*

I agree, there's nothing wrong at all with an atheist running for public office, however, I think it would be impossible for that candidate to win if the voting populace knew that person was an atheist.

Yes, I do believe those laws were in place because the people who set them up, were thinking that atheists were immoral.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I agree, there's nothing wrong at all with an atheist running for public office, however, I think it would be impossible for that candidate to win if the voting populace knew that person was an atheist.

Yes, I do believe those laws were in place because the people who set them up, were thinking that atheists were immoral.

I agree. There is really very little chance that an atheist, who was open about his/her beliefs, would ever be voted into office.

I don't quite get why it's so troubling to people, but it is. Based on some of the questiosn raised in this thread folks do appear to have a hard time conceiving how an atheist views the world, explains things, or makes value judgments. The easy answer to many of these questions, which is probably correct 9 times out of 10, is: Just like you do.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree. There is really very little chance that an atheist, who was open about his/her beliefs, would ever be voted into office.

I don't quite get why it's so troubling to people, but it is. Based on some of the questiosn raised in this thread folks do appear to have a hard time conceiving how an atheist views the world, explains things, or makes value judgments. The easy answer to many of these questions, which is probably correct 9 times out of 10, is: Just like you do.

Well said HB. If people would just understand that an atheist means nothing more than not believing in a god or gods. If people understood that, they'd realize that atheists are nothing more than people just trying to eek out a good life just like everyone else.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I think the answer to that, st.cronin, is one I'm sure you've heard before and one you may even have used yourself in other circumstances - I can't define it, I can't pin it down exactly, but I can recognise it when I see it.

A tsunami wiping out 200,000 people isn't perfection, right? A disease savaging fully a third of the population (as the black death in Europe) isn't perfection. And so on.

I have no problem at all accepting that the world as we see it is a "flawed" world if it was indeed created by an intelligent entity. The alternative is that it wasn't "designed" at all but the result of random processes with little or no concern for its appeal to mankind. The world isn't intentionally beneficial or antagonistic towards we humans. It isn't flawed, it just is.

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

Atheism is no more a philosophy than not liking cheesburgers is a philosophy.

[Tekneek]

I'm basically signing off of this thread now, since there seems to be little point in participating. It appears highly unlikely that anyone is going to change my mind on this, based on what has been said thus far. Also, after thinking about it a little bit during a drive this afternoon, it is pretty clear to me that I just don't care at all whether there is a God or not. If they do exist, there are simply way too many awful things happening every single day on this planet for me to celebrate a creator that has abandoned its creations to suffer through it. If there isn't one, then good, because it doesn't make any sense to me that a benevolent creator/overseer would let these awful things happen, or that I would need to worship them just for the opportunity to deal with their bullshit.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

Why do believers always think there is a "way of thinking" with atheists. Its not about measuring good or bad. Atheists have no book to guide us through our lives so all moral issues are subjective.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by bignej

Why do believers always think there is a "way of thinking" with atheists. Its not about measuring good or bad. Atheists have no book to guide us through our lives so all moral issues are subjective.

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

[bignej]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

"way of thinking" was for a lack of a better word. I really should have said that most believers think that atheists follow some atheistic way of life, as if we have some head atheists dictating our decisions that are the opposite to what they are taught.
Being an atheists doesnt mean that you believe in anything, just that you dont believe in God. You said:
Originally Posted by st.cronin
I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

How can the idea that God does not exist be "unthinkable" as a philosophy? The existence of God is one of the biggest philosophical arguments of all time.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

How is it not when you do not have a moral compass like the bible? What I've been bad at saying in the last few posts is that is that believers treat atheism as a religion, which helps them relate, but leads them to assume other things about atheists.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by bignej

How can the idea that God does not exist be "unthinkable" as a philosophy? The existence of God is one of the biggest philosophical arguments of all time.

I simply meant that it was unthinkable to me, because of the philosophical implications - for example, that all moral judgements are relative.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I simply meant that it was unthinkable to me, because of the philosophical implications - for example, that all moral judgements are relative.

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians. I mean most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. And that pretty much breaks one of those Commandments, right? But it's relative because the guy getting electrocuted killed someone else, so he 'deserved it.' Right?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by bignej

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

Einstein pantheism has a summary of what is believed to have been Einsteins take on God if anyones interested ..

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by KWhit

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians. I mean most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. And that pretty much breaks one of those Commandments, right? But it's relative because the guy getting electrocuted killed someone else, so he 'deserved it.' Right?

I certainly wouldn't say most are in favor of it.

Speaking only of the Catholic church, again, the Church is entirely against it. The Catechism states that "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'"

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by KWhit

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians.

This is not correct. For a Christian, no moral judgements are relative. There is an absolute right and wrong.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Einstein pantheism has a summary of what is believed to have been Einsteins take on God if anyones interested ..

To Einstein, The universe was God. This is supported by the website you provided(I'm not sure how valid this website is). The website says he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God Earlier you described what he side here:

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”

Others have said that Eintein only said this to appease the masses even though Spinoza's God is quite different than the others.
Here is another quote:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

“"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ”

[QuikSand]

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

I don't mean this as a slight, but this seems to me like an excellent example of belief based on preference (something discussed a bit earlier in this thread). One's apparent discomfort with what one believes to be the logical consequences of there being no god doesn't make god exist.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't mean this as a slight, but this seems to me like an excellent example of belief based on preference (something discussed a bit earlier in this thread). One's apparent discomfort with what one believes to be the logical consequences of there being no god doesn't make god exist.

I think I agree with you about the discomfort part. But is there a distinction to be made between a preference based on something logically proven verses a preference based on feeling? I think disbelieving atheism because of one's discomfort with it may not be valid and would be belief based on preference, but disbelieving atheism because it makes morality subjective would seem valid and not based on preference. Truth is truth whether we prefer it or not.

So I guess for me the question becomes whether, in the atheist framework, morality is subjective or it is not subjective. And as far as I can discern, morality is subjective in an atheistic framework. Until I am convinced otherwise, that is a true statement that has no bearing on my preferences. I can feel good about it and prefer it or I can feel uncomfortable about it and not prefer it. But my preferences do not change whether it is or isn't truth.

[Celeval]

I wouldn't argue that morality is necessarily subjective for atheists. If there's any sort of moral code - be it a religious one, or a secular one - used as a set of rules, then that tosses that out a bit. One could argue that the basis for Christian morality is a combination of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' addition to love your neighbor as yourself. An atheist could follow those same rules without the necessity of a religious belief structure around it... similarly, "While it harms done, do as you will", or any of the variety of moral structures.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Truth is truth whether we prefer it or not.

Yes, I agree with that...

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I think disbelieving atheism because of one's discomfort with it may not be valid and would be belief based on preference, but disbelieving atheism because it makes morality subjective would seem valid and not based on preference.

...but I don't see how you can put this statement right next to it. "Disbelieving atheism" just means believing that god's existence is true. (Right?) How can you reach that conclusion just by deciding that you don't like what atheism leads to in some respect, without betraying your statement I quoted above?

If you believe just because of a hunch or a feeling or an inspiration, I get that. It doesn't have any persuasive value, but there's nothing for another person to really criticize from a logical perspective.

What I genuinely don't understand is trying to defend what you believe to be true based on your personal preferences of what you wish to be true. Saying that you believe in god because that avoids an uncomfortable moral relativism (a conclusion I reject, incidentally) just doesn't hold any sway with most nonbelievers... what bearing could that possibly have on what is actually true?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by bignej

To Einstein, The universe was God. This is supported by the website you provided(I'm not sure how valid this website is). The website says he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God Earlier you described what he side here:

Yeah in retrospect using his quote in that way wasn't the brightest decision - I used it because its a catchy quote without realising that it'd be taken as meaning that Einstein believed that God was personal.

Spinoza's God as I believe it is pretty much the same thing, the main difference being 'semantics' I think Spinoza's definition tends to indicate that its 'nature' rather than the universe being God - but the general gist of both (as I understand it) is that God isn't a personal God at all.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Celeval

I wouldn't argue that morality is necessarily subjective for atheists. If there's any sort of moral code - be it a religious one, or a secular one - used as a set of rules, then that tosses that out a bit. One could argue that the basis for Christian morality is a combination of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' addition to love your neighbor as yourself. An atheist could follow those same rules without the necessity of a religious belief structure around it... similarly, "While it harms done, do as you will", or any of the variety of moral structures.

Morality for aetheists (and society in general imho) is mainly based upon what the members of a society believe is ultimately good for the society they live within.

That is if something is seen as harmful to society then its considered immoral.

Examples of this can be easily found - random murder for instance harms society by making people scared and removing productive members of society, however soldiers are not seen as immoral because they're acting on the intent of society as a whole.

Religious morals are set by the scripture/beliefs of individual religions and are often the cause of friction within a society because there is normally very limited flexibility within them for change.

Thus within most societies today homosexuals are generally accepted because their actions are harmless to the overall population and indeed help reduce the problems of over population on the planet (I've actually conjectured with friends that in the future its possible that homosexuality will be openly encouraged by goverments for this reason).

However some religions have a problem with homosexuality because its against the tenets of the religions involved.

The problem with the inflexibility of religion is that it ignores the fact that the world has changed hugely since the tenets were originally drawn up and the reasoning behind some of the laws may no longer be valid.

For instance the Jewish reasoning for not eating pork is scriptural, however its been frequently conjectured that at that point in history it would have been dangerous to eat pork because of problems with storing it (and so that might have been the reason for the scripture). This situation has altered but the law remains intact.

Similarly homosexuality it could be conceived was discouraged because reproduction was imperative in a religion thriving because of the high death rates/low life spans at the time when religions were conceived - however again today the opposite (ie. population explosion) is more of a concern generally.

NB> The above of course relies upon the obvious 'human' reasons for the religious laws being the true ones, but does bring to light possible problems with religions not updating themselves .... especially as within at least one (Christianity) they have in the past updated themselves (ie. the changes between the old and new testament) in lines with society.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by bignej

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

"[God] does not play dice." was Einstein's response to quantum theory, which he didn't buy into. He wasn't making a statement about what God knows or that the future is predetermined or for any other religious or philosophical reason. He was just making a catchy phrase to mock quantum theory.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Morality for aetheists (and society in general imho) is mainly based upon what the members of a society believe is ultimately good for the society they live within.

I think that's painting with too wide a brush. If you take atheists to be the sum of all people who don't believe in God, then I don't think you can say that even most of them subscribe to the same general idea of morality.

I do agree with your points about social morality, though; and I think that can apply to religious as well. While much of my morality is based on the Catholic faith, it's not wholly so - societal norms have an influence as well. To use your example, I have no problem with homosexuality.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is not correct. For a Christian, no moral judgements are relative. There is an absolute right and wrong.

This is what I see as a HUGE problem with Christianity. If what you say is true then no Christian actually has their own morals, they simply follow blindly with whatever morality was dictated to them.

Without considering your moral dilemmas for yourself and making a your own informed decision you lose the very essence of who you are. You are not a free person choosing your path in life, you become nothing more than an automaton regurgitating someone else's philosophy.

If this is true it totally discounts your ability to carry an argument, because its not you making the choices, its some scribe 2000 years ago who made your mind up for you. you're credibility in any discussion thereby becomes tainted and less in almost any discussion you join. Its frustrating for those of us who don't follow a dogma because no matter how hard we try and put faith in your arguments and opinions we have to factor in that its not YOUR argument or opinion. it invalidates you to a very large extent.

Again just to remind everyone reading this, it is MY PoV, i don't mean to imply this opinion fits to anyone beyond myself.

[Marc Vaughan]

This is what I see as a HUGE problem with Christianity. If what you say is true then no Christian actually has their own morals, they simply follow blindly with whatever morality was dictated to them.

I'd disagree with this on two stances:

* Firstly no one is born into a religion, everyone gets to choose whether they subscribe to a religion or not. As such if they disagree vehemently with a religions morals they can opt out - thus every Christian has chosen the morals dictated within that religion.
* Every believer of a faith has a unique belief in it, that is ask two christians to describe what Jesus looked like and generally you'll get slightly different answers. In a similar manner what believers believe is moral differs slightly depending upon the person.