Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[Jon Miller]

In fact, the main verses that were used to say that slavery were OK (Which actually only say that slaves should obey their masters) also say that it is better to be free than a slave and one should always be free. It is a far cry from that to some crazy and ludicrous interpretation that one should enslave your fellows.

JM

[Elok]

Forget about any particular moral belief for the moment, if you will. Consider "morality" to be simply any code of rules governing human behavior/relationships, claiming absolute priority and universal jurisdiction. That is, the moral thing to do is what everyone is expected to do, regardless of other considerations. You should (ideally) be moral even if it's dangerous or unprofitable, or involves personal sacrifice. The only variables changing the situation are those which modify the moral nature of the situation by bringing different rules into the picture. Again, ideally speaking; we can allow for human weakness, but we have to recognize it as a weakness.

If you take this as a fair definition (and I do), you cannot justify any morality, regardless of what it says, without positing some force or goal that is not materially apparent. Ayn Rand's morality, and Sartre's, and Hammurabi's, and everyone else's must all be reduced to begging the question.

[Elok]

I have no interest in arguing over whether or not scripture justifies this or that or the other thing. I'm trying to keep this on an abstract or theoretical level, for a whole variety of reasons. Mostly because that's an argument we haven't had ten thousand times, and isn't as welcoming to idiot trolls.

[Addled Platypus]

Ive been agnostic for awhile....beats being sciencetolowacky

nice to see the polls catching up to me

[Imran Siddiqui]

Many religious people assume that because there is no moral framework for those that do not believe, that the result of increased secularism would lead to a downfall of civilisation.

The moral framework underlying our civilization, however, is a "Judeo-Christian" one. Nietzsche was one of those who was able to see that if you got rid of God (or the Christian God to be more specific in the European context), you have to kind of start over in terms of morality. One of the reasons believers tend to respect Nietzsche was that he was honest about what it meant to fully reject a Christian worldview.

[kentonio]

Whether it's the prospect of damnation or whatever, morals have a purpose when a supernatural element is injected. Without that element, morals are a fairly arbitrary set of rules, easily and sensibly broken by those in the right circumstances when they see that the good of "society" and their own good overlap only in a very limited way. Also the very character of moral demands is vastly altered. Jesus (or Buddha, or Mohammad, or...) can ask me to give without hope of return, to turn the other cheek, to live for others.

I'd consider that as much of a waste of a life as someone who spends it in completely selfish abandon.

A naturalist can only tell me that certain behaviors will, on average and in general, optimize my chances of survival. And when it comes to high-risk, no-return activities--such as sheltering impoverished Jews from the Nazis, risking my life for the powerless--you can't give me a reason not to say "tough luck" and tell myself I did all that could reasonably expected of me as I send them off to the camps. Can you?

Why should I give you a reason? We give people incentives to live in a society friendly way and penalties for acting in a way that hurts society. I see no need to try and threaten people into thinking and living within a strictly defined set of rules however. Do unto others really isn't a bad moral code.

Among the loudest cheerleaders for murdering the hell out of Muslim "barbarians" until they learn our superior values: Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.
Among the loudest voices against same: Roman Catholic Church.

Oversimplify much?

Err, crusades much?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Err, crusades much?

Well this is going to be fun if we can talk about Stalin and Mao's killing sprees

[regexcellent]

I think most of the teachings of mainline Christian sects and Judaism as they pertain to your basic lifestyle are lessons to live by for everyone. Not things like going to church or dietary laws necessarily, but how to treat other people and yourself.

[Elok]

I'd consider that as much of a waste of a life as someone who spends it in completely selfish abandon.

And that's where we disagree.

Why should I give you a reason? We give people incentives to live in a society friendly way and penalties for acting in a way that hurts society. I see no need to try and threaten people into thinking and living within a strictly defined set of rules however. Do unto others really isn't a bad moral code.

Then you don't believe that morals are, in fact, genuine, objective/universal, and utterly imperative. This is what I was talking about: for the sincere Christian, the good life is a resounding call to self-emptying love, to radical transformation of the self. I kind of suck at it, but this, for me, is a true moral imperative. Take God/the supernatural out of the equation and you wind up with a set of, in essence, suggestions--justified by things like genetic propagation. And if society hasn't adequately incentivized a certain behavior, you really have no reason to play along with it that I can see.

Err, crusades much?

My point was not that religious people are all good and the irreligious all bad. I was merely countering his claim that being irreligious makes you a kinder, more empathetic person who can see other human beings as equals.

[onodera]

Elok, if you say that the purpose of religion is to provide a moral code, doesn't that reduce its mystical aspect to a noble lie? Does it have to be a religion that provides that code? Chinese have lived a long time with Kongzi's moral code standing on its own, with no mystical help.
I myself abandoned religion after realizing that there are many of them and none can prove that it's the true one. The Bible claims Elijah challenged the priests of Baal and won, but who dares replicate his success? Without divine manifestation, the ethical, mystical and ritualistic aspects of religion come apart. If I have to pick one based on what moral code I like best or whose churches are the most lavish, why should I pick one at all?

[Elok]

Well this is going to be fun if we can talk about Stalin and Mao's killing sprees

For crying out loud, don't. Human beings are, on the whole, a crummy little race of morally mediocre people who will be good and merciful only so long as the cost to themselves is so low as to be practically nonexistent. The goal of a Christian life should be to change that, but most people fail and wind up no better than atheists put in the same material situation. Was Robespierre a better person than Torquemada? Who cares?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Elok, if you say that the purpose of religion is to provide a moral code, doesn't that reduce its mystical aspect to a noble lie?

I think you missed the part of the "radical transformation of the self". The moral code is part of it, but can't really exist without the existance of the mystical aspect.

[Elok]

Elok, if you say that the purpose of religion is to provide a moral code, doesn't that reduce its mystical aspect to a noble lie? Does it have to be a religion that provides that code? Chinese have lived a long time with Kongzi's moral code standing on its own, with no mystical help.

I wouldn't say that's the "purpose of religion." At the very least, I wouldn't phrase it so. Different religions have different aims in mind. The Orthodox faith calls us to theosis, the deification of our nature. Moral behavior is inextricably entwined with that. I don't know a lot about Confucius, but I seem to recall that his code is actually more about ritual than morals per se. Specifically, maintaining correct social order through a crap-ton of ceremonial observances which have to be followed to the letter. And those rituals in turn are correct because they maintain social order. They're self-justifying, which is to say not justified at all by my book.

I myself abandoned religion after realizing that there are many of them and none can prove that it's the true one. The Bible claims Elijah challenged the priests of Baal and won, but who dares replicate his success? Without divine manifestation, the ethical, mystical and ritualistic aspects of religion come apart. If I have to pick one based on what moral code I like best or whose churches are the most lavish, why should I pick one at all?

The lavishness of churches is irrelevant. As for the moral code, it's not a matter of liking or preference--that's putting it far too mildly. But I'm not going to try and convince you. My goal here is to explain why I'm not an atheist despite exposure to the seeming panacea of Modern Science.

[regexcellent]

What I remember about Confucius is that his writing struck me as more about obeying authority (parents/grandparents, those higher on the social strata) than anything else.

[onodera]

But why are you an Orthodox, Elok, and not a Hindu or a Salafi or a Scientologist? You're not a Cafeteria Christian, I suppose, but why do you think that your prepackaged meal is the right one? How, when confronted by a throng of religions all claiming to be the right one, did you determine which one was really the right one?