should Christians be different?

[fatherphil]

should they (we) be expected to behave any differently than atheists and in what way?

[Purple Smartie]

I'm young and naïve and I think that everyone should act respectfully and responsibly at all times, regardless of their religious or cultural beliefs. Mutual respect is not religious in my opinion, it is just the way things should be. I think accountability for one's actions is important too - usually nobody is responsible for your behaviour but yourself. Some Christians might think that they can be excused for not acting respectfully towards others by asking their God for forgiveness. I think if we do wrong by someone else, we ought to ask THEM for forgiveness. All we have in this life is everyone around us, so it would be in our best interest to get along.

[Theli]

I'm not sure what you mean by differently, could you put the question into a context?

[Zora]

If a Christian is telling me that his way of life/belief is better than mine (atheist), I would expect him or her to embody the virtues he/she is trying to convince me come along with the Christian belief system. (A vapid expression and a "knowledge" of an afterlife/supreme being do not qualify as a virtue to me.)

Example: A Christian acquaintance who lied to me about the reasons for cancelling plans, when the truth would have been just as acceptable.

Example: A Christian couple who attends church every Sunday, but pulled a fast one on the sale of some business assets to avoid paying tax.

Example: A Christian acquaintance who gossips about everyone, puts down all other religious groups (especially Catholic and Jews) and dismisses the accomplishments of non-Christians, such as Ghandi and Buddha.

Example: Another Christian acquaintance who says she is not concerned about violence against women or children, protecting the environment, the ozone layer or anything else, because we are in the "end times" so who cares.

The above examples are all from the "Evangelical" "Born Again" types who are ALWAYS telling me how much better off I'd be if I would just accept Jesus.

Now, these people may or may not be typical Christians, but they are certainly representative of those I have come in contact with in my 55 years. They, however, think they are great Christians. Do I "expect" them to act "differently"....no. In fact, I don't see ANY difference in their behavior over any other religious or non-religious group. That's the problem.

[everlastingtongue]

My pet-peeve regarding this issue:

Every time I flip through the yellow pages looking for a plumber, electrician, dentist, etc., I always seem to come across ads sporting the jesus fish…like I’m supposed to believe that these vendors would somehow be more honest and reputable?

I find it offensive that these people are attempting to use their beliefs, or supposed beliefs, in order to try and make additional money.

[abe smith]

Well, Phil... Guy said "By their fruits ye shall know them." I will forbear to utter the rest of the sermon; must be several-million boring ones already in print or winging to Alpha Centauri, out there.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
should they (we) be expected to behave any differently than atheists and in what way?
Interesting question, fatherphil.

From my point of view, I would have to say "no." Why - because I believe that we all get our morals from the same place - our parents, upbringing, society, a bit of genetics thrown in for good measure. So - it's no big shock to me that if you look at Christian behavior in various countries, you see more parallels between the Christians and non-Christians within the same country, than you do Christians from one country and Christians from another country.

However, I do believe that there could be subtle differences between theists and non-theists. One major difference is the belief in an afterlife. My opinion is that the belief in a good afterlife for those who believe, and a bad afterlife for those who don't, is the ultimate form of arrogance.

I think I act arrogant from time to time and "above" other people because I think I'm a smart atheist, or a smart med student, or a good scrabble player, or whatever. But it's hard to conjure up the kind of arrogance you need to condemn entire races or groups of people with the specific belief "you go nowhere when you die except the ground, and neither do I."

I realize that many Christians don't believe in literal heaven and hell, and they don't go around condemning people. Heaven is to many people a great comfort, and solace for when they lose loved ones. But even in the most liberal apologist, there seems to be a subtle "I'm going to heaven, you might not be" in their belief structure. I have no idea how to test or study this theory, but I'd be interested to know if this belief has negative or positive consequences (or no consequences) for society as a whole.

scigirl

[The Other Michael]

Originally posted by Zora
Example: Another Christian acquaintance who says she is not concerned about violence against women or children, protecting the environment, the ozone layer or anything else, because we are in the "end times" so who cares.

My, that sounds just like one of those nihilistic atheists who deny God so that they can do anything they want.

cheers,
Michael

[Aravnah Ornan]

Originally posted by abe smith
Well, Phil... Guy said "By their fruits ye shall know them." I will forbear to utter the rest of the sermon; must be several-million boring ones already in print or winging to Alpha Centauri, out there. You beat me to it. Also, Gal. 5:22-23 says the following:But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

[Biff the unclean]

should they (we) be expected to behave any differently than atheists and in what way?
No. The question is, why do Christians?
I'm afraid that implied in your statement is "should Christians behave better than Atheists?" But implied in my reply is "why do Christians behave worse than Atheists?"
I can't help but notice that on these boards there is a great deal of duplicity being practiced by Christians. Though some of it can be attributed to ignorance most of it cannot. I can't help but wonder why this is.
I'm left with the impression that many Christians consider this board some class of a game. A game that you can somehow win. And that it is so important to win that they sometimes cheat. That, somehow, the knowledge and information to be gained is of no use to them whatsoever…only "winning" no matter what.

[fatherphil]

arav, if you don't believe in the existence of a Holy Spirit, how can you think it could realistically influence someone's behaviour. if there is no God, everything the evil christian does can and should be attributed to the nature of mankind.

hope you're not talking about me, biff.

[Zora]

I thought the question was "should Christians be expected to act differently"..so the Christian book was quoted, and the passages were those that were telling Christians how to act, by authority of the Holy Spirit the Christians said they believed in.

I don't see anything in the post that implies that the poster believed the Christian book, or in the Holy Spirit/s about which it was written.

[Biff the unclean]

hope you're not talking about me, biff.
I tend to hang out on the GRD threads and was referring to the behavior of Christians there. There Christians do hold themselves to a different set of standards than those they hold Atheists to. A much lower set of standards.
For instance recently in a thread about the rapture there were posted fourteen or fifteen passages from the NT in which Jesus clearly and plainly states that his second coming would be during that generation. In several he becomes even more specific stating that he would return in the lifetime of some who were standing listening to him.
The Christian position that was advanced on these dozen plus repetitions of the same prophecy was that they all didn't say what they so clearly said. They were somehow metaphor even though no metaphoric language had been used. And the reason? Because we know that Jesus did not return then, which would mean that it was a false prophecy therefore they did not say what they said.

I haven't seen you do this. You've got a bit of a problem with arrogance and a double standard as evidenced by this thread and your interaction with Zora but you don't tell blatant lies as is the Christian norm here at II

[braces_for_impact]

Many Christians claim a moral high ground, believing their ethics are handed down from an omnibenevolent, perfect being. Since they make this extraordinary claim, we should see the results in their behavior. One should be able to notice a higher standard of behavior in how Christians act with one another and others.

In my experience, this has not been the case in both the past actions of Christianity as a whole, and Christianity today. I meet many Christians in my day to day life. Some are aquaintances, some are friends, etc. All seem to behave in a similar fashion when it comes to morals or ethics. The only difference I have noticed is that when one who is apathetic to religion does another wrong, they feel guilty because of the act. When a religious person does something wrong, they seem to feel guilt because their omnipresent god is watching their behavior.

If one claims the moral high ground, then one should accept that others will hold you to a higher standard. To complain and say "Well I'm still a sinful human" doesn't cut it. While a Christian may still be a sinful human, we should see an overall difference in moral value when compared to someone of a different religion, or one who has no religion at all. Yet this has never seemed apparent to outside observers. Curiously, it only seems apparent to Christians.

[fatherphil]

biff, what interaction with zora are you referring to?

but again, if that higher being does not exist how can one expect them to behave any differently than any other group of humans?

[scigirl]

Hi again fatherphil,

Originally posted by fatherphil
but again, if that higher being does not exist how can one expect them to behave any differently than any other group of humans?
I think you are making a false dichotomy here. It isn't that we believe behavior is influenced by nothing. It's that we believe behavior is influenced by things other than a deity.

I personally believe that behavior is influenced by a whole host of factors (which I already listed). So if Christians tend to have a difference in one of those "factors," such as perhaps the belief that they are going to heaven while others are not, this belief, in and of itself, irrespective of whether it's true or not, my cause their behavior to be different than non-believers.

Surely if I believe I am a big fuzzy rabbit, this will affect my behavior, irrespective of whether or not I am a big fuzzy rabbit.

Hope this makes sense - I've had 3 cups of coffee already today!

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

biff, what interaction with zora are you referring to?
but again, if that higher being does not exist how can one expect them to behave any differently than any other group of humans?
The interaction with Zora that was in the blurbs immediately preceding my comment. They do not reflect well on you.

Since there is no god you would still expect people who ascribed to a philosophy to behave according to that philosophy.
And, in truth, you do see that here amongst the Christians on this board. Unfortunately. The Christian philosophy appears to be based on disdain for the human race. It is "fallen", everyone is a "sinner", no one is "good", finite human intelligence, it needs "salvation", man can't even be moral without outside help…on and on it contemptuously drones about how "unworthy" people are.
This misanthropic cancer which is the bases…apparently…of Christianity is seen daily on these boards. The Christians are reduced to this state by their unfounded belief in this nonexistent being. While the being isn't real, they are.
It eludes me, considering morality is the codified dealings with humans by other humans, how a group could develop a morality not based on respect for humans. But the very belief in nonexistent superheroes in the sky eludes me too.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
The Christian philosophy appears to be based on disdain for the human race. It is "fallen", everyone is a "sinner", no one is "good", finite human intelligence, it needs "salvation", man can't even be moral without outside help…on and on it contemptuously drones about how "unworthy" people are.
Yet the unworthy Christian sinners still think they are better than the unworthy un-saved sinners.

Heh very good analysis though. I have always thought that Christianity was this weird hybrid philosophy of "I'm worthless, but I"m saved, but I'm still worthless, but I'm saved" spiral. Very strange. Kind of like a bipolar disorder belief system, only weirder.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by scigirl
Kind of like a bipolar disorder belief system, only weirder.

scigirl

I find it strange that they live in a fantasy about how a Christian "should" act but care very little about how Christians "do" act. Their history and current behavior matches exactly what you would expect of a philosophy that holds humans in contempt. Yet when asked they disown these real Christians and carry on about some nonexistent Christian ideal of saintliness. This very thread is based on fictional Christian behavior.

[fatherphil]

but how could they act any differently than any other group of humans and why would the atheist, knowing there is no God, expect them to be able to behave any better than the rest of humanity?

[Biff the unclean]

but how could they act any differently than any other group of humans and why would the atheist, knowing there is no God, expect them to be able to behave any better than the rest of humanity?
The problem isn't with them behaving "better." The problem is with them behaving worse.
In retail it's a scam called "the old bait and switch."
In your advertising Christianity is all bright and shiny. Oooooh, Christian behavior is ever so nice. Why that's "very Christian" of you kind sir.
BUT, when you've plunked down your cash, taken it home and gotten it out of the box you find Christianity is nothing like you've been told. Every virtue they supposedly honor in reality they disdain. They hold humanity in contempt. They have no conception of intellectual honesty. The little time they spend not arguing that what isn't there really is, they are claiming that what is right in front of your face doesn't exist.

But your question in the OP was should you be expected to behave any differently. My answer is a resounding NO. You should be expected to have the same high moral standards that Atheists exhibit. Since there is no god there is no real excuse for Christian (mis)behavior.

[Zora]

I do not, as an atheist, expect Christians to behave any differently (any better) than any other group of people, religious or non-religious. I have not seen a shred of evidence that Christians behave any better. I have not seen more kindness, consideration, intelligence, tolerance or anything else among Christians than among other religious or non-religious groups. In fact, based on this observation and my interaction with Christians, I conclude that there is no God influencing their behavior...no savior that is redeeming them over any other group of people and that they are in no way more deserving of an afterlife than any other group, religious or non-religious.

All I have seen is a group of people who continue to tell me and others, both religious and non-religious, that they are better than us...a normal human "birds of a feather" tendency which has expressed itself throughout recorded history through clans, tribes, cults, societies, nations, etc.

By continuing to argue that we as atheists have no right to expect better behavior from Christians, you are making my point that there is no difference between Christians and any other religious or non-religious group. Is that what you are trying to prove? (Am I misunderstanding you???)

To recap: I do not expect Christians to behave better. If Christians want me to believe they are better because of their faith, they are going to have to prove it.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
why would the atheist, knowing there is no God, expect them to be able to behave any better than the rest of humanity?
I don't. I expect them to either behave the same, or worse, for reasons I have already stated in the thread.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by scigirl
I don't. I expect them to either behave the same, or worse, for reasons I have already stated in the thread.

scigirl


And that's the "bait & Switch" because there is an ideal of behavior which was being alluded to in the OP. In fact it's even called "Christian Behavior." The problem is that Christians do not now nor have they ever behaved that way. This however, does not stop them from capitalizing from this fictional behavior by associating themselves with it, while at the same time disassociating with non-fictional Christians. Again see OP.

[fatherphil]

i'm not sure you can support the argument that they, as a whole, behave any worse than the rest of humanity.

what is the ratio of charitable organizations under a Christian banner to those operating under non-Christian headship?

[fatherphil]

Originally posted by Zora
By continuing to argue that we as atheists have no right to expect better behavior from Christians, you are making my point that there is no difference between Christians and any other religious or non-religious group. Is that what you are trying to prove? (Am I misunderstanding you???)

To recap: I do not expect Christians to behave better. If Christians want me to believe they are better because of their faith, they are going to have to prove it.

i'm not sure i'm really out to "prove" anything, just inviting discussion.

as a Christian, i don't hold that my faith makes me any better than anyone else. but it should make me strive to behave if not better, at least in keeping with some of the tenants already quoted from scripture on this thread.

[the_cave]

Well, EVERYONE should behave different, if you see what I mean! If you mean "different from the generalized egotistical materialistic apathy that has always dominated society".

The problem is on the definition of "better". If Christians and atheists have different goals for humanity, then they're going to have different definitions of "better".

So let's assume for simplicity's sake that there are Christians and atheists who have the same goals for humanity. Overall happiness, lack of harm, sufficient resources for the enjoyment of everyone, etc.

So, do these Christians really have a different ethics than these atheists? I'm not so sure--and I'm not sure there needs to be one in the name of faith. To me, Christianity exhibits an ethic of maximalized charity and mercy (coupled with a pragmatic concern for deterence and punishment in the name of recompense and restoration) exhibited by the willful co-suffering of the crucifixion, yet freed from all anxiety and sorrow by the Resurrection.

If atheists can achieve a similar ethic without the example of the ministry, cruxifiction, and resurrection of Christ, I'm not going to stop them.

Because, in the end, if they can achieve such an ethic, then they become examples of virtuous pagans--who, pace Dante, may be justified, if they are unable or unwilling to accept the gospel for good reasons (or so is my understanding of current Church teaching). The natural law, after all, is written on everyone's heart.

I find Christianity to be the best expression of this ethic, but on a day to day basis, there need not necessarily be much of an observable difference between the actions of a thoughtful Christian and a thoughtful atheist, but again, that's because I think a thoughtful atheist would be drawing upon ethical sources which the Christian would call "God", even if the atheist didn't recognize them as such.

Would that all Christians were able to live up to their own standards. Of course, thoughtful Christians are acutely aware of their own shortcomings. As I am sure are thoughtful atheists.

[Armchair dissident]

what is the ratio of charitable organizations under a Christian banner to those operating under non-Christian headship?

I don't see how which banner a charitable organisation operates under can be considered a measure of the ethical behaivour of christians. Especially when one considers that a charity will accept a donation without requiring a test of faith. If you instead wish to ask "what is the ratio of christian spending on charity to non-christian spending on charity", I suspect you'd be dissapointed to see the results. Most christians have enough trouble convincing themselves to part with anything vaguely resembling a tithe, let along going one step further and actively support even one charity.

Furthermore, I would contend that "non-christian" charities (or those that are not specifically "christian") actually vastly outnumber the christian ones. Of course, I'm prepared to corrected on this.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
what is the ratio of charitable organizations under a Christian banner to those operating under non-Christian headship? [/B]
Not sure either. I think one thing you can't ignore by using this line of reasoning is that many Christians think it's a sin to not tithe to their church. I have no such belief system.

However, you could start here if you really wanted to analyze that question. I don't really have the time to address this issue:

http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp

scigirl

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by fatherphil
what is the ratio of charitable organizations under a Christian banner to those operating under non-Christian headship?
If you ever find these numbers, please remember that churches themselves qualify as charities, and it should be clear that much of what churches spend is not exactly "charitable". For example, the entire church infrastructure, including the building and beautifying of church buildings.

[scigirl]

If you ever find these numbers, please remember that churches themselves qualify as charities, and it should be clear that much of what churches spend is not exactly "charitable". For example, the entire church infrastructure, including the building and beautifying of church buildings.
Good point. Actually, that simply means you can admit into evidence all the money the non-christians spend on art or cultural things.

scigirl

[fatherphil]

surely church accounting regulations require differentiating the type of expendetures it is making. would repair of the toilet facilities in a church soup kitchen be alright with you folks?

[scigirl]

Ok I think we are now comparing apples and oranges, and probably straying off the topic that fatherphil intended to discuss.

Anyway, since you started this thread, why don't you tell us what you think? Should Christians be more moral than atheists? And are they? How would you go about ascertaining the answer to the second question? How would you plan on measuring "morality" if, say, the NIH handed you a grant to study this subject?

My suggestion is that if you want to use charitable donations, you need to define what counts as a charity and what doesn't. If a church rennovation project counts, I think an art museum rennovation should count.

Also, are you going to use raw dollars, or amount of people donating, or percentage of income? If Bill Gates is an atheist, for example, you might have a problem, since he's donated millions and millions to charity.

Just some things to think about - from the research methodology police! ;)

scigirl

[fatherphil]

boy, how to define morality is the real challenge here.
lets take something i think we can all agree is immoral like rape.

i would expect that the incidence of those committing rape should be less for the Christian population than for the population at large. wouldn't you?

here is a mental excercise: lets say you are in the worst part of town at mid-night surrounded by 30 of its more youthful inhabitants. would you rather they be coming from their local church youth group meeting or from the local public park?

[the_cave]

Originally posted by the_cave
Because, in the end, if they can achieve such an ethic, then they become examples of virtuous pagans--who, pace Dante

Gee, that shouldn't have been pace, should it? It should've been contra...

I guess for some reason "pace" has always had, to me, the connotation of "in spite of". I can't really explain this.

[Armchair dissident]

My suggestion is that if you want to use charitable donations, you need to define what counts as a charity and what doesn't. If a church rennovation project counts, I think an art museum rennovation should count.

Church renovations and art museums aside, this is a very important point when discussing charity. Two of the charities I support are not recognised as charities in my country. One of these (Amnesty International) very clearly takes on actions normally associated with a charity, but because the UK government considers their actions to be too politically motivated, they're consistently refused charitable status.

Ironically, Amnesty has some christian overtones in it's publications - it's not something I have a problem with: their work is too important to worry about what religion those running the organisation believe. But regarding fatherpills' argument:
Should they be considered a christian charity given that they're not overtly christian, and in many countries they're not recognised as a charity?

If they are considered christian, how then does his argument regarding christian charities hold when members of the charity are not christian.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
boy, how to define morality is the real challenge here.

I agree. Defining "christian" and "atheist" are also a bit tricky, as I'll elaborate more on later.

i would expect that the incidence of those committing rape should be less for the Christian population than for the population at large. wouldn't you?
Well technically as a scientist, you would assume the null hypothesis is true (in this case, that the rape rates are equal between the two groups), and then look for data to disprove your hypothesis! ;)

But - your results are all going to depend on how you define your population. For example, if you define "Christian" as "people who regularly go to church" and "non-christian" as "people who don't go to church at all," you may find a difference in rape rate. However, you may also have confouding factors such as income status, employment, and a huge one - age.

If you, however, stuck to "people who describe themselves as christian" and "people who describe themselves as atheist," then you might find the atheists are committing less crime. However, "level of education" may be a confounding factor here.

The best type of study for what you want to do is a crossover study. Find people who used to be atheist, and became christian, and vice versa. This would control for a lot of factors, and include people who are actively believing or actively disbelieving, instead of just saying they are Christian (or atheist) because that's what they were raised as. Then you define your outcome measures (rape rate, crime, whatever) and question away!

Oh man, I wish I could do this study - you and I could co-chair it so there's no accusation of bias. You got a couple thousand and some free time? I sure don't, but it would be really cool!

FYI - There have been studies done like this, in terms of health outcomes. Click here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59082) for an infidel thread which discusses studies similar to what you want to do. This site that I bashed in that thread made an intolerable scientific mistake: they kept changing their definition of "religious people". In one study, it was church-goers. In another, it was people who believed in a higher power, and so on.
here is a mental excercise: lets say you are in the worst part of town at mid-night surrounded by 30 of its more youthful inhabitants. would you rather they be coming from their local church youth group meeting or from the local public park?
Absolutely. However, I would feel equally safe, if the group was a local chapter of the Physics society, or the Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver (the latter, by the way, is where I met my current boyfriend!)

A group of people who congregate to do something constructive, versus a group of people who hang out for the purpose of committing crimes. I don't think that is a useful comparison.

scigirl

[Armchair dissident]

i would expect that the incidence of those committing rape should be less for the Christian population than for the population at large. wouldn't you?

Now here's the strange thing: you would, wouldn't you.

But it's strange: my dad used to be a prison officer (yes, I know, second hand experience is not proof), and would you adam and eve it: most of the sex offenders were christian, and believed in god. They weren't atheists (atheist sex offenders were almost unheard of), they were christians.

I understand that studies conducted in America show the same thing.

[Zora]

I am not sure charity is a result of Christianity. I think prosperity is the mother of charity. Romans had welfare systems before Christianity, as did other prosperous societies. Here in the US, poor black children were starving to death in Mississippi in the 1960's. In Missouri and Arkansas, in the first part of the 20th century, descriptions of life among poor families was apalling and there was no charity to help them. Obviously, Christianity was prevalent in the society and dominant in those geographic locations. When everyone is living hand-to-mouth, there is nothing to spare for charity "Little House on the Prairie" notwithstanding.

Charity is also a function of increased understanding, much of which has come to our society via the non-religious: scientists and social reformers. (Ex: Disease isn't caused by demons, its germs, so its OK to help out the sick person because he isn't being punished by God.)

There aren't specific organizations for the non-religious. The non-religious and non-Christians give in various ways...habitat for humanity, grants to the library, donations to veteran's organizations. Now, my tax money is being doled out to religious charities.

In the event of profund, long-term economic disaster in the US, charity (we're talking monetary charity here, not just kindness and forgiveness) would be largely gone, including Christian charity.

the_cave, I am not unknowingly drawing on the Christian God for my ethics. This is something Christians tell themselves so they can explain how an atheist can have ethics. My ethics are not written on my heart, they occur in my brain. They are derived from a variety of sources. You don't get to snatch them up for your God, as is the Christian habit for all the good man does.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
most of the sex offenders were christian, and believed in god. They weren't atheists (atheist sex offenders were almost unheard of), they were christians.

I understand that studies conducted in America show the same thing.
All right- to be fair, I have to bash these studies as well. If I remember correctly, they asked the prisoners about their current religious persuasion. You would really need to do a retrospective study, or even a longitudinal one. Find out what their religious beliefs were at the time of committing the crime.

The reason I say this is because I remember reading somewhere that a lot of convicted felons convert to Christianity in prison. I'm sure that the idea of being forgiven of all your sins is very appealing to a group of people who committed lots of sins.

What is interesting about these studies - think about the repeat offenders. If they were indeed Christian. . . .

;)

scigirl

[fatherphil]

Originally posted by scigirl
Absolutely. However, I would feel equally safe, if the group was a local chapter of the Physics society, or the Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver (the latter, by the way, is where I met my current boyfriend!)
scigirl

chances of finding a church youth group seems greater than the two orgs you are speaking of. i'm comparing the one group, the churched, to the general population as a whole. is that not fair?

[Armchair dissident]

If you, however, stuck to "people who describe themselves as christian" and "people who describe themselves as atheist," then you might find the atheists are committing less crime. However, "level of education" may be a confounding factor here.

The best type of study for what you want to do is a crossover study. Find people who used to be atheist, and became christian, and vice versa. This would control for a lot of factors, and include people who are actively believing or actively disbelieving, instead of just saying they are Christian (or atheist) because that's what they were raised as. Then you define your outcome measures (rape rate, crime, whatever) and question away!

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Thank you: very well put!

[scigirl]

i'm comparing the one group, the churched, to the general population as a whole. is that not fair?
Fair has nothing to do with it. If you want to conclude that the specific act of church-going makes people more moral, than you need two groups that are similar to most respects except for the one thing you are trying to prove does something.

scigirl

[fatherphil]

you have concluded that the act of attending a free-thinkers coffee clutch makes for a more moral group of folks than hanging out at the local park.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Zora
the_cave, I am not unknowingly drawing on the Christian God for my ethics. This is something Christians tell themselves so they can explain how an atheist can have ethics. My ethics are not written on my heart, they occur in my brain. They are derived from a variety of sources. You don't get to snatch them up for your God, as is the Christian habit for all the good man does.

All I'm saying is that it seems to me the Christian would call "God" what the atheist would call "that which is good within me". We can at least agree that whatever it is, it exists, whether it's spiritual or material or both or neither.

I'm not trying to appropriate anything. I 'm actually just trying to make a relatively gracious claim, for a Christian ;) That is, we share the things that are actually good.

As for being written on the heart, well, it's a metaphor.

[Biff the unclean]

Nice piece of misdirection phil.

Who is more likely to lie to you a Christian or an Atheist? Who is more likely to claim to know something that they have no way of knowing?
Who is more likely to use the bible as a source and then twist what the words say?

If II is any indicator then Christians go out of their way to be far less moral than the average Atheist here..

[Biff the unclean]

The History Channel had an interesting show last week on the history of the Klu Klux Klan. I never knew what a huge organization it was. I also never knew how deeply involved in the Christian Church and Christian Charities it was.
I did know that they had (have) no Atheists for members. Nope every single last one of them is a Christian, and many under those sheets, it turns out, are actual Ministers :eek:

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
you have concluded that the act of attending a free-thinkers coffee clutch makes for a more moral group of folks than hanging out at the local park.
No, that is not what I said. Let's look at what you said again:
here is a mental excercise: lets say you are in the worst part of town at mid-night surrounded by 30 of its more youthful inhabitants. would you rather they be coming from their local church youth group meeting or from the local public park?
Please look to the left of the thread. Look at my name, and see where I'm from. It says, "Denver." Now, in most big cities - I doubt Burbank is an exception - people who hang out in a park after dark are already committing a crime by hanging out in the park after dark. I think it's after 10 here, or maybe it's 11. I don't know. But in my mind, the way you set up the scenario, you were comparing a criminal group with a non-criminal group.

So yes, I repeat myself, any group, christian or otherwise who congregated for some other purpose (bible study, atheist study) is not as likely to commit a crime in a park than a group of kids hanging out in the park after dark who are already breaking the law.

You I'm sure would feel the same. Honestly, fatherphil. Go click on some of our atheist gatherings. Here, I'll link you to some of them.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53885

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58389

You would feel safer at those atheist gatherings, than *anywhere* on Colfax Street here in Denver after dark. Irrespective of what *religion* people on Colfax street are. (Here's a hint - its where the prostitutes and drug dealers hang out.)

I stand by what I said earlier, which is this:

"Absolutely. However, I would feel equally safe, if the group was a local chapter of the Physics society, or the Atheists and Freethinkers of Denver (the latter, by the way, is where I met my current boyfriend!)

A group of people who congregate to do something constructive, versus a group of people who hang out for the purpose of committing crimes. I don't think that is a useful comparison."

Nowhere did I say that atheists at a local coffee shop were more moral than people who hang out in a park. What I said was, I would feel safer. This means that i think they would be less likely to commit the crimes I would care about as a single female walking to her car - mugging, rape, random murder, etc. That's just plain common sense.

scigirl

[scigirl]

Re-reading this thread - I remembered that fatherphil said the following:

Originally posted by fatherphil
as a Christian, i don't hold that my faith makes me any better than anyone else. but it should make me strive to behave if not better, at least in keeping with some of the tenants already quoted from scripture on this thread.
I'm afraid that fatherphil is a minority on this issue. Don't you agree, fatherphil, that the majority of Christians think that they are indeed better and more moral simply because they are Christian? Or that a really good atheist can never be as good as a really good Christian?

So - the argument "Should Christians be different?" was really started by them, not by us. It should be up to them to prove that they are better. Until then, I'm going to assume the null hypothesis - that it makes a rat's ass difference what religion you are in terms of being moral.

Ahh, love dk's saying -I'm going to use it over and over! ;)

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by scigirl
I'm afraid that fatherphil is a minority on this issue. Don't you agree, fatherphil, that the majority of Christians think that they are indeed better and more moral simply because they are Christian?

Phil seems to be making two points. One is that Christians should be and would be better by being even more Christiany. The second is that Christians are already better by virtue of being Christian.

I can't help but notice that the problems I've mentioned with Christian "morality" (if you can call it that) have been by passed and a prefab smoke screen has been erected in place of answers. I also can't help but notice that the appeal to an idealized fantasy Christian behavior, that I had complained about, instead of being explained was used. Used to counteract the very complaint that such things as it are used. The irony is thick.

[fatherphil]

Originally posted by scigirl
That's just plain common sense.

scigirl

that's is the point of my last post. i get frustrated here when i approach these issues through the use of common sense and intuition then am demanded to provide the research data and studies to back up the point. i am able to accept and respect your use of common sense and would appreciate the same consideration back. for instance a white guy who finds himself alone in the middle of the night with a bunch of black guys may find more consolation in them carrying bibles than a black guy in the middle of the night in texas surrounded by a bunch of white guys, bible or no bible. as in the case of the kkk, proclaiming the name of Christ is no guarentee on is actually adhering to His teachings. much evil is done under the false banner of good in all walks of life.

hope that helps address some of your issues biff. if not though me a one liner to tackle.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
that's is the point of my last post. i get frustrated here when i approach these issues through the use of common sense and intuition then am demanded to provide the research data and studies to back up the point.
Heh no I wasn't demanding anything. Just suggesting! ;)

I am just saying that there are many confounding variables here. Like with the park example. I'll address the "fear factor" later, but this is the point I really wanted to make:

If Christians want to demonstrate that their belief in Jesus Christ is what is causing them to be moral, than they have a few hurdles to overcome. It all depends on how you define "Christian."

Time and time again, I see Christians (not necessarily you ok!) do two things simultaneously:
1) Claim that America is predominantly Christian (so they can sneak prayer in schools, etc). But then if they want to do claim that, then they also have to accept that the majority of crimes/bad things in america are also caused by Christians. Because most people are Christian. Right?

2) Then they quickly change their tune to "Well those Christian criminals aren't real Christians." They then narrow the definition of Christian so that they can distance themselves from the Christians in jail, the Christians like Fred Phelps, etc.

Except now they have a problem, because now Christians are not a majority. They want to have it both ways - and use whatever term is convenient at the time. That thread I linked you to was a perfect example. If you read the data objectively (which of course I can't do as an atheist, but I really did try), you will find that being a Christian does NOT in fact make you more, or less, healthy than not being a Christian, if you control for other factors like income or age. Some studies indicated that certain Christian behaviors correlated (not caused - you need an intervention to prove that one) with positive health outcomes. Other Christian behaviors correlated with negative health outcomes. And still others didn't correlate at all.

However, when you read that Christian site,
http://www.dukespiritualityandhealth.org/research.html ,
they conveniently advertised only those Christian behaviors that correlated with positive health outcomes. They re-defined "Christian," and selectively quoted from scientific studies. In other words, they lied.
i am able to accept and respect your use of common sense and would appreciate the same consideration back.
Well I did criticise the "Christians in prison" study as well. What specifically are you upset with?
for instance a white guy who finds himself alone in the middle of the night with a bunch of black guys may find more consolation in them carrying bibles than a black guy in the middle of the night in texas surrounded by a bunch of white guys, bible or no bible.
That's probably true. So you illustrated my own point - it isn't about religious beliefs, it's about. . . well other things.

I thought about this thread last night, as I was walking to my car late at night (but not in a bad part of town). I wonder - since when did we define morality as things that people feel safer about? People have irrational fears. For example, people are more afraid to fly than to drive. Does that automatically make flying less safer? No it doesn't. Flying is more safe than driving.

And me - I honestly don't feel safe around any group of men late at night when I'm alone. Bible toting or not. Is that fair? No. It's just how I feel. But who is more likely to actually kill me, according to statistics? In fact, it is not a group of random guys -it is a boyfriend/lover. But - I feel safe around my current partner. That's just how it is.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

hope that helps address some of your issues biff. if not though me a one liner to tackle.
No Phil, it doesn't address my issues at all. In fact it is an illustration of my issues. You are making a claim, a boast, about "Christian behavior" that isn't real Christian Behavior while all the time distancing yourself from actual Christian behavior. That's the duplicity I was complaining about.
You seem to forget that you are addressing Atheists. Historically speaking, a crowd of people carrying bibles and fresh from church would be the most likely to burn us at the stake or lynch us. Today they are the most likely group to have their heads filled with slander against us. Christians behave abysmally towards Atheists while expecting their behavior to be admired by Atheists.
But, quite frankly, I wasn't even talking about the more melodramatic aspects of morality. I was talking about simple honesty. Having enough respect for the people you are talking to not to lie to them.
Since Christianity is based on an over riding contempt for people, Christians (as evidenced by those on this web site) will lie without giving it a second thought. They will make claims that they cannot support. They will site authority (Bible) where there is none and then they will even lie about what this false authority says.

It does seem that Atheism in itself (not being a philosophy) does not foster honesty. However those who already hold honesty and human dignity in esteem do find themselves drawn to Atheism as it doesn't oppose them as Christianity does.

[fatherphil]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean

Christianity is based on an over riding contempt for people

i don't agree with this statement, it flies in the face of the ever popular john 3:16

[Armchair dissident]

i don't agree with this statement, it flies in the face of the ever popular john 3:16
It's just a pity about john 3:19-20 ;)

[fatherphil]

its like finding yourself in the middle of the ocean and a passing boat throws you a orange life saver and you refuse it because you wanted a white one. but they only had the one. so curse them with your last breath and drown.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
its like finding yourself in the middle of the ocean and a passing boat throws you a orange life saver and you refuse it because you wanted a white one. but they only had the one. so curse them with your last breath and drown.
What's that like again? Sounds like my patients who don't want to exercise or change their diet (which would save their life), they instead want a lifesaver in lime green, and well we just don't make them that color.

Anyway - have you thought about how you personally would define moral, christian, and atheist, in order to address the question you asked in the op?

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

i don't agree with this statement, it flies in the face of the ever popular john 3:16
You've got to be kidding. John 3:16 is one of the most contemptuous things ever written about mankind.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
It presents mankind as being "fallen." Humans are damned by the mere fact that they are humans. They need a human sacrifice, no--a god sacrifice--humans aren't good enough-- to save their sorry asses from perishing.
It's a disgusting display of misanthropy.

its like finding yourself in the middle of the ocean and a passing boat throws you a orange life saver and you refuse it because you wanted a white one. but they only had the one. so curse them with your last breath and drown.
No, it's like you were sitting in a restaurant in mid-town Manhattan and someone hits you in the face with an orange lifesaver and knocks out your teeth. Then they demand gratitude for their behavior on the grounds that they saved you from drowning.
The Christian idea of salvation isn't love, it's disdain. It is a baseless view of the human race as something sinful and "unworthy." This contempt for mankind is reflected in Christian behavior.

[fatherphil]

well biff, its better than having moses trying to talk God out of wiping us all out again.

scigirl, assuming that scripture its true, i would base morality upon the two basic tennants:

love God with all my heart & love my neighbor as i love myself.
i guess the atheist is exempt from the first point.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
its better than having moses trying to talk God out of wiping us all out again.
...
love God with all my heart & love my neighbor as i love myself.

:eek:

Sorry but the juxtaposition of those statements really. . . wow. Yeah.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

well biff, its better than having moses trying to talk God out of wiping us all out again.
And yet another rabidly anti-human story comes out of this religion.
love God with all my heart & love my neighbor as i love myself.
i guess the atheist is exempt from the first point.
Yes.
But since you are taught by your religion that you are a sinner, you are fallen, you are unworthy, etc. etc. then "loving" your neighbor as yourself ipso facto makes your neighbor into a miserable sinner. So making claims to your neighbor that you cannot support, lying to him, becomes no big deal. He's not "good" anyway. No one is good but god.
I can't think of a thread that I've read on this site where Christians don't display this contempt they mislabel as "love."

[fatherphil]

biff, i love you.

scigirl, yeah its a funny book isn't it.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by scigirl
:eek:

Sorry but the juxtaposition of those statements really. . . wow. Yeah.

scigirl
I'm sure that he doesn't have a clue as to what you mean. It's very sad :banghead:

[scigirl]

Well, "Funny" wasn't exactly the word I was thinking. "Disturbing" and "disgusting" come to mind. God sounds like the worst wife-beater I've ever known. "Love me, or I'll kill everyone on the planet." At least domestic abusers only threaten to kill that person, and perhaps the kids.

Anyway, we are off topic again. We were discussing the morality of Christians as derived from that book with excellent morals. . .

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by fatherphil
biff, i love you.
Atheists are well aware of what "Christian love" is a euphemism for. Thank you but no thanks. Save your "love" for other Xians. We aren't fooled by it


scigirl, yeah its a funny book isn't it.
Told ya so. You went right over his head

[scigirl]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Told ya so. You went right over his head
I don't think it went right over his head. I just think that so many Christians have been entrenched in their belief system for so long, and equated the words "morality" and "god" and "good" for so long, that it is difficult for them to see the Bible as the rest of us see it. When I was a Christian, I basically ignored the OT. Other Christians think it's a parable. Still others think that yes, God did indeed murder all the people on earth, but well, he's God so it's ok. It's strange, but it's been engrained so long in our society that no one thinks it's absurd.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by scigirl
I don't think it went right over his head. ..

I still find it amazing that even when the problem is spelled out they still can't understand it. I mean phil is no dummy, but he was doing exactly what I was complaining about in response to my complaint. He just can't see beyond his indoctrination. That's scary.

[fatherphil]

so you have got me so easily pegged. you both run the risk of being patronizingif not condescending.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by fatherphil
so you have got me so easily pegged. you both run the risk of being patronizingif not condescending.

You really cannot write seven hundred and twenty six blurbs telling us what you think and then complain that we have no way of knowing what you think.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
so you have got me so easily pegged. you both run the risk of being patronizingif not condescending.
Fair enough - I apologise.

I, for one, would like to return to the interesting topic/question that you posed. Here's a question I asked earlier:

Anyway - have you thought about how you personally would define moral, christian, and atheist, in order to address the question you asked in the op?
I noticed that you used scripture to define morality. Now I ask - how do you measure it? How do you objectively determine whether someone is "loving their neighbor" in a way that you could compare them to the atheists? To use boring research terms, what are your "outcome measures?"

scigirl

[fatherphil]

back to the subject, how does an atheist define morality and what is that definition based upon? is it universal for all atheists or is it more a personal definition for each individual?

on the Christian side, random acts of kindness would be a good indicator. measuring it would be difficult especially given the instruction that the best thing to do is to be anonymous in giving so as to not try to garner credit from men for it.

suffice it to say, Christians should be nicer and grieved when they fall short. that is providing their God actually exists.

[abe smith]

Not to be too cynical about all-that... it appears that the fact has become known among prisoners many-where (including e.g. a number of the Watergate convicts) that conspicuously becoming a born-agen Chrx or other sort of saved person Looks GOOD On Your Resume when the time comes for your Parole hearing. There seems not to be much doubt that displaying a change of heart, and expressing conformous adherence to the "professed" (whether real or not) religiosities of the sort of persons who are apt to be found among parole boards, are likely to help persuade those in power that prisoners might have CHANGED their attitudes while in prison; and that formerly-dubitable persons may now have become blah blah blah you-name-it...... Hypocrites of all stripes (I hazard an unsubstantiated opinion.) may like having their ... hypocrisies fondled; and may look kindly upon the fondlers.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
back to the subject, how does an atheist define morality and what is that definition based upon?
Good question. I recommend perusing our great library here for some articles on the subject.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/index.shtml

Like I said before, atheists get their morality from the same place Christians get it - from their upbringing and society. I personally think the morality of an action is defined by its outcome, and common sense. Did you hurt someone when you shot them in the arm? Yeah. Did you hurt someone when you masterbated? No (unless the vibrator is really active, or something!) Is telling one little white lie bad? Probably not. But is living your life based on telling lies a bad thing? Well, yeah.

One huge component of my moral system, that sometimes seems lacking in many "moral systems," is that of critical thought. It's not enough to want to do the right thing. You have to obtain the skills to know how to do the right thing.

For example, if a politician wants to reduce crime, that is a good moral action ONLY IF he/she does actions that will actually REDUCE CRIME. This of course requires scientific understanding of issues, not just "feel good feelings."
is it universal for all atheists or is it more a personal definition for each individual?
A little bit of both. I'm sure if you analyzed the morality and behavior of Christians, you will probably find that they vary by region. Latin American christians versus Italian christians versus USA christians - I'm sure they exercise their religion in the context of their society - some countries focusing on certain tenets more than others.

on the Christian side, random acts of kindness would be a good indicator. measuring it would be difficult especially given the instruction that the best thing to do is to be anonymous in giving so as to not try to garner credit from men for it.
Yeah you'd be relying on personal report, which isn't the best method. But if you could measure that, it would be cool.

suffice it to say, Christians should be nicer and grieved when they fall short. that is providing their God actually exists.
I don't think that if you proved Christians were nicer, this would prove that God exists. It would simply show a correlation between a belief system and a behavior system. Unless of course you'd be willing to admit that if atheists are actually decent folks, this proves the non-existence of god! ;)

scigirl

[scigirl]

Originally posted by abe smith
that conspicuously becoming a born-agen Chrx or other sort of saved person Looks GOOD On Your Resume when the time comes for your Parole hearing.
Good point, abe. This is another issue I have with Christians claiming to be moral. There is an inherent selfish component of being religious. First you get the perks that come with saying you are Christian (which a great many people translate as "oooh they are good and moral.") Second, you get to go to heaven

Now mind you, I don't think that selfish motivations are necessarily bad. But - my atheism doesn't really give me the perk of (believing that I go to) heaven. So when I do something good, it's for some other reason than trying to please a watching God. Yet I'm supposedly less moral than a Christian, even if I do the same exact actions as an atheist. I just don't get it.

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

how does an atheist define morality and what is that definition based upon?
Mmmm, codified (formally or not) behavior that regulates the interactions of members of a community that facilitates the continuation of that community.
is it universal for all atheists or is it more a personal definition for each individual?
To be "moral" an individuals definition would have to match the definition of the community in which he lived

on the Christian side, random acts of kindness would be a good indicator.
I don't think random anything is a good indicator. How nice you are is not necessarily an indication of how moral you are.
measuring it would be difficult especially given the instruction that the best thing to do is to be anonymous in giving so as to not try to garner credit from men for it.
A better indicator I would say is how scrupulously truthful you are.

suffice it to say, Christians should be nicer and grieved when they fall short. that is providing their God actually exists.
This is the basic problem with the Christian concept of morality. IMO for a morality to be effective it must be based on a respect for those to whom it applies. Since it deals solely with the interactions of humans it needs to be formed with the needs of these humans in mind.
There is another form of morality, that which is imposed upon society by a small group. Usually they do so by threat and violence. This type of morality can insure that society does continue functioning. We are primates after all and our social interactions are fluid. We are not machines that can only operate in a given perimeter.
The main purpose of this form of dictatorial morality is to insure the prosperity of the group that is imposing it on society. The continued functioning of society serves the purpose of continuing the prosperity of the ruling group and is not an end to itself.
Christian morality is this kind of dictatorial morality. Based on a fictional god it has enabled a small group to prosper wildly for thousands of years at the expense of society itself.
Rather than a human morality based on mutual respect for humanity it is dictatorial morality based on contempt of humanity and adulation of the fictional figurehead of the dictatorial group.
That is why this version of morality is so opposed to critical thought. And encourages it's adherents to be less than honest in their promoting of the system.
It also encourages them to attack anyone who might endanger the system.
In a moral system that respect humans if someone learned something new…say that the Sun was the center of the solar system, or that humans are descended from common ancestors with the chimps…such knowledge would be embraced. Anything that gave us a more accurate understanding of reality would be to our mutual benefit.
With a moral system that was contemptuous of people such information would be viewed as weakening the ruling parties hold, the fact that it might benefit society would not be taken into account. The fact that it was true would not be taken into account either.
This is why in the last few hundred years our society has been moving away from a dictatorial morality and towards one based on furthering the needs of those it concerns.

[Armchair dissident]

abe_smith
...that conspicuously becoming a born-agen Chrx or other sort of saved person Looks GOOD On Your Resume when the time comes for your Parole hearing.

I'm not so sure that's as much the case here in the UK. It certainly doesn't influence the officers.

However, I certainly take both your and scigirl's point that it's not a particularly good argument regarding christian morality, and probably very much a red-herring.

[fatherphil]

i would not say that a difference in behavior is in effect a proof of the existence of God but rather in the absence of His influence how could you really expect the Christian to ultimately act any differently from a non Christian. i think the ills that biff speak of is part and parcel to man's inherent nature to exercise power over one another. when Christ washes the feet of His disciples He is behaving in a way counter to mankind's mind set.

simply adhering to rules is what we tend to do as humans. as far as morality set by social standards, one runs the risk of having something accepted one day and rejected the next. we have seen that throughout mankind and even within scripture itself e.g. divorce.

as a sharp guy i could probably justify a lot of immoral actions, yet my successful and logical arguments and persuasions would not make them right. i may lie to the nazis about the jews in my attic, but the lie itself is still "wrong" even though it be the right thing to do.

[Biff the unclean]

i would not say that a difference in behavior is in effect a proof of the existence of God but rather in the absence of His influence how could you really expect the Christian to ultimately act any differently from a non Christian.
Because they both follow moralities that are the product of humans but the moralities have completely different philosophies behind them. The Christian has a philosophy imposed on them that holds that people have a sin nature, that they are fallen. That the world is corrupt and life itself is of value only in preparing for an afterlife. This misanthropy colors Christian behavior. It does not do so to the non Christian as they do not believe it.
Therefore the Christian behavior differs from the non Christian without the aid of a god.
i think the ills that biff speak of is part and parcel to man's inherent nature to exercise power over one another.
To base a morality on such corruption instead of the common good does a disservice to humanity. Yes it is definitely part and parcel to man's inherent nature to exercise power over one another. That is the entire rational behind religion.
when Christ washes the feet of His disciples He is behaving in a way counter to mankind's mind set.
It is reinforcing the concept of "class" and "station" in society. The idea that some people are inherently better than others.

as far as morality set by social standards, one runs the risk of having something accepted one day and rejected the next. we have seen that throughout mankind and even within scripture itself e.g. divorce.
We see it when Jesus complains to the Jews that they want him to wash his hands before he eats but ignore god's law that a disrespectful child be stoned to death. We see it when the Episcopal Church flips out over whether a bishop is a nice gay guy or a vile sodomite.
Morality evolves just as everything else does.
as a sharp guy i could probably justify a lot of immoral actions,
You already have in this very thread. More ignore than justify.
yet my successful and logical arguments and persuasions would not make them right.
We await these arguements
i may lie to the nazis about the jews in my attic, but the lie itself is still "wrong" even though it be the right thing to do.
Again there is a claim of fantasy Christian behavior. Persecution of Jews was considered completely moral Christian behavior from the inception of Christianity until Hitler went and over did it. Secular, human based, morality always decried it as an outrage. But it was, until during my lifetime, standard operating procedure for Christians. Modern day Christians have adopted secular morality (Humanism) in spite of Christian morality and not because of it. Today they will search out obscure quotes from the Bible saying that they should be nice instead of their former policy. That of using the more numerous and easy to find quotes about how awful and deserving of punishment the Jews are.

[Armchair dissident]

simply adhering to rules is what we tend to do as humans. as far as morality set by social standards, one runs the risk of having something accepted one day and rejected the next. we have seen that throughout mankind and even within scripture itself e.g. divorce.

Adherence to rules per se is not moral behaviour, indeed it's the ideal cop-out from having to question the rules. Moral (or perhaps more accurately ethical) behaviour is that which benefits society. (The greek word eudaimonia is the best I can find to define this idea).

i may lie to the nazis about the jews in my attic, but the lie itself is still "wrong" even though it be the right thing to do.

That depends upon your definition of morality. If it is in part defined as "god says don't lie", then it's imoral, and in this instance the jews in your attic would die If, however, you decided that your eudaimonia would be greater if you protected the jews, then you would have behaved in an ethical, and moral way.

It's this flexibility of defining morality for the betterment of society, rather than the betterment of self that makes secular ethics preferable to christian morality.

[fatherphil]

but you assume Christian ethics are inflexible. jews were not turned over to the nazis out of Christian ethics against lying. Christian ethics in its purity is selfless.

again, people subvert truths to be used to their own end and i would be remiss to characterize any atheist society as being like stalinist russia. i ask for the same consideration.

[Biff the unclean]

but you assume Christian ethics are inflexible.
Christian ethics are. The ethics of Christians are not. You just complained about that and the subject of divorce.
Most modern Christians have adopted secular ethics and abandoned Christian. You can't turn on an AM radio without hearing a Minister complain about that very thing. The fact that secular ethics have made for a better society is something they refuse to admit.
jews were not turned over to the nazis out of Christian ethics against lying.
No, they were turned over to the Nazis out of Christian ethics against Jews. Please note the entire history of European Christianity and it's relationship with European Jews. It remains remarkably consistent until 1947.
Christian ethics in its purity is selfless.
Fantasy Christian ethics are. Those imaginary ethics that Christians love to boast of and always point to as being real Christian ethics.
These "real" Christian ethics do not resemble the ethics of real Christians. It's false advertising. The claiming of a virtue that they do not posses.

again, people subvert truths to be used to their own end and i would be remiss to characterize any atheist society as being like stalinist russia.
But it doesn't stop you from bringing it up, does it? You already know that Atheism is the lack of a philosophy and not a philosophy. You already know that Stalin didn't do the things he did from the teachings of Atheism because there are no teaching of Atheism. But you bring it up while saying that you aren't bringing it up. Just so that you can get a picture on the screen of the angelic Christians and the devilish Atheists.

[Paul5204]

Biff the unclean:

Why do you say that our [Christian] philosophy holds other human beings in contempt?

It is actually quite the opposite. Even the worst of us is still someone for whom Christ died.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Paul5204
Biff the unclean:

Why do you say that our [Christian] philosophy holds other human beings in contempt?

It is actually quite the opposite. Even the worst of us is still someone for whom Christ died.
Aloha Paul,
Because Christ Himself needed to die for you.
Because you are fallen.
Because you have a sin nature.
Because you should call no man good.
Because if any man says he does not sin he lies.
Because of your finite human intelligence that cannot hope to understand.
Because you are born with original sin on your infant soul.
Because you cannot hope to save yourself but need god to become a human sacrifice in your place.
Because you are unworthy.
Because you deserve to spend eternity in Hell.

I could go on for pages but it's all pretty much the same drivel. God is good, men are bad, yadda, yadda, yadda.
That is a philosophy grounded on contempt for ones self and for all mankind.
You aren't really fallen. You're not a vile sinner. You're fine, a decent person with nothing to be ashamed of.

[fatherphil]

biff, if you have heard it explained before but have rejected the explanation. why fret over it any further. you have rejected the existence of God leaving this all a creation of mankind. you therefore reject man's creation as well. what more is there left to say.

btw, could you show me where Christ teaches the persecution of the jewish people?

[truelies]

Originally posted by fatherphil
should they (we) be expected to behave any differently than atheists and in what way?

This is not really the proper basis for measuring a person as a Christian. It is perfectly possible for a dogmatic atheist to have every virtue that Christianity avows- kindness, charity, patience................in an overflowing abundance and at the same time for a person who is truly one of God's Christian Elect to be the sort of person you cross the street to avoid. The proper basis of comparison is has the Cross of Christ made this person overtime a measureably better person than was the o;d Natural Man former person. In this Life Christ does not make men Perfect. He makes them progressively better than they were on their own. This is not to say that there are not many who have deluded themselves as to their Elect status and perhaps even fooled those around them as to their piety, but I doubt that God has been fooled. Such is not my resonsibility to sort out. I have enough to do trying each day not to give some atheist I cross paths with no legit excuse to use my example as a reason to reject the Gospel.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by truelies
Such is not my resonsibility to sort out. I have enough to do trying each day not to give some atheist I cross paths with no legit excuse to use my example as a reason to reject the Gospel.
Point of clarification - I did not reject the gospel because of how christians acted.

Anyway, back to the debate. ..

scigirl

[Biff the unclean]

biff, if you have heard it explained before but have rejected the explanation.
Actually I've never heard it explained beyond the bible says that mankind is a sinning piece of shite because mankind really is a sinning piece of shite. I reject that on the grounds that it is baseless
why fret over it any further.
In other words I shouldn't ever say anything contrary to what Christians deem suitable. Don't hold your breath.
you have rejected the existence of God leaving this all a creation of mankind.
There isn't any god to accept or reject. There's only your STORY about a god. I reject your story as it is ridiculous.
If you mean that Christians ethics are solely a human construction, of course they are.
you therefore reject man's creation as well.
Your baseless story of man's "creation"--a god sneezes on a pile of dust and a full grown man pops into existence--I not only reject, I find laughable.
btw, could you show me where Christ teaches the persecution of the jewish people?
I said that the bible, the NT is very anti-Semitic. Here start with 1 Thessalonians
2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
(15 ) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: (16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

[Biff the unclean]

In this Life Christ does not make men Perfect. He makes them progressively better than they were on their own.
However field observations would indicate that this is not the case. As you already observed the absence of these beliefs do not make for a worse person than the presence of these beliefs.
The point I am trying to make, and our resident Xians are doing their best to ignore is that Christianity is based on a contempt for mankind and that this is reflected in religious Christians words and deeds.
While one would hope that Christians would behave with respect towards their fellow humans (as Atheists generally do) their behaving in a more "Christian" fashion has the opposite effect. They eagerly claim the existence of things that they have no way of proving. They deny the existence of things that are right in front of their faces. They boast of virtuous behavior while displaying predictably contemptuous behavior. They will even lie about what their own bible says.

[Paul5204]

Biff:

Even if we take all those things as true, why does that imply contempt? Are you a U2 fan? I hope so, because then you will be familiar with the line in one of their songs that goes something like....I don't believe the devil, I don't believe his book, but the truth is not the same without the lies he made up. And that pretty much sums it up. Have I done bad things? Of course. If I hadn't, we could write up this one as my simply being an automaton [and what fun are automatons?]. That sin nature that you spoke of is essential to a being with a free will. At least at inception. And no surprise that my Lord needed to come down here to pay a price, since it was, after all, my Lord who created my sin nature.

And whether you know it or not, there is a difference in opinion when it comes to the matter of whether the sacrifice was substitionary. I am on the side that says, no, to that proposition. The NT works attributed to Peter speak of a priesthood. That being so, I liken the process to the ordination of Aaron and his sons. Lay your hands on the animal to be sacrificed, and just when you thought that your sins were transferred to it, the word is sorry, but no, you get not only your sins back but the blood of the unblemished in now literally upon you as well [besides, why would God want a polluted sacrifice, which is what the result would be if our sin was somehow transferred to the animal]. But God will gladly take the sacrifice of the unblemished, and in that One's infinite grace, he will add a little of His spirit to it and throw it back on you, and you then become holy.

Also, on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, the sacrifice offered at the Temple did not serve to "atone" for sin in the substitutionary sense, but rather it operate to PURGE [cleanse]the Temple of the uncleaness brought upon it by the sins of the people. We also had the riddance part, where the sins were "transferred" to the goat which was then sent out into the wilderness to Azazel [the goat-demon]. The NT reports that my Lord did not simply send out the goat to Azazel but himself went out into that wilderness and overcame. Goodbye sin. And not because we sent our sin out there, and will need to do so again next year, but instead, precisely because one of us has overcome.

As a final thought, sin...need I quote the line from the Echo & the Bunneymen song? "I laughed when you said there was no such thing as sin."

No contempt here, since all of us were/are in the same boat. And those of us who believe we have found our Life Preserver, simply wish to let you have a place to grab a hold. Or to once again borrow from the song...here's the rope, now swing on it.

[Biff the unclean]

Even if we take all those things as true, why does that imply contempt?
Because they aren't based on fact. They are mere insult.
Have I done bad things? Of course.
Really? How bad?
Bad enough that somebody had to die to make amends for your badness? I doubt it.
That sin nature that you spoke of is essential to a being with a free will.
Nonsense, you don't have a corrupted nature. You're an ordinary guy doing the things that an ordinary guy does. You aren't perfect. So what, nobody is. Get over yourself.
The only reason you think you have a sin nature is because Christianity has told you that you do. That's contempt.
Free Will is a nonsense term that some Xian in the last century came up with. It's a pathetic excuse to explain why a god who doesn't really exist doesn't do anything.
And no surprise that my Lord needed to come down here to pay a price, since it was, after all, my Lord who created my sin nature.
That's the very contempt I was talking about.
Here is the Gospel According to Biff…pay attention.
You don't have a sin nature. You are just fine. You've never done anything in your whole life that needed "a price" to be "paid". You are an ordinary decent individual, you don't need to be saved. There is nothing to save you from.

And whether you know it or not, there is a difference in opinion when it comes to the matter of whether the sacrifice was substitionary.
You don't need a sacrifice. There is nothing to sacrifice to and you have nothing to be ashamed of.
The idea that a sacrifice is necessary is contemptuous of mankind.
That being so, I liken the process to the ordination of Aaron and his sons.
Aaron is a fictional character in a novel.
Lay your hands on the animal to be sacrificed, and just when you thought that your sins were transferred to it, the word is sorry, but no, you get not only your sins back but the blood of the unblemished in now literally upon you as well
That is contempt
[besides, why would God want a polluted sacrifice, which is what the result would be if our sin was somehow transferred to the animal].
There was no god who wanted a bunch of dead animals. Priests ate them and sold the meat.
But God will gladly take the sacrifice of the unblemished, and in that One's infinite grace, he will add a little of His spirit to it and throw it back on you, and you then become holy.
But you aren't unholy. You are fine, there's nothing wrong with you. You are being told by Christianity that there is because it holds you in contempt.

Also, on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, the sacrifice offered at the Temple did not serve to "atone" for sin in the substitutionary sense, but rather it operate to PURGE [cleanse]the Temple of the uncleaness brought upon it by the sins of the people.
That is being contemptuous of the people
We also had the riddance part, where the sins were "transferred" to the goat which was then sent out into the wilderness to Azazel [the goat-demon].
The same thing as dropping maidens into Mona Kea to appease Pele. It's stuff & nonsense and insulting to the humanity of those involved.
Goodbye sin. And not because we sent our sin out there, and will need to do so again next year, but instead, precisely because one of us has overcome.
But you don't actually believe that because you told me that you were still a sinner, that there is still sin as part of your nature.
I'm telling you that you are fine. No one needed to die for you in an act of sympathetic magic to take a curse off of you.
Those that tell you that Jesus died for you because of how bad you are, are holding you in contempt.

"I laughed when you said there was no such thing as sin."
Sin is an offense against god. God is a fictional character. You can't offend something that exists only between the covers of a book.

No contempt here, since all of us were/are in the same boat.
You are mistaken. Holding every human being in contempt, including yourself, is hardly "no contempt."
And those of us who believe we have found our Life Preserver, simply wish to let you have a place to grab a hold.
You don't need a Life Preserver. There is nothing wrong. You aren't in danger. There is nothing to save you from. You are extending nothing towards the rest of us but contempt for the fact that we are human.

[truelies]

Originally posted by scigirl
Point of clarification - I did not reject the gospel because of how christians acted.

Anyway, back to the debate. ..

scigirl

Some do however make such a claim. I simply would not want my Graceless behaviour to be the cause for another to stumble.

[Biff the unclean]

Some do however make such a claim. I simply would not want my Graceless behaviour to be the cause for another to stumble.
The claim that is being made here is not that the gospels should be rejected because of "Graceless Behavior" on the part of Christians.
The Gospels should be rejected because they are obvious, and poorly written, works of fiction.
Observable Christian Behavior is saturated with contempt for humanity. It appears that a persons desire to be scrupulously honest is in inverse proportion to their religiosity. For example take a peak at any blurb written by Magus55.
This thread that we are on makes the claim obliquely in the OP that Christianity inherently improves a persons ethics. Field research indicates just the opposite effect. The intellectual dishonesty and contempt for humanity that is shown by the web ethics of the posting Christians is a close match to that shown in the bible. The claims of some higher Christian morality are simply empty boasts. "There is no there there."
Were a person to be tricked by these grand empty boasts instead of having a firm grip on reality that would be a sad "stumble" indeed.

[fatherphil]

"man's creation" refers to the Christian or any set of ethics or morals that man has cooked up. you may pick and choose which to follow but without a higher authority to validate them, one rule can not be found to be any higher than the next.

[Donnmathan]

fatherphil:

"man's creation" refers to the Christian or any set of ethics or morals that man has cooked up. you may pick and choose which to follow but without a higher authority to validate them, one rule can not be found to be any higher than the next.

Forget higher - how about "better for you and society"? You sound like you are saying that you have no confidence in your own ability to distinguish detremental, harmful, or negative acts from their opposites, so you have to turn to a supernatural power for help. This "validation" you are seeking is a means to create a scapegoat - "well, He told me that was right, so the responsibility is his, not mine!" Is that truely what you believe - that humans should not have to take resposibility for their actions?

The other side of the arguement is also true - the only standards I must live up to are those I accept. Violating those standards is no 'sin', but it should mean that I punish myself by feeling guilty and seeking to make amends. Please note, I don't need any metaphysical athority figure to shake his finger at me and say "YOU HAVE SINNED!" I am fully capable of being upset with myself for violating the code I accept; these rules need no enforcement aside from a bit of empathy (I hate seeing fellow beings in pain) and the sheer desire for continuance (survival instinct). Societal standards need not dictate those I choose for myself, either; if they conflict with society, then society will punish me, not because of any 'sin', but because I acted in a manner it deems inappropriate. That does not invalidate my standards, only that I must a)restrain myself until society changes or deems I am acting appropriately, or b) find or found a new society!

There are a lot of loopholes in Christian morallity, depending on what sort of Christian you talk to. "The devil led me to it" is a great example - does this somehow expiate the harm of what they did? Who is this 'devil', anyway that he is given the power to so negatively effect things? The answer - a mental construct that allows people to do things they know are wrong without taking the guilt on themselves. Just blame the devil - it was all his fault, not mine. This same construct is also used, conversely, to demonize others - they are obviously wrong, because the preacher says they are in league with Satan! This means that hate is OK, because it is OK to Hate the devil and anyone working for him.

That is the problem I find so often in Christian morality - that 'sin' and 'the devil' and 'Jesus' are so often used to validate or excuse harmful behavior. Harrassing some old woman on the street because she isn't your brand of Christian, saying that she should feel bad for letting her Savior down, and screaming about the 'Hell' she is going to unless she converts to your brand of Christianity - are these actions to be proud of? This is no made-up example, but something I witnessed on the streets of Minneapolis. The poor lady was in a wheelchair, and the street preacher had his foot on the wheel of her chair, forcing her to remain there and be harassed! I confronted him, and his response was that he could not, as a decent human being, allow this poor woman to go on without knowing that she would be 'saved' in the end, rather than going to hell. No, he'd rather harass an person who was already of advanced age, and on oxygen, confined to a wheelchair, and likely fearing the nearness of her death, with fear tactics about the afterlife!

I am not saying that the above applies to all Christians - far from it; most are no different morally than I, a pagan, am. But that book of theirs allows for a LOT of wiggle room for those that want to use it, and fatherphil seems to be baffled by the objections a number of people have to morality based on Christianity. I can only speak for myself, but the above are both my objections, and agreed with by a number of people I have spoken to off this board.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
but without a higher authority to validate them, one rule can not be found to be any higher than the next.
But. . . how does a higher authority actually do that? Is it not true that all the Christian sects believe that their interpretation of the gospels is, in fact, endorsed by their god?

Please tell me the objective and scientific way that you use to decide what rules are validated by your god, and which are not.

scigirl

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by fatherphil
"man's creation" refers to the Christian or any set of ethics or morals that man has cooked up. you may pick and choose which to follow but without a higher authority to validate them, one rule can not be found to be any higher than the next.

There is no mystery in the ability to measure the implications of different "rules" and, from this, to determine which has more merit than the other.

The example of hiding Jews in the attic has already been brought up. The rule to preserve life is stronger than the rule to protect truth.

And the rule, "do not lie except in the defense of an innocent life" is no less mysterious to an atheist than "do not kill except in self defense."

The fact is, no such higher authority exists. The rules attributed to this 'higher authority' were made up by your standard primative human -- who is no more a 'higher authority' on ethics than they were a 'higher authority' on mathematics.

As with science, we have discovered over time that many of these primative beliefs were mistaken -- they were the prejudices of a significantly more ignorant age. Their prohibitions on usery reflects a lack of understanding of basic economic principles that we have since learned to ignore. Their prohibitions on homosexual relationships reflects ignorance about biology. Some of the rules were simply made up because they sounded good at the time (like killing children who cursed their parents, permission to have slaves). Others were simple bigotry (such as the harsh treatment of those who worshipped other gods, a primative 'us' versus 'them' mentality that still plagues most religion).

Morality should change for the same reasons that science should change. As we learn more, we should be free to be rid of old ideas built on false premises and primative prejudices, and replace them with new and better rules.

Religion has a bad effect of stranding us with a primative mind set regarding right and wrong -- which is just as destructive of humanity as stranding us in a primative science where the earth is the center of the universe and those who say otherwise are to be burned at the stake.

It is an anchor holding back progress, and we all suffer for it far more than we otherwise would.

[Biff the unclean]

"man's creation" refers to the Christian or any set of ethics or morals that man has cooked up. you may pick and choose which to follow but without a higher authority to validate them, one rule can not be found to be any higher than the next.
You see this claim of a "higher authority" that you just made? That's another part of the contempt of mankind I am talking about that is inherent in Christian morality. Some how-in your mind-humans are incapable of moral behavior on their own.
It's a perfectly simple matter to see which type of morality works, you test them. Because that's all we should be concerned with works and what doesn't.
We tried Christianity for thousands of years and it failed miserably. The essential problems with it stem from the fact that it is based on a lie. It claims to come from a "higher authority" yet the most intense scrutiny cannot find this "higher authority." Instead of a "higher authority" all that can be found is a group of men, a church. The biggest problem with the ethics it supports is that instead of being designed for the betterment and continued existence of society (the sole purpose of morals & ethics) it's only purpose is the betterment and continuation of the church. It does this at the expense of society.
You don't have a "higher authority." That's Professor Marvel the fraud behind that curtain. There is no Wizard of Oz.

Men are perfectly capable of "cooking up" ethics on our own. There's no one who could possibly do it better. And if we get them wrong we are perfectly capable of correcting them. Compare the ethics of only half a century ago with those of today.

[fatherphil]

sci girl, i try to measure and compare what i do against both the letter and intent of scripture? how do you measure what is right? from what i've seen, popular opinion hold a great deal of sway over what an atheist deems correct behavior.

biff, if hitler had not attacked the soviet union he would probably have succeeded in maintaining his power and providing prosperity to his people. then you could say that his policies were right, couldn't you? better yet, you could justify all that the anglo americans did to the native americans given the success of the american nation under anglo control.

if Christianity were based on a true existence of God, then you would adhere to it?

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by fatherphil
should they (we) be expected to behave any differently than atheists and in what way?

at this point, I automatically become hostile when someone tells me they are a christian. spending 3 months debating the extreme has made me quite cynical and perhaps livid at those who worship death - they read the book and worship the most evil and violent character I have ever known.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by fatherphil
how do you measure what is right? from what i've seen, popular opinion hold a great deal of sway over what an atheist deems correct behavior.

This question was addressed to Scigirl, and not to me.

However, with all of the effort that I have spent on answering this question, I thought I would take advantage of the opportunity to mention it.

I direct you to:

Ethics Without God: A Personal Journey (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46876)

The first post in this series specifically concerns why I do not think that one can find a reliable answer to moral questions from religion.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by fatherphil
biff, if hitler had not attacked the soviet union he would probably have succeeded in maintaining his power and providing prosperity to his people.
"His people". This is the fatal flaw in your analogy. Secular ethics apply to all people, not just the ones you identify with or like.

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by Paul5204
Biff the unclean:

Why do you say that our [Christian] philosophy holds other human beings in contempt?

It is actually quite the opposite. Even the worst of us is still someone for whom Christ died.
How about this one, which every Catholic says before accepting communion:

"Heavenly Father I know I am not worthy to receive You but only say the word and I shall be healed"

It's extremely ironic that in an attempt to defend the lack of contempt for humanity in Christian philosopy, you bring up one of the two great examples of Christian contempt for all humanity: the idea that no matter what we do, we're all no better than Hitler.

P.S. the other great example is the doctrine of original sin.

[fatherphil]

at whose doorstep do you lay all the evils perpetrated by the Godless?

and what do you think you deserve from life? what do you hope for after death?

[Biff the unclean]

biff, if hitler had not attacked the soviet union he would probably have succeeded in maintaining his power and providing prosperity to his people. then you could say that his policies were right, couldn't you? better yet, you could justify all that the anglo americans did to the native americans given the success of the american nation under anglo control.

Well you have provided me with a find example of poor Christian ethics in action. Rather than deal with the facts that do not support your contentions of decent Christian behavior you try to associate me with people with terrible ethics. That's not very ethical of you to do, but it is standard operating procedure for Christians. I'm beginning to wonder if you have a reading comprehension problem. Or are you just so indoctrinated into your religion that you won't allow yourself to understand what you read?
Neither example you gave was of an ethic that was based on a respect for humans. While both had their roots in Christianity. Hitler was behaving, although on a larger scale, exactly as Christian leaders had done in Europe since Rome. He followed the teachings of Martin Luther. As for the Anglo/Americans and the red Indians, those guys were Christians also and were behaving consistently with Christian behavior. Real Christian behavior that holds mankind as some contemptible flawed thing, living in a world that was only a prelude at best.
Had these Anglo/Americans had a secularly based ethic they would not have behaved so. I can state this with some fair degree of confidence because the descendents of these very same people have traded their Christian ethics for Humanist ethics (much to the dismay of the church) and would not now dream of behaving as their ancestors did back in Christian days.

if Christianity were based on a true existence of God, then you would adhere to it?
Yes.

[Biff the unclean]

at whose doorstep do you lay all the evils perpetrated by the Godless?
Do you write like you speak?
Which "Godless" are you talking about, there's a whole bunch of us? Personally I take credit and responsibility for my own actions.

and what do you think you deserve from life?
Life owes me nothing.

what do you hope for after death?
It's death. There is no "after" That's why they put you in a box and stick you in the ground. No rewards, no punishment, no justice...it's over

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by fatherphil
at whose doorstep do you lay all the evils perpetrated by the Godless?
How about at the doorstep of the ones who "perpetrated " evil?
and what do you think you deserve from life? what do you hope for after death?
The question "what do you deserve from life" makes no sense to me, please clarify. After death, I hope that happiness increases and misery decreases (for those who will continue on after me).

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by fatherphil
sci girl, i try to measure and compare what i do against both the letter and intent of scripture? how do you measure what is right? from what i've seen, popular opinion hold a great deal of sway over what an atheist deems correct behavior.

Can you step back a little Phil and look at what you have said here? This is exactly the contempt I'm am talking about.

You didn't measure the viablity of ethics against the effect they have on people in the actual world. Instead you measured them against the "company line." This is contempt for humanity. Such Christian Ethics serve the sole purpose of supporting the religion.

You even show disdain at the thought that a societies ethics needs to be decided by general consensus to be able to serve that societies needs.

Surely you understand that to be of any value morals & ethics must serve the general population and not only a special interest group.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
at whose doorstep do you lay all the evils perpetrated by the Godless?
Well, I personally blame a magical deity with pointy horns. That way, we can assure that our problems will never go away, and there will always be crime and murder and violence. Therefore, as a doctor I'll have job security.

:rolleyes:

I blame humans for human-caused problems. How hard is that to understand?

and what do you think you deserve from life?
Read the UN code of ethics. Which by the way was created by men and women, not by a deity.
what do you hope for after death?
To be remembered by my loved ones and friends as someone who always tried to make a difference, someone who always tried to do the right thing. What will happen to me after I die? I don't know, I've never died. But since we have absolutely no objective, rational way to determine the answer to that question, I find it futile to focus on that, when we DO know that life on earth exists and is very real.

scigirl

[fatherphil]

straightest answers i've gotten so far. look folks, i'm not out to trap anyone or push an agenda. just trying to discuss issues.

i agree with laying resposibility at an indivduals doorstep. that's why i hold the torturers of the spanish inquisition resposible for their actions as opposed to holding Christianity responsible. it seems like God or Christ's teachings get a lot of blame here for the actions of misdirected individuals.

what do we hope for after death? peace for ourselves and goodness for those we leave behind seem appropriate desires. although many in this world are hoping for more than that but at the risk of ending up with less than that.

biff the "disdain" i show is from the knowledge that as humans we can do and justify much evil when we have the numbers to back us up. mob violence has got to be the ugliest "human" invention there is.

[scigirl]

Originally posted by fatherphil
that's why i hold the torturers of the spanish inquisition resposible for their actions as opposed to holding Christianity responsible.
I agree with you. Since I am firm believer in the facts of evolution, I have to accept that some of our deep-seated behavior is due to being related to violent chimps, and not because of religion. You may think this sounds like a cop-out, but I don't feel that it is. I feel that understanding the origins of our behavior is the first step in solving them. Which is why I even bother to argue with creationists - N. we are not violent because some chick ate a fruit in a garden. It's much more complicated than that.

My main problem with religion in general, and Christianity in particular, stems from these facts:

1) They claim to have the monopoly on morality, and hence the solutions to our most basic problems.

2) However, they often base their "solutions" on unsupported assertions rather than good scientific reasoning.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

scigirl:
One huge component of my moral system, that sometimes seems lacking in many "moral systems," is that of critical thought. It's not enough to want to do the right thing. You have to obtain the skills to know how to do the right thing.

For example, if a politician wants to reduce crime, that is a good moral action ONLY IF he/she does actions that will actually REDUCE CRIME. This of course requires scientific understanding of issues, not just "feel good feelings."
No I don't think religion is to blame for everything. I do, however, think that religion makes it easier for people to claim unsupported beliefs (like the belief that gay marriage will ruin society, or that we were created in 6 days rather than millions of years). Why? Well when's the last time a priest or a pastor left 15 minutes for a debate session at the end of their sermon?

Yes scientists and intellectuals can be just as dogmatic. However, at least the environment in which they publish their ideas about how to solve society's problems is full of checks and balances, and ways to sort out the truth from the misconception. Religion has no such checks and balances, because it is all based on faith and untestable principles.

Any moral system which is designed to help humanity absolutely has to be based on some scientific and logical principles. And religion rarely is, thus it fails my test as a good moral system in which to draw conclusions about humanity in order to improve it.

scigirl

[jfryejr]

fatherphil wrote:it seems like God or Christ's teachings get a lot of blame here for the actions of misdirected individuals.

When the misdirected individuals call themselves Christians, the blame comes easily. What else do we have to judge Christianity by other than the members of its religion? "A tree is judged by its fruit" or is this the argument of "What is a True Christian(tm)" again? Didn't christ pray that all of his church be united in thought? Can you point to an organized christian sect whose members stand out as compassionate, loving, giving, understanding, and basically embodying all that jesus taught?

I'll agree that taking one individual out of history is a bad argument (like Hitler, etc.). But the inquisition/crusades/witch hunts/catholic church's stance on the holocaust/slaughter of native americans-iraqis-palenstinians-afghanis were/are organized under, involved with, or supported by christians.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by fatherphil
biff the "disdain" i show is from the knowledge that as humans we can do and justify much evil when we have the numbers to back us up. mob vi