Originally posted by Palynka There is less difference than you seem to imply. Christians adopt an external point of reference, but there are radically different interpretations across Christian groups about what exactly were the moral teachings of Christ.
Any point of reference then requires a mind and conscience to be interpreted and so I think ultimately everyone's real point of r s views than him. If the individual felt some were better than his, then he would adopt them.
yes, that is brilliant, most excellent, its true, we do and must evaluate these things, even as Christians. However, it begs the question, what are the atheists points of reference? is it as Agers stated, social convention, humanity and fellow feeling? It seems to me in such an instance, convention changes, and one may be blown hither and zither by every wind of teaching? It also seems quite transient.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, that is brilliant, most excellent, its true, we do and must evaluate these things, even as Christians. However, it begs the question, what are the atheists points of reference? is it as Agers stated, social convention, humanity and fellow feeling? It seems to me in such an instance, convention changes, and one may be blown hither and zither by every wind of teaching? It also seems quite transient.
I can't speak for others, for me my point of reference is my own mind. I think of how I would like for people to act and thus I form preferences. I don't see that as problematic or a reason for me to bow down to majority when I feel my preferences are strongly violated.
I am, however, a non-cognitivist so for me all moral sentences are simple expression of preferences. I'm not sure that discussion is part of what you want to get at.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, that is brilliant, most excellent, its true, we do and must evaluate these things, even as Christians. However, it begs the question, what are the atheists points of reference? is it as Agers stated, social convention, humanity and fellow feeling? It seems to me in such an instance, convention changes, and one may be blown hither and zither by every wind of teaching? It also seems quite transient.
Why do you suggest it is transient? How stable would communities be if nobody could be trusted not to steal, rape, pillage, murder as an when the fancy takes them? Society finds a natural equilibrium; it may adopt a better moral element introduce from within or without if it serves the majority better than its absense - and will reject a moral element if it is disadvantageous.
Is it a transient system whereby the acknowledgement on my part I wouldn't like to be stolen from gives rise to me projecting this dislike of the same onto other humans - and thus refraining from doing that? (ditto with murder, torture, and so on...)
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes , but you fail to answer the question, is your morality superior to the Christ, if not, why are you not a Christian?
I am not as Christian, because Christianity is not a truthful religion, and it is immoral as well.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you were not asked about Christianity nor of Christians, you were asked about the Christ, is your morality superior to the Christ?
Among the many things that I admire about Christ was the fact that he very pointedly did not condemn homosexuality.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Actually dear Agers they derive their morality from the personage of Jesus Christ, which is real and apparent from reading scripture. So then, if this is the case, you would say that your morality does not transcend that of the Christ. Why are you therefore not a Christian? Is it simply non belief in the supernatural that has made you atheistic?
Jesus Christ? Whose that? I thought the messiah's name was supposed to be Emanuel.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie you were not asked about Christianity nor of Christians, you were asked about the Christ, is your morality superior to the Christ?
Christ would have all non believers go to hell. Not very moral.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie absence of reason is not good enough, the agnostic may also claim absence of reason, yet he is open to the possibility of a supernatural entity, not so with atheism, in fact, by its very nature it presupposes are purely material view of the emergence of life and its diversity. You cannot escape this fact.
“...absence of reason is not good enough, ...”
in that case we must assume the possibility of the spaghetti monster as being a credible one and also anything else supernatural that we can just make up with our imagination such as the spaghetti fairy and the holy invisible flying chimpanzees that created the universe and all of these things must be perfectly credible and equally probable and plausible to there being a god as defined by one of the current religions.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton “...absence of reason is not good enough, ...”
in that case we must assume the possibility of the spaghetti monster as being a credible one and also anything else supernatural that we can just make up with our imagination such as the spaghetti fairy and the holy invisible flying chimpanzees that created the universe and all of these things must be ...[text shortened]... equally probable and plausible to there being a god as defined by one of the current religions.
The spaghetti monster argument is completely and utterly deficient in every way! Why? because the teachings, example and morality of the Christ are readily discernible, this is not the case with this futile and ludicrous proposition of yours Mr Hameeeelton! See to it and dont let it happen again.
Originally posted by Agerg Why do you suggest it is transient? How stable would communities be if nobody could be trusted not to steal, rape, pillage, murder as an when the fancy takes them? Society finds a natural equilibrium; it may adopt a better moral element introduce from within or without if it serves the majority better than its absense - and will reject a moral element if it is other humans - and thus refraining from doing that? (ditto with murder, torture, and so on...)
Its transient because less than sixty years ago homosexuality was a crime, less than a hundred it was a capital crime. Consider the matter of disciplining children, when i went to school you could be belted with a very thick leather strap, six times across ones hands, yet only recently i was speaking with a lady who proffered that in smacking children, it teaches them that violence is a means to an end. Then there is the acceptance of pornography, ones buys diesel in the garage and some lady on a newspaper on the counter is declaring it open house, i dare say less than twenty or thirty years ago this would be unacceptable, thus dear Agers its clears that the moral sands of time are a changing and that clearly, relying upon social convention is a rather transient affair.
Originally posted by Palynka I can't speak for others, for me my point of reference is my own mind. I think of how I would like for people to act and thus I form preferences. I don't see that as problematic or a reason for me to bow down to majority when I feel my preferences are strongly violated.
I am, however, a non-cognitivist so for me all moral sentences are simple expression of preferences. I'm not sure that discussion is part of what you want to get at.
mmm, yet change is imminent and surely very subtle.