I could buy what your'e saying about kids and parenting, Jude. Even if you try to, there's bound to be some unconscience baises towards your own beliefs. I don't think you should hide your beliefs from children, for that's being dishonest. A parent should be allowed to live their life as they should. I would simply hope that they don't send the message that all other ways of doing things are unacceptable.

Well, I'm not an atheist per say, but speaking as an individual who doesn't believe in divine relevation or insight into matters of morality, I'd say I decide what's moral myself, through my own observations and judgements. From seeing how certain actions affect others, and how it sways my own emotions.

Do I 'know' it to be moral? No, no I don't, and I often question my own beliefs and sometimes my opinions and conclusions change, depedning on the things I've expereinced and seen. I believe there's some wisdom in not assuming your way of doing things is the right one.

I'm going to ask it again.  Where do you get this "morality" from.

I get it from utilitarianism. Others have their own philosophies.

How do you even define it?

The best course of action is that which results in the greatest increase in happiness for the greatest number of people.

Who makes it?

It's the result of thousands of years of philosophical development. The basis originated with Epicurus.


Who gets to say what's "moral" or "immoral"?

Me. I make the judgments. I do not answer to a priest or a pope, I have to determine the best course of action for each situation as it occurs, because they are all different.

How do you know what you believe to be "moral" is actually "moral"?

Right back at you. Your religion has been responsible for many, many atrocities over the last two thousands. Witch hunts, crusades, the inquisition. How can you be so sure what you believe is actually moral?

Jude, Divine command morality theory is just one of many, many, many different theories of morality. Perhaps you should do some research on the others, rather than continue to be 'incredulous' that I can have a code of morality that does not originate with a deity.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:26, Tue 11 Dec 2007.

     I thank you for your honesty, and I would agree with you in that there is a value to being open to being wrong.  As hard as this may be to believe, I hold to that even in my Christian faith.  While I believe infatically that God exists and would never doubt it, I also am certain that I don't know everthing about Him or His ways and purposes.  I certainly don't have all the answers.  The things I can be sure of, however, are the things that please Him and the things that don't.

     I heard someone recently say this and I thought it was a very good explination of God's "morality".

When God says "Don't" He is really saying, "Don't hurt yourself".

     I think too often God gets a bad rap for the don'ts because people have used the don'ts to elevate themselves above others and lord them over others.  Falkus, your absolutely right, horrible things have been done to people and by people in the name of Chritianity and just about every other religion and philosopy.  Even your unitarianism, which is the foundation of Communism if I remember my high school governments class correctly (it's been a while).  I don't think you can find a system of belief, devine or not, that hasn't had it's share of extremists and wackos.

      And that is why its difficult for me to believe that you, as a mere human being would leave something as astronomically important as what is right and wrong to "I'm not really sure."  None of us humans are infallable, so how could ultimate good or rightness ever come from us?  The best we can hope to cling to is idealism, which is something unatainable, and if we all individually are responsible for deciding what's moral or right for ourselves, then who's ever really wrong?  By your own system of justice, how can you fault Christians who blow up abortion clinics for doing what they think is "morally right"?  They're just doing what they sincerely believe is the right and best thing to make the most people happy aren't they?

      There is something inside of us as human beings that longs for rightness.  Granted we don't always follow it, but it's the reason that movies with a happy ending do better than those where everyone dies and the hero is defeated.  On a whole, even people who would be considered morally bankrupt who create movies that promote promiscuity and debauchery will still have hints of morality intertwined.  In another thread we were talking about the movie "The Golden Compass" and I commented there that it was suprising to me that someone who was so adamantly opposed to a Christian worldview would include traits like loyalty, self-sacrifice and justice in the core of their story.  Now I know that statement will raise your hackles a bit Vexen, but let me say for the record, I know many poeple who are not Christian and even a few who would consider themselves agnostics that are, by human standards, good people.  They don't steal, murder, cheat, lie, etc, etc.  I'm not saying they can't BE good people, I just don't understand WHY they would want to be good people.

     Without a perfect, divine creator it just seems like there would be no real reason to be moral.  At the end of your life, what have you gained?  It wouldn't be friends, because I guaruntee you Hugh Hefner has lots of friends, money too.  So what does it gain you?  A sense of accomplishment?  Who would care?  So what if your better than your neighbor or your boss?  There's someone out there that's better than you, so in the end your always second in line.  I'm not "incredulous" about anything, I genuinely don't understand.  Perhaps it's because I was raised Catholic and later became a penticostal, so I have alway had an understanding of God from a child.

     The point I'm getting at is, Falkus said he doesn't have to answer to a pope or priest, and your right, you don't.  But if Christianity is correct, then you will have to answer to God.  Now before you go off on me threatening you with damnation, that's not what I'm saying.  Where you spend eternity isn't any of my business, nor is it my decision, and ultimatly, it's not God's decision either.  It's yours.  See, that's what it means when I say don't means don't hurt yourself.  God knows that the things He tells us not to do will ultimatly lead to our harm and ruin, yet because He desires free agents to give love to Him, he has created a system by which you may choose to love Him or not, to serve Him or not, and because He created you in His own image and breathed life into you by His own spirit, you have innate traits of God in you.  One of them is a desire for justice and what I'm calling "morality".  You can't get away from it even if you decide not to believe.  Still something within you longs for justice and truth.  It's what seperates us from the animals, and while we do see some animals that will fight for another animal's safety and take in another animal's child to raise if the parent dies, you don't see things like charity, worship, and longing for purpose in animals.  It just isn't there.  But it is in us as humans, and nothing in the DNA code accounts for it.  It in our soul, because God put it there.  Now you can choose to believe that or not, and if you choose not to believe it, you'll still try and live up to your own moral code.  The only difference is, when you finally come to the end of your life and you find out that God was real all along, you'll have no excuse for not believing in Him, because we've had this conversation, and your making the choice to believe or not to believe right now.  This is a moment in history where God will be able to point to and say, "You chose to reject Me, to believe I was just a fabrication of men."

         Maybe you'll say you lived a moral life, but none of us has lived a perfect life, and if the Bible is true, that's what Jesus did, so he's the standard.  Now if you don't believe the bible is true, that's fine, you don't have to, but one day you'll find out the truth, and then it will be too late.  What if I'm wrong you might ask.  What if I'm the decieved one and not seeing the "facts" clearly?  What if we are just worm turf when we die?  Then I wil have lived a great life, helping an loving people and missed out on none of the pain associeated with "immoral" living.  I'll have children that know how to live a life free of those bondages and vices, just like you did.  See Christians are covered both ways. :p

     As far as doing whatever makes the most people happy, give me a break.  You'll run yourself into an early grave with that one.  And so if what makes the most people happy is for Falkus to crawl on his belly or eat worms for the rest of his life, will you be bound to that for the "happiness" of the masses?  I'm guessing this "philosophy" would loose it's appeal quickly.

    Oh, and Falkus, one more thing, was there no morality before Epicurus?

These are two points in which I have to disagree with you over, Jude, with all do respect. But they are amongst two of my biggest problems with Christianity period.

First, the cost of good. You ask, if there is no God, if there is no reward or trophy at the end, why do good?

I cannot speak for everyone, but I can tell you waht I feel. When I help someone and set no conditions to that assistence, to be honest, I dont' expect anything in return, nor do I want reperations. When I help someone, it's because...something inside me tells me that I should. Because I feel for them. Because, if I were in that situation, I'd appreciate the kindness. Because I feel driven to, it just seems right to me. I don't mean to sound cruel or insulting, but if you need a reward to do "good", I honestly don't think you really understand what it means to be good, or altruistic. To me, kindness and helping isn't about material things, and it's not about doing the smart thing. This is what makes good so endearing, because there isn't anything in return. That's what makes it so special, at least in my eyes. Being compassionate only to buy your way into heaven only seems....well, selfish in my eyes. Not damning, cause at least you're helping, and that's something. But, I can't honestly say it's from the goodness of one's heart.

So, to answer your question: Why do I help if I will get nothing in return? Because I want to. Because I desire to. Maybe I'll get a reward and maybe I won't. But if I do assist with the intention of getting something in return, at least to me, it never feels as....well, for lack of a better term "right" to me. It cheapens it. So, I don't. Now, the skeptic in me could argue that it's that feeling of "right" that is my unconscious reward, that I give to recieve that feeling of pride and rightousness, and that certainly is a point. Maybe I do. But, that still seems like a little payback for a big cost at times. I never said being moral was smart.

My second point is something I simply believe to be vanity on the part of many denominations. To me, it just seems like, if God is this beautiful being that loves us all and rewards us for our charity and kindness, that accepting Him in our lives in a precise and specific manner seems...arbitrary in comparison. If a person has helped millions and denotated all their life to people in need, or built houses for the needy or similar, I just have a hard time seeing such perfectly good being woudl turn them away from paradise because they didnt' worship Him in a way He liked, or accepted a figure from 2000 years ago. It simply seems vain, don't you think? As if God has an inferiority complex, which is of course absurd on many levels.

That is simply my belief, understand. But, it's something I believe fully, that, if there is this God, He wouldn't do such a thing. It's not something you're going to persuade me away from, likely. If I'm wrong...well, I hope you enjoy your reward.

      Vexen you missed my point completly, and it may very well be because I didn't make it completely clear.  I'll try again.

      In Christianity you don't go to heaven for doing good deeds.  You do good deeds because those who have been forgiven much, love much.  I do good for others because I love God and want to please Him, not because at the end of my life I'll be able to get a big crown and God will pat me on the back and say well done.  Of course the well done would be great, but the fact is, whether I do good deeds or not, or live a moral life or not, my eternal life is secure because I've accepted a gift.  See, I owed a debt, a debt I couldn't pay, not with all the good deeds in the world, and God had every right to collect on that debt.  But instead, He sent Jesus to pay the debt in my place, and if I accept that as true, then my place with God is secure.  Now if I'm truely understand that, then out of love for God, I will extend that same love and forgivness to others.  That's where my morality comes from.

     As an athiest, agnostic, someone who doesn't have that belief system, I just don't understand how you can explain the desire to do good deeds for others.  By you own words above there is something inside you that draws you to do good things.  WHAT IS THAT?  Why doesn't your dog have it or your gerbel or polar bears or any other living creature on this earth?  What is it in you that draws you to gain joy from helping your fellow man?  If not a divine creator that designed it into you, then what?  I'm truely curious as to your thoughts Vexen, because I do believe your genuine in your beliefs.

I'm aware of the accepting Jesus necessity of various denominations, but honestly, to me, that makes God sound even more insecure. It's kinda like "You owe me a debt for this world, and I'll have pity on your eternal soul so long as you know your place."  And doing good so someone else will see me better doesn't sound very ideal to me either. It just makes this eternally loving being seem even more dubious, so forgive me if I prefer the children's version.

What is it that makes me do good? I really don't have to explain it, do I? I don't honestly know, but it's not as you describe it, some desire to fulfill a debt or hoping someone is watching. It could be a socialized factor. American society tries to teach children to be nice and kind, and maybe that just stuck with me. Or maybe I learned from my parents, who also tend to go out of their way to help people. Maybe that's God speaking to me. Maybe it's an overactive expression of trying to nurture, being motherly. I don't know. I'm not going to say that it's some supernatural desire, or biological one, cause I honestly have no way to tell. I simply feel it. But if I do do it for some reward, it's not something I'm conscously aware of.

And, I wouldn't say animals don't have this desire. I've heard many stories of dogs, for example, defending their masters without regard to their own safety, sometimes to the death.

Uff da, lots to go on here.  I hope I don't miss anything.  first, to Heath:

I think you're reading a bit too much into the stats you list, and not looking at this from the viewpoint you're trying to reach.  Think about what you're suggesting:  that atheist/agnostic parents intentionally teach their children something that they don't believe themselves?  That's like me telling you to raise your kids muslim.  It's simply doesn't make sense from the prespective of the parent.

As for the stats you list, there's a number of problems.  The first is that they don't deal with the variable we're looking at, which is how the child was raised.  It may be true that elderly christians are happier than elderly atheists.  But what about a child raised christian that stays christian vs. a child that was raised non-christian and becomes christian?  In this study, they'd both be in the same group.  Likewise with children that were raised atheist or became atheist later.  In one of the few examples they gave, they talked about someone who was raised christian, and lost their faith and was unhappy.  That actually backs up what Falkus and I are talking about, rather than refuting it.

Further, it's taking the decision away from the child.  It's telling them, "I know what's best for you better than you will when you're older."  I think (or at least hope) that most parents want their child to grow up to be a better judge than them.  When the child is older, if they find the statistical chance of increased happiness as a good reason to be christian, then they can make that decision themselves.

Also, consider if you would change your parenting practices if the stats showed the opposite.  If the studies actually showed that religious people were statistically less happy, would you raise your child as an atheist?  I'm guessing not.  So it's unreasonable to expect others to act on stats differently than you would.  I've read studies that say atheist are statistically better educated, make more money, and have less divorces than religious people.  (I won't bother to look them up, as I'm not sure how much stock I put in them, and the argument works just as well if they're purely hypothetical)  But I doubt anyone would argue that those are reasons to become atheist.  Correlation is not causation.  And if you stop going to church, you're not going to suddenly become better educated or make more money.  Trying similar tactics the other way isn't likely to work either.

Got a bit of a chuckle from this. ;)  "I think it's good to believe you could be wrong...not that I would ever doubt that I'm wrong myself..."  Believing you can be wrong doesn't just mean that you don't know everything.  It means that some of the stuff you "know" might not actually be true.


I don't think anyone has suggested that.  What's been suggested is leaving "is there a God, and if so, which one is He?" to "I don't know."


No one is claiming that it can.


You keep coming back to this idea, that if I don't agree with you, I have to accept that everyone can just do what they want.  It's simply not true.  And even if it were, it applies just as well to you.  You're trusting yourself (to be right about God) just as much as anyone else is trusting themselves (to be right about morals).  You have to decide what is true and false just like they do.


Because we don't think they did do what's morally right.  We don't think that it really did make the most people happy.  We can accept that they were trying to do what they thought was right at the same time as saying that they didn't actually do what was right.  No one is advocating a "everyone do whatever they like" morality here.  They're only saying that at the end of the day, there's no objective way to determine what's right or wrong.  At some point, you have to make a subjective decision, and you might get it wrong.


They want to be good people because, as you say, there's something that makes people want to be.  How you explain that "something" doesn't change how that something works.  It's there, no matter what you believe.  You think it's there due to God putting it there.  I think it's part biology, part culture.  Someone else might have a different explanation.  But the explanation doesn't change the thing, any more than not believing in gravity makes it stop working.


You're equating the phenomenon with your explanation for it.  You assume that if people don't believe what you believe, then they must not feel the same drives as you.  If you don't believe in God, you don't lose that "drive" to do good.  Again, it's like gravity.  I might think it's explained by general relativity, you might think it's by newton's laws, someone else might think it's explained by magical faries.  But not matter what we believe about it, or how we explain it, it works the same for all of us.


Unless, of course, some other religion is right.  I'm guessing you're not too worried about that.  I'm guessing the fact that you've "rejected" Allah, buddah, Krishna, and the hale-bop comet doesn't keep you up at night worrying that when you die, you may have to answer for your rejection.  Likewise with people who don't accept your religion.  At the end of the day, atheists and agnostics aren't all that different from you.  We're not some different species.  You reject plenty of different religions.  On pretty much all religions but your own, you think atheists are right.  And all the other religions think the atheists are right about your religion.  Everyone rejects pretty much all religion.  Atheists just do slightly more than most.

This message was deleted by the player at 11:44, Wed 12 Dec 2007.

When I was in my Catholic high school, one thing they taught us was Kohlberg's studies on morality.  Basically, someone defines something as being right based on a certain criteria, and that criteria changes as they mature.

Stage 1 is avoidance of punishment.  A child doesn't take cookies because he'll get spanked.  An adult doesn't steal because he'll go to jail.  A Christian doesn't commit adultery because he will go to Hell.

Stage 2 is pursuit of pleasure.  A child makes his bed because he is rewarded with a hug.  An adult gets a job because he earns money.  A Christian does charity work because he expects to go to heaven.

Stage 3 is peer support.  A child starts to smoke because his friends tell him it's cool.  An adult becomes a doctor to gain respect.  A Christian goes to preach and convert because his fellow Christians respect his actions.

Stage 4 is obedience to law.  A child does not use the oven because it is a house rule.  An adult does not steal because it is against the law.  A Christian does not steal because it violates the ten commandments.

Stage 5 is social contracts.  A child does the dishes because he feels he is doing his part for the family.  An adult publicly burns his draft card because he feels the government is taking advantage of its people and no longer serving its proper purpose.  A Christian joins a religious order because he feels he can only do his best for God if he dedicates his life to religion.

Stage 6 is appeal to higher concepts.  A child shares his cookie because he believes to do otherwise would be unfair.  An adult openly revolts against the government because he believes freedom is more important than personal wellbeing.  A Christian is willing to actively defy his priest when he feels his priest has committed an act that is not fully loving.


I was taught that you can only understand one level beyond your own, so I may have explained the last levels poorly.  Most people stop right around levels 3 or 4, most children only make it to 3 around adolescence.  You can make decisions drawing on your current level or any level lower.  To move to the next higher level requires you hit a conflict where your current level is clearly in conflict with what you believe to be right.  If you are never challenged, you will forever be on level 1 (basically like an animal).

What is interesting is Christianity does provide an answer addressing each level (although it gets very murky around 5 and 6, since most churches do not give you the option of breaking the social contract through the church, and discourage you from appealing to concepts above the church.  So most church-goers I would assume will hit 4 and be content - God lays down the laws, the church writes them out, and I'm happy.)

So Jude can happily draw on any of the answers prepackaged by the bible and his church and supply them.  The answer was written out a long time ago by someone far wiser than he or I (no insult intended, but I assume you are willing to accept you are less wise than God or even Moses).

Someone like Tycho who is not operating on the assumption that all good comes from God has to think out his position a bit more.  He's in the same boat with Thomas Jefferson here.  You can't just say 'God said so, case closed'.  So atheists clearly do have a challenge, since they have to do their own homework.

At this point it's important to point out, there are very, very few people without any morals.  They make up less than 1% of the population and are generally called sociopaths.  However, there are also few people with clearly codified morals.  We have a general equation we run off of and we apply it to each situation in turn.  In theory, Christians should go off a level 6 equation - love everyone.  I have seen very few Christians who actually seem capable of such a thing, however, which may be something to be expected . If the church prevents you from being challenged in your ethics, you never have to move to the next level.

So all atheists have morals, although in many cases it's pretty low.  Like I said, level 3 or 4 is average (I have not seen any studies as to whether atheists generally score higher or lower on the Kohlberg scale than Christians.  I would be fascinated to see such a study.)  But that doesn't mean that an atheist can't have a higher moral calling.  Thomas Jefferson is a great example.  He's clearly at a level 5 or 6.  He calls upon liberty, a great ideal, and believes that that is worth almost any other cost.  I don't think anyone here can say fighting for liberty isn't a moral action (whether you agree with it or not).  He had a very admirable moral code.


Don't think that because an atheist doesn't have a bible to rely upon that he is unethical.  Jesus, you'll notice, is not listed as any of the levels (he himself reached level 6 and encouraged others to do the same, of course).  In fact, quite to the contrary, understand that your church has made the process of developing morals quite quick and streamlined.  They're already written and thought out, you just have to accept and follow them.  Whether you're a four-year-old who still draws on the walls or the smartest man in the world, you're still drawing on the same book with the same rules.  You might be doing the right thing, but you may not always understand why (because it simply has not been sufficiently tested).  You may not get to as high a level as someone else who does not have the tools.  The kicker is that, while you may be doing something right and someone else may be doing something right, because you are at a lower level on the scale, you would be incapable of understanding why the other person is motivated to do as he does, because you can only see one level above you.

So yes, morals certainly exist for atheists.  It's not as clear-cut, but they're definitely there, and it's a fascinating topic to study and understand.

Please don't take this the wrong way, katisara, but when I read your post, I can't help but feel this impression of someone who's talking about something they've never actually exerpeienced. Which is funny, cause I'm sure it's something you all feel about me from time to time. It sounds very alien when you speak of atheism.

Let me just say, having been there, it's not quite the moral crisis you seem to paint. Sure, it takes more work to create one's own moral code, but it's not like you exist in some isolateed existence from the world. At least in my case, my morality is based on everything I've learned, I've seen, I've expereinced. When I see some tragic story on the news and my emotions stir, I take from that. When I study religions, I take from that. When I expereience moments of happiness or shame, or sadness from my own action, or from the actions of others, I take from that. When I console a friend and hear their story, I take from that. It's not like we need to come up with this entirely in an intellectual way. Children don't learn like that, most people outside of school don't learn like that. Developing our own beliefs works similarly.

I'm well aware of Kohlberg's studies, being a student os psychology. It should be noted that it's not entirely accepted either, for it doesn't take into account many things. That aside, it shoudl also be noted that the 3 or 4 average was created on an average population American population, which includes primarily Christians. In fact, it's my belief that, assuming this sclae is true, operating on a level that consists of "God says X, therefore we should abide by X" it little different from "The law says X, therefore we should abide by X", which is level 4. You say that atheists tend to have thigns a bit lower on the scale, so givne the generous assumption that theists are at level 4, this assumes that atheists morality consists entirely of child morality, that we do things only because we think it makes us seem cool, because it feels good, or because we don't want to get in trouble. This seems to me to be a very naive perception on atheism.

Your reasoning seems odd as well. You repeatedly claim that it takes challenges to move to the next level, but you also claim that atheists have more challenges, while Christians are handed an easy pass to level 4. That to me says atheists would in fact have a higher level, because they are challenged more, but your conclusion is that Christians are actually higher. It seems like that explination is neeeded there.

Just to let you know, sociopath is an outdated term nowadays. The appropriate title is now antisocial personality disorder.

Jefferson actually wasn't atheist, but he's not a theist as most understand it. He believed in Deism, which believes that God created the universe, but because it's a perfect creation, there's no need to interfere. God plays no active role in life, according to Deists. Miracles don't exist. To this point, Jefferson also created the Jeffersonian Bible, which is the New Testament with all the miracles taken out, focusing soley on the words and actions of Jesus. Deists do believe Jesus existed, but he was just a very honorable and wise man, a model to live by. Many of the Founding Fathers were deists, including Benjamin Franklin, and arguably Washington (though there's speculation over that one). I would be very interested in how Deism is seen nowadays where even Mormons have a hard time being accepted as Christians.

I did not mean to paint a crisis.  And the post was aimed primarily at Jude, who seems to be wondering how an atheist can hold a moral code without God.  Well of course an atheist has a moral code!  It simply isn't handed to him on a silver platter.  It's developed over time.



I certainly did not say that!!  If anything, I was hoping to apply quite the contrary - a Christian does not need to create a more complex moral code because the bible and his church shields him from complex moral questions by providing the answer already.  An atheist does not have that insulation, and so I suspect would be forced to develop the moral code more on his own to compete with the complex code already available to Christians.

I would tend to categorize Deism in with atheism/agnosticism simply because they don't generally feel held hard and fast by the rules set out in the bible.  Jesus was a wise man, but not the son of God, and therefore the rules he sets out aren't from the mouth of God, but simply very intelligent suggestions.  Jesus would be about on par with Confuscius.  Simply said, for the sake of argument, I don't believe people like Jefferson felt the ten commandments was absolute, beyond questioning, the word of God, nor that he should just accept the morals handed out in the bible as they read.

If we were discussing theology instead of morals, I'd probably break Jefferson and his ilk out separately, but in the realm of morals, he seems to fall closer to the Tycho side of the line than Jude's.

Sorry for misinterpreting your statements then. Maybe I woke on the wrong side of the bed this morning, so to speak. Or maybe I need to start drinking coffee again. Again, I'm sorry.

That said, I do still percieve a bias against atheism in your statement. You didn't say anything explicitaly as I stated it, but you did seem to feel the need to express this:



...without saying the same thing about theists. Yes, there's many cases where atheists have "low morals" but I'd say it's not much more, if not simply equal to, the proportion of Christians that have "low morals". That to me does suggest, at least in implication, that Christians have a higher set average.

As for Deism, that's certainly one way to classify it. I'd say it's fairly accurate too, that the Deist way of thinking is closer to Tycho's method than Jude's.  Though, that certainly has some implications I'm not certain some people are willing to accept, classifying Deists as agnostics or atheists.

Seeing as many influencial Founding Fathers of this nation were themselves Deist, and thus with an atheistic viewpoint on many things, that Christianity wasn't really an aim for this country, nor a basis. That Christianity isn't the foundation to the process, or of much importance at all, that Amereica actually has an atheistic basis, at least in it's foundation. Now, some of us, Christians included, are okay with that, but I know quite a few, more fundamentalist thinkers who would have a problem with that implication indeed.

To me, Deism is most certainly theism. I don't believe it to be Christianity though, something more akin to Buddism, more of a philosophy, a belief than a religion.

In his defense, I think Katisara did actually point out that he thought "most church goers" hit level 4 and stop going higher.  He also pointed out explicitly that he didn't know if christians or atheists scored higher "in general."  For what it's worth, I didn't perceive any bias against atheism in the post, and in fact actually thought it kind of hinted at the opposite.

This country was founded on the Judeo-Christian values, so I'm not concerned if people are offended by those terms.  Certainly they can have their own values, but PC is going a bit too far when we try to deny the founding history behind our country's moral principles.  ANd to call such thinking "arrogant" is to avoid the question and instead impose an ad hominem attack (which is a logical fallacy that shows you don't really have anything of substance to say).  Whether you believe it or not, much of our morals (regardless of religion or lack thereof) still stem from the Judeo-Christian morality.  It's just part of our culture.

Your second paragraph creates a whole new point that I don't think was discussed.  Instead of addressing the actual issue, you have imagined up someone said something they didn't and then attack that...and the person through that.  So I don't know how to respond to you making up arguments and attributing them to others, and then attacking those arguments.  In other words, no one suggested what you claim in your second paragraph.

Same with your third paragraph.  That wasn't really the point or argument.

I must say, I didn't expect such an adverse reaction from Health here. And, to be honest, I'm having a little trouble understanding what exactly I said to do so. So, I think I'm going to clear up a few points.

First off, here is what the post was responding to:



From this post, I take it that you're saying to be against the Christian virtues is to, by mere definition, become a self-pleasuring amoralist. It occured to me that if not believing in Christian morality is, by definition, advocating hedonistic existence, then it implies that Christian values are the sore reasons anyone has values such as being drug-free and having retraint in sexual matters. This is where I got the elusive point from. I'm assuming this is where I got my point wrong and where this new bit of chaos begins.

I disagree with this notion, and so took measures to counter it. The post as a whole, was intended to provide my reasoning, that people can come to the same conclusion, but by entirely different reasoning. And I personally find there to be a difference between doing things with different reasons.

By saying arrogant in the second paragraph, it wasn't meant to be an insult, but simply a discriptor of my objection, little different than "I find that argument to be weak". To be fair, I did provide my reasoning calling that particular point of view arrogant, whereas typically in ad hominem, there's an insult provided with the point of not discussing the issue.  I frankly didn't mean it to be insulting at all. If you wish, I can ammend that word, seeing as you seem particularly offended by it, and replace it with "flawed" or the sentence with "I disagree with that particular point of view." Really, my purpose was not to offend, and I'm sorry if someone felt attacked by it.

The third paragraph was simply a couple of different explinations for why someone like Falkus could disagree with Christian values, yet still be a moral and reserved being.

Again, I apologize for any confusion and I hope this clears things up. If not, well then, please forgive me, Health and anyone else agreeing with him, for being pointless, unarticulate, and for wasting everyone's time again.
This message was last edited by the player at 21:50, Fri 14 Dec 2007.

This country was founded on the Judeo-Christian values,

Allow me to quote article eleven of the treaty of Tripoli: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

ertainly they can have their own values, but PC is going a bit too far when we try to deny the founding history behind our country's moral principles.

The primary influence on the United States founding was Enlightenment philosophy, which itself was primarily influenced by Deism, not Christianity.

Whew, I'm getting behind.  You folks have been busy!  Vexen, you misunderstand.  Perhaps it's intentional or perhaps not, I'm not sure, but I'll explain it.  If you got into debt, I mean bad debt, like you had to have a major opperation and rehabilitation.  Lets say at the end of the day, you owe a million dollars.  Now, let's say that one day your on RPOL and someone tells you about this guy who pays off million dollar debts.  He even tells you that he's had a million dollar debt paid off by this guy.  You might say, that's amazing!  Who'd do such a thing?  What does he get in return?  Whatever.  The point is, the only way your going to find out if its true or not is if you find out how to meet this person and see if they really do pay off debts or not.  The point is, if your debt gets called in and you get thrown into prison because you didn't believe in the guy paying the debt, then who's fault is it that you're in prison?  Certainly not the debt payer, but your own.

People spend their whole lives not wanting anything to do with God and then expect to go to Heaven, and if they don't then it's God's fault?  If you spent your whole life kicking God out of your life, He's just giving you what you've asked for all your life and that's eternity without Him.  They call that Hell.



You only have to explain it if you want to keep the debate going. :p  I just want to clear this up again, because you seem to be missing this point as well.  As a Christian, I don't do good things because I'm trying to repay a debt.  The debt has been paid, therefore I am free to do good deeds to others because I'm forgiven.  Theres an old poem I love that goes:

Run run the law commands
But gives us neither feet nor hands.
Better news the Gospel brings
It bids us fly and gives us wings.

The point of this poem is that if we try to attain right standing with God by doing good things, we will fail because we have no power to get there.  We're handicapped by our own nature that bends us toward doing the wrong thing (See Romans Chapter Seven).  But in receiving the free gift of God (not free in that it cost nothing, free in that its freely given by Him who gave everything to procure it) through Jesus Christ, we now have every spiritual blessing in the kingdom of Heaven as adopted children of God (see the book of Ephesians).  So God says, "Because I've given you the blessings and the ability, now walk no longer as children who love darkness but as children who love the light.  That's a bit long-winded, but it seems your having a hard time with the idea that God would judge you on the basis of your deeds.  You only have to worry about being judged on your deeds if that's all you bring to the trial.



I like dogs, and I love cats.  I've had many of both in my life, and there are instances where animals can do amazing things, almost to the point of human emotion.  My belief is that God uses animals in these situations to do His will because people aren't around to do what's necessary.  In reality, a dog is nothing like a human.  They eat thier own vomit, sniff each other's butts and lick things that shouldn't be licked in polite company.  The same goes for cats but for the most part they're a bit more civilized and I believe cats would probably take over the world if they could only evolve an opposable thumb so they could get out of the basement without human help.
The "emotions" of animals can be greatly attributed to the fact that we feed and pet them.  They get rewarded for good behavior, punished for bad, and so they look on us kindly if they are treated kindly, however I garuntee for every story you have of an animal risking itself to save someone (I'm talking untrained animals.  Obviously police dogs, search and rescue dogs or guard dogs are trained to protect their masters and others) I can come up with two stories of dogs who ripped the face off a child in thier own house for putting it's hand in it's dish or startled it at just the right time and instinct took over.  There are far more people injured and killed by dogs in America then are saved by them (leaving out trained animals again).  In the end we are the ones that attribute human emotion to animals in most cases.  However I wasn't really talking about attributes like loyalty, sacrifice and honor.  I could be persuaded to believe some animals do have these qualities.  The ones I'm talking about pertain to things only humnans do, like worship, long for a purpose, be charitable.  Things like this are what seperate us from animals far more than our DNA.  I think that points to a difference in where we originatied.

Perhaps you can help me understand this then. It's not that I have difficulty understanding that my actions would be judged. I would expect that to a degree. It's the acceptance and implications of the deal with God I don't get. It seems to be implied that it's the acceptence of God that ensures your eternal salvation. Does you actions then have no bearing other than that? Can a serial killer accept God at the last leg of life and thus earn eternal salvation, while the guy who's lived a modest quite life who's atheistic is doomed?

That's what I'm having trouble with. To me, it does seem callus of God, that accepting him is the only thing that matters. Like a child in a popularity contest. Or that it even matters at all. A person can follow the most Christian of virtues, yet not be a believer in God and thus gets nothing. What about people who've never heard of Christianity? Are they now doomed because the message could never have been spread? This is hypothetical, btw, not suggesting that that actually exists in modern time, but it had to have at some point in history.

Likewise, most atheists I know aren't some extreme band that declares war on God. Most live normal lives, and have litttle issue with the church or God. If someone doesn't accept any particular church because there's so many of them in America alone that seem to contridict each other (Evangelicals vs. LDS vs. Catholics vs. Russian Othodox vs. etc.), now what? What if someone believes in God, but doesn't believe any particular church has the right perception? And what of those of other denominations that don't have the right stance, can they liteterally worship God their entire life, but not be saved because they didn't accept the "right" deal?

That's essentially why I don't think your hypotehtical works. IF there was one guy offering a million dollars and you didn't accept, then that's just fine. But, in actuallity, at least from my perspective, there's not. There's a thousand different people promising that million dollars, and it's all in a big haze, a list on an internet site pages long. But only one actually has it. Is it now the person's fault for not being able to discern which one is the correct one at a glance?

So, please, clarify for me a bit. What is this deal? What are the terms, the conditions?

Also, I'm reading a lot of implications that this deal is what allows a Christian to be moral and free to do good, but I don't understand either. When I try to help someone, I don't feel this impedement that stops me from helping. Quite the opposite I feel compelled more often than not, and I feel guilty if I can't help, even if I try to. Is that false somehow?

The bible never explicitly says if you don't accept Jesus during your life you're going to hell (and suggests to the contrary in many cases, such as Moses).  What it does say is that if you accept Jesus, you go to heaven, and that a lot of people are not going to accept Jesus and are going to hell.  The LDS faith indicates that you'll have the chance to accept Jesus after death, but that it's basically a 'the more you give for the less proof, they better you score' sort of a thing - if someone says 'believe!' and you do, you're doing better than someone who sees an angel and believes, who is doing better than someone who dies, hangs out with Jesus then believes.  I'm not aware of anything in the bible to directly contradict this.

It is suggested that rejecting Jesus is basically a ticket to Hell, but I have difficulty with that - the Jews specifically do not accept conversions (broadly speaking) because once you convert, they believe if you recant, you go to Hell, whereas if you never convert you may still go to heaven.  I feel like this could be the same case - if you're Christian and you recant you're in trouble, but if you were never Christian maybe not so much.  Even if Jehovah's Witnesses came to your door and you told them to go away, you didn't reject Jesus in that you never really accepted him in the first place.  You're just looking over the list of thousands of millionaires dumbfounded.  But this would be just my personal view on it today, liable to change, and not supported by most Christian churches I know of.

The Catholic Church, LDS Church and most Christian churches I know of broadly accept that if you accept Jesus, even as a member of the wrong church, you're still okay.  It's only if you accept some other guy named Jesus who ISN'T Jesus that being 'Christian' might not result in salvation.  The reason most of them compete is because they each think they understand the whole story better or have more to offer - they do it better - but not that the other ones don't do it at all.  Of course, there are exceptions.  I believe they broadly accept Jews also are welcome into Heaven.

     Well the simple answer is yes, however that comes off sounding a bit harsh as the question intends it to, so I'll elaborate a bit.  Since a lot of this I just talked about in the "Return to Sender" thread, I'll be brief (if such a thing is possible).  Again it seems your focused on living a certain kind of life equaling being worthy of eternal life.  If the bible is true and God is real, then He's in this for the relationship.  You can see it as insecure or arrogant or even childish if you choose to, but let's face it, if you create something, you kind of have the final word on how it works.  Here's perhaps another example that might help.  Jesus said that He was going away to prepare a place.  He referred to it as a mansion with many rooms.  So even if, by human standards, you lived your life peacably and quiet and morally, but in your heart you just didn't believe that God existed or that there was sufficent evidence in the rising of the sun or in a newborn child's sighs or even the nagging thing inside of you that asks why am I here, where am I going and what should I do with my life, to belive in God, when you die and find out that there is a God and you knock on His door and say, "Wow!  I was wrong, oh well, can I come in and live with you now," what do you think the logical response would be.  Again, if you spend your whole life saying "I don't need you God" it only seems logical that when you get to eternity, because God believes in freewill, He will allow you to live in eternity without Him.  Eternity seperated from God, by default, is a really bad place of torment, not because God is punishing you, but because that is what a soul seperated from God experiences.

     As far as dealing with the LDS doctrine on conversion after death, I don't know enough about it to comment.  What the bible says is that it's given to man to die once and then the judgement.  I find nothing in scripture to support the idea that there is a chance for conversion after death.



        I'll agree the analogy isn't perfect, but let me try anyway.  So let's say you do decide you want to find out about this guy with the million.  So you google "Million Dollar Man".  Well you might get info about your guy, but mostly you'd probably get pictures of Lee Majors.  If you really were serious and you really wanted to find the man who could pay your debt for you you wouldn't just give it a "glance" but you'd search and research and talk to people who know the man and probably go to places that the man had been seen and talk to many people who had gotten their debt paid, etc, etc.  That's the deal in a nutshell, and I guess I've said that pretty clearly in the other thread so I won't repeat it here.



        I cannot speak for anyone but myself in this.  When I used to try to help people it was as you say, out of either guilt or compulsion (someone needs to do something).  It wasn't out of genuine love.  It's hard to love others when you feel condemned over your own sin.  Forgiveness frees us to think past ourselves to others and give not so we can mask our own guilt or shame or inadiquicies or to give ourselves a sense of accomplishment, but simply because those who have been forgiven much love much.

Huh, for some reason the million-dollar man when applied to this case keeps making me think of Star Trek V, where Spock's half-brother goes around and heals people of their emotional baggage, so they suddenly become his devoted followers.

"They're the things we carry with us, the things that make us who we are. If we lose them, we lose ourselves. I don't want my pain taken away! I need my pain!"

(Sorry, don't mean to derail, just had to share.)

    Yeah, there's a ton of those.  Which is why I don't understand all the hoopla over TGC.  Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember anyone in Chrisendom suggesting a boycott of Star Trek V.

Falkus, please see the other thread.  I think we are talking about different things.  I am talking values and you are talking religion.

To rebut your point, I will point you generally to the book:

"The United States:  A Christian Nation" (by David Brewer)

I think your foundation is wrong, and pulling odd quotes here and there doesn't really prove or show anything.

From the book description, for example:



You want more...I can get lots more.  But saying that the Enlightenment philosophy and Deism are the guiding factors of the founding of the country is only one piece in a much larger puzzle, which has as its roots the Christian religion.

...that and Judeo-Christian values.

Moving this discussion here from the OOC thread:











This message was last edited by the GM at 08:52, Wed 22 Oct 2008.