"A Week" March 20 - 26

[blackknight5k]

As I'm sure the majority of you are on facebook, I'm sure you've seen people with the following image as their picture:

So it looks like this week is some semi-organized Atheism week, I'll just post a flier from their website to explain their view.

I re-hosted the images in case you're worried about giving their site extra views or anything.

So anyway, it seems to be mostly harmless, however I have since discovered a multitude of Atheists on my friend's list that I didn't know about. Your thoughts?

[Jenamarie]

Meh. They can gather if they want to.

[pam]

I have atheist friends. Ditto to what Jenamarie said.

[prophetofdoom]

I respect their right to believe what they want to. However, I STRONGLY DISAGREE that they are "good without God" in their lives. They do not know what happiness or blessings they are passing up.

[Blackmarch]

IMO It's not whether one can be good without God, my questions is how long can they be Good, and what defines "Good" for them?

Edited March 25, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Matthew0059]

IMO It's not whether one can be good without God, my questions is how long can they be Good, and what defines "Good" for them?

Good question... It's difficult to find any sort of objective truth or moral law without a GOD. Many try (Ayn Rand, for instance) but their philosophies suffer from intellectual dissonance. It's easy to reject the idea of an absolute law ("GOD") and make a relative law from the common ideals of present society.

The problem is, as you state, how long can this last. The striving towards good while rejecting GOD'S fullness works only so long as GOD'S spirit continues to strive with the people.

What happens when HIS spirit stops striving with wicked men? What will happen then?

[blackknight5k]

Placing yourself inside an Athiest's shoes, I don't really understand how they can believe in any sort of "natural good". If there is no God and we are all just a mass of cells with no purpose, then there would be no good or evil because there would be no define it.

In a hypothetical world with no god(s) then if 2 humanlike beings are in the woods and one wants to take what the other has and bashes them over the rock, how could you define that as "evil" or "bad" without basing that off of religious beliefs we've had for thousands of years?

[Matthew0059]

Placing yourself inside an Athiest's shoes, I don't really understand how they can believe in any sort of "natural good". If there is no God and we are all just a mass of cells with no purpose, then there would be no good or evil because there would be no define it.

This is the "beauty" of relativism: take a universe with no real order (i.e., a universe without GOD) and impose order on it (i.e., make yourself as GOD and do HIS job for HIM). This is the reason Satan uses relativism to take care of the intellectual dissonance caused by immorality.

When you get into sociopolitical groups, all you need is a leader taking the common sympathies of the day (for our day it's "gay rights", reproductive justive, social and economic justice, etc.) and teaching that all we have to do is impose those standards on the world (or at least the nation) and the world will become a better place. The foolish and those susceptible to relativist thought will flock to such a leader in droves.

[mightynancy]

Athiests most certainly can be moral and ethical. It's a fallacy to say that there would be no good or evil without a belief in God to define it.

[blackknight5k]

Then who would define it?

[Soulsearcher]

Then who would define it?

I don't need god to tell me helping my fellow man is good. I'd be rather horrified if that's the only way knew that helping others was cause god said it was good rather than in common sense of lifting the community as a whole and not harming others.

[mightynancy]

We'll have to back up and come to some common assumptions in order to have a meaningful discussion. The two most relevant are: people's disbelief of God doesn't cause Him not to exist, and anything good is of God.

My favorite definition of ethics comes from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (part of a religious university, btw).

ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.

In short, ethics can be defined by reason. Now, you and I understand that the ability to reason is a gift from God. Disbelief in God, however, doesn't preclude a person from exercising reason.

[lizzy16]

I haven't seen these A's at all...and I have quite a few athiest friends.

[blackknight5k]

The list provided seems to break down as defining the following things as inherently "evil:

rape

stealing

murder

assault

slander

fraud

Looking at the list, all of us and even those people at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics have been raised in our current society together. That society has been shaped for thousands of years by religious influence. If you create a hypothetical "godless" world then I believe each and every one of those things could be seen as "good" or "neutral" by societies with different roots from our own.

Nature itself favors rape, assault/murder, and deception (encompassing the rest of the things in the list) for the continuation of the individual organism to reproduce, thus passing on its genes into the gene pool. Rape obviously would further that basic need most immediately, as a male organism of the species would simply scout out as many fitting females and mate with them without their consent and then they would have their offspring, thus furthering the genes of the male species along with the female. Believe it or not, there are people in our society today who think rape should not be seen as a crime but necessary to the continuation of our species and a more "natural" way to reproduce. I am not one of these people, I think rape is a horrible evil.

Murder/assault is seen in nature when males of the pack challenge the alpha, or a pack moves in on another's territory to steal their resources. Societies around the world as a whole have been doing this since Cain killed Abel for his flock, and there are those out there who would also argue that this is just the natural order of things. Through the Book of Mormon it is taught to defend ourselves, but do not go on the offensive. When we defend ourselves the power of God is with us, but when we attack we do so by our own strength alone. Those who believe in no God would obviously come to the conclusion that defense and attack would both be by their strengths. One may argue that tactically it is easier to defend on your own ground than attack in unfamiliar ground, but I didn't come here to argue the art of war.

Again, in closing, I reiterate that even the most die hard athiest of our time has been shaped by a society which, in turn, has been shaped by religion. There is no way to say that a society shaped by no religion would define the same acts as "good" or "evil" that our society has come to have. You can say until your face is blue that "you can define your own morals on your own", however YOU are a product of the society you are raised in. No matter how much you hate it, it is ingrained in you.

[mightynancy]

Yes, we are the product of a society.

That said, we are social beings, even from a scientific standpoint. That which benefits the social structure benefits the individual, God or no God. Bees don't believe in God, but work tirelessly and selflessly for the benefit of the rest of the hive.

Don't get me wrong - I believe in God. I just don't like logical fallacies to be perpetuated by anyone.

[blackknight5k]

I don't see how my logic is fallacious - without Religion or Society labeling something as "evil" then it could be labeled any other way by a different society or religion. We believe that these things are "evil" because our society and religion says they are evil, however in another they might not be.

If you raise a child in the middle of the wilderness with no societal influence then how would they define "good' and "evil"?

[mightynancy]

Not to be circular, but we'd define it with reason. And you phrased it right there in your question - religion OR society. Society can define ethics without religion.

If a child were raised in the wilderness with no societal influence (by wolves? Oh wait, wolves have a societal structure. Somebody get me an invertebrate, quick!), they'd be left to their own devices and would most likely be very much like an animal. Once you put another being there, ethics come into play.

Your logic is off because there ARE ethical and moral atheists, who behave the way they do because of their own reasoning, not because God told them to, or that they fear the consequences of God. To say that anyone who does not believe in god is inherently evil is wrong. And it's not very nice. Which isn't ethical. Or moral. And you're a Christian.

[blackknight5k]

Please show me where I said that anyone who doesn't believe in god is inherently evil? I know plenty of athiests and they do believe in some sort of "natural good" or moral code, however that "natural good" or moral code was defined by the society we live in. I believe that man, as created by God, is inherently GOOD.

Also, saying that it would be "defined by reason" is illogical because our reason is also defined by our society.

Edited March 27, 2011 by blackknight5k
further clarification of my beliefs

[jayanna]

Even Jesus said, "why call ye me good. There is only one that is good" He was referring to HF.

Good all comes from one place, whether you believe in it or not.

If you have a conscience, it is from God.

You can never really know if you are good without God, because His influence is in everything around us, what we eat, what we see, what we walk on when we go outside, the air we breathe...the fact that we can know good from evil and have a choice between them.

Good without God...what they mean to say is that they believe they are good without Him...it's completely different. They can believe anything they want to, people used to believe that a pile of dirt would turn into rats, it doesn't change truth. It doesn't surprise me, and I don't think they are horrible or stupid or anything, people grow and learn and do great things all the time.

One day all this speculation about God will be over, and every knee shall bow and all that...until then all that we can do is be the best we can to each other.

Just my 2 cents

[mightynancy]

Yep. Matthew, what Jayanna is saying, only with more words, is the second of my two assumptions I shared before jumping into this fray.

I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't have a clear definition of good. I'm only saying that one doesn't need to profess a belief in God in order to be good. One can use reason to be good.

[Matthew0059]

Yep. Matthew, what Jayanna is saying, only with more words, is the second of my two assumptions I shared before jumping into this fray.

I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't have a clear definition of good. I'm only saying that one doesn't need to profess a belief in God in order to be good. One can use reason to be good.

Mightnancy, reason is as the infrastructure of a building. To judge the goodness of a philosophy, you have to test its foundation. ANY philosophical construct that rejects the existence of absolute truth (i.e., any relativist philosophy) is built upon a weak, sandy foundation. And what is the test that GOD has suggested every such building will endure? The rains and the winds. We know that every building built upon a sandy foundation will crumble.

Now, can an atheist be good? Yes, but his reasoning and justification for it is dross and hogwash if he doesn't acknowledge GOD. Have you read "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis? At the end, Emeth of the Calormenes (a nation of heathens), a just and honest man, encounters Aslan and expects to be killed because he worships Tash (an idolatrous god). Instead, Aslan addresses Emeth as a son and says

"I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him." (NarniaWiki)

We know that an atheist possesses the light of CHRIST. However, we cannot allow the evil seed of relativism any quarter in our soul. Relativism clings to man's fallen reasoning and the rules thereof to justify himself as "good", but we know this cannot work.

[mightynancy]

We'll have to back up and come to some common assumptions in order to have a meaningful discussion. The two most relevant are: people's disbelief of God doesn't cause Him not to exist, and anything good is of God.

Yeah, I think I already said that.

*I* understand that all light and goodness are of God. However, I think it's dandy for anyone to be good and do good works for any reason at all. It's all the same if someone wants to care for the needy and call it "ethics" or "giving back" or "liberal guilt" or "humanitarian service." The end result is no different; the service was given.

We don't currently have insurance, and tomorrow my daughter is going to receive a free dental checkup. I don't plan to interview the dentist to find out if he's doing this because he wants to please God, or if he's just doing it because his code of ethics tells him he needs to serve his community. The end result is the same: scrubbed teeth, fillings as needed. I imagine the Lord will be pleased either way. By their fruits and all that.

[blackknight5k]

I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, or that he doesn't have a clear definition of good. I'm only saying that one doesn't need to profess a belief in God in order to be good. One can use reason to be good.

Again, your "reason" is influenced by the way you were raised. In ancient Rome it was "reasonable" to go off to a foreign land and kidnap and rape their women until they accepted their fate and became the man's "wife". Oh yeah, they murdered the men to - two things that we've all established in this thread are "evil".

I'm not saying that an athiest can't be good or have a moral code. In nature, all actions are "neutral" unless labeled good or evil by someone's opinion.

[PrinceofLight2000]

IMO It's not whether one can be good without God, my questions is how long can they be Good, and what defines "Good" for them?

Selectively applied moral relativism in relation to a society based off Mosaic law and Christian values.

It's a total oxymoron in more ways than one, I know.

Edited March 28, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

A friend of mine made a post on another forum regarding this topic. I'm going to repost it here.

I was not necessarily relating it to truth. I was stating fact. Truth is absolute, and I wanted to see your argument for morality being relative since you merely made that statement without backing up your own thoughts. That argument is centuries old and has many different takes on it.

The idea you are trying to suggest is Cultural Relativism and while it may be appealing at first, it is hardly logical. The mistake you are making is that you are attempting to derive a substantive conclusion about a subject (morality) merely based on the fact that people disagree about it. Your examples: is bathing nude okay? What about pornography? are bachelor parties wrong? etc etc, are all examples. What about cannibalism? The Greeks believed that it was wrong to eat the dead while the Callatians believed it was right. They did disagree, yes, but it could also be that the practice was objectively wrong (or right). To make this point more clear, we'll talk about the earth. People used to think that the earth was flat, others believed that the earth was round. While they may have had an opinion and disagreement on the matter, we do know the truth. I'm not saying any of those examples you stated are true or false, I'm merely pointing out that your argument accomplishes nothing. By merely pointing out disagreement you do not establish a sound argument.

Even if it was cultural relativism to be true, have you considered what life would be like? According to cultural relativism if there was a disagreement you would be unable to claim who is right or who is wrong. Take for instance, a country claiming war to impose slavery on another country. Neighboring countries would be unable to conclude which side is right or whish side is wrong. They'd see a disagreement but morality supposedly being relative they would be unable to deem which side correct. Additionally, if cultural relativism is correct, would that be progress? To determine progress we'd have to compare the current state of a society to a former state of that same society. According to cultural relativism, however, we would be unable to make that comparison as we would be unable to deem which society is objectively better. Cultural relativism is rejected as truth because it makes sense to be able to condemn some practice, such as mass genocides, while it also makes sense to be able to say that we as a society have made progress.

Take for instances how societies perpetuate themselves. There is an agreement among societies that babies are necessarily to continue growth. If there are no babies, then there will be no one to replace older members of society and that society would eventually die out. Any society that continues to grow have a moral agreement that the youth are important to the societies survival. While a group of Eskimos may commit infanticide, they do so only necessarily, knowing that it is necessary to perpetuate their society. This being true because conditions are often harsh and resources limited. They do, however, keep infants when conditions allow them to do so.

To further my point, let's look at a society in which there was no law for or against murder. Afterall, according to cultural relativism we would be unable to decide which side was right. People would therefore be free to kill at their own will. Those who desired to continue living would find themselves isolated from other individuals, in fear of dying. Perhaps some of those individuals who wants to survive would group together with those who they could trust. Of course, grouping together would mean they'd be forming a smaller society that acknowledges a rule against murder. The point here is this: there are some morals that all societies will have in common, because there those rules are necessary for existence.

Cultural Relativism may be appealing at first glance, however, it hardly makes sense. Any society with such a mindset would surely fail. I haven't even brought up examples about politics, laws, and etc. Even now, you have essentially said it yourself, the law is not perfect. Under cultural relativism, however, if you are unable to criticize other societies, you would also be unable to criticize your own society. Afterall, if right and wrong are relative to culture, this must be true for your culture as well. Thus anything you view as morally objectionably would not be able to be criticized under cultural relativism.

Fake Coupons - Page 10 - AbsolutePunk.net