Where do atheists get their morals from?

[mongers]

But you're making the assumption that if there is a god/gods then all holy books must be the literal 'word of god'

Assuming there is a god, there could be all sorts of reasons why there is a given holy book associated that god; for instance for all we know it might just be an experiment in 'chinese whispers' by that particular god.

Why should I not make that assumption. The book is the only thing we have heard from god for X hundred years. If you think one of them is true then you take it seriously. All religions are distinctly lacking in sentiments of the kind "we have this book and we think it is a pretty good effort at understanding the will of god, we might be wrong, but we leave it up to you to decide if it is the word of god or not." Religious books have one thing in common they neither caveat, equivocate or hedge. It's only when the books are proven to be unadulterated BS that attempts to explain the errors away like your chinese whispers example are brought forth.

If you accept the chinese whispers experiment analogy you have no good reason to treat any holy scripture as anything but made up fiction. You can't have it both ways.

Because it's Your assumption, whereas I'm not assuming anything and the range of possibilities I suggested do include your suggestion, whereas yours excludes everything else.

And on the 2nd point I've emboldened, again you're assuming your interpretation is the only one, but for instance, if you look at born-again Christianity, there's numerous instance of people/preachers saying they've had direct recent communication with god.  Now assuming god exists, then some, all or none of these reported communications/relationships with God could be 'real', I don't know.

Now I've know quite a few born-again types and it appears their direct, unmitigated relationship with God seems to be the important part for them rather than the solely the Bible.

[Viking]

Because it's Your assumption, whereas I'm not assuming anything and the range of possibilities I suggested do include your suggestion, whereas yours excludes everything else.

And on the 2nd point I've emboldened, again you're assuming your interpretation is the only one, but for instance, if you look at born-again Christianity, there's numerous instance of people/preachers saying they've had direct recent communication with god.  Now assuming god exists, then some, all or none of these reported communications/relationships with God could be 'real', I don't know.

Now I've know quite a few born-again types and it appears their direct, unmitigated relationship with God seems to be the important part for them rather than the solely the Bible.

Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.


The central point I am trying to make is that my beliefs inform my actions. If I believe it I will act on that belief. If my beliefs were different my action would be different. You can make up any beliefs and then ask me if I held them would I act differently; well of course. You suggest that religion might be a sick joke played by a supreme being just see what happened, well nobody claims to believe that.

But don't you see what you have done here. You have abolished the religion replacing it with a personal relationship with god. You have to re-write everything that religion says about god and reality to get there. My argument was that if I the book was the word of god it must be taken seriously. Replying that the book isn't the word of god and something else might be isn't really relevant when the issue is if the book should be taken seriously if it is the word of god. In your example I'd be a fundamentalist literalist following the voices in my head and I can assure you that this happens all the time, I'm not alone here. Fortunately for me I don't have voices in my head and if I did I would not think they were from God; being an atheist does have mental health perks.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

as an intermezzo:

regarding the Samaritans: didn't we have a thread on that a while ago? Or was that some article I read in Der Spiegel (iirc) saying that they might not only have found the Samaritan Temple, but also -after some more studies- found out that the Samaritan version of Judaïsme was apparently the older one (to be supplanted by an anti-samaritan version coming from the gang in Jerusalem)?

[Razgovory]

Are you hearing stuff that's only in your head or what?  Nobody is trying to find "God in the gaps".  In fact nobody has brought up actual science (you brought up pseudoscience).  First of all, I'm not a Lutheran I'm a Catholic, which has never been big on literal interpretations of the bible.  This is neither a new thing, nor a minority view.  Second, I don't think Lutherans believe you can't eat cheese burgers.  You pick and choose bible passages without context and assume that's what Christians believe and then insult people over it.

The reason why you can't understand why everyone isn't a biblical literalistic is because you are to goddamn lazy to actually find out why.  There are hundreds of religious doctrines on why people believe things, but you don't take the time to actually learn what you are arguing against.  When you get like this you are no better then a creationist who hasn't actually bothered tor read modern evolutionary theory and instead cherry picks quotes and ideas from the last 150 years and says he can't understand  how someone can be a Darwinist and not a eugenicist and a racist.

I'm not too god damn lazy to find this out. Nobody answers the question. Nobody has given any answer on how you can find out which bits of the old testament laws are to be ignored and which are to be followed. Nobody has given any answer on how you determine which bits of the bible are allegorical and which are literal.

You tell me to go figure out from some mythical theological sages that answer the question. You are a god botherer and I observe that it took some time before you actually were provoked enough to admit you were a papist. You refuse to defend any catholic dogma and you also refuse to testify to your faith. You are expecting me to read your mind to figure out what you believe. This leaves me with your book and the representatives you recognize (by being catholic).

If you are an honest catholic then you should be able to honestly explain to me how you figure out which old testament commandments you can ignore, which you can re-interpret and which need to be followed. I know how the catholic clergy and theologians explain this; well they don't. They obfuscate, avoid the question and then change the topic.

If you want I can explain to you how my acceptance of the theory evolution does not mean I must be a eugenicist and/or racist. AFTER you answer the question above.

You could look in places that aren't Languish.  I'm not a theologian, but I think the mainstream answer is that Jesus Christ is considered the new covenant and supersedes many of the old Noahide laws.  Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament.  If you are really curious, you could pick up major books on theology such the works of Augustine of Hippo or St. Thomas Aquinas.  JR chose the guide for the Perplexed.   I don't know about Islam, but I assume there are similar works.

Now an "intuitive" understanding of religion is common amongst some protestant faiths, but I don't know much about that and I stay clear of faith healers and snake handlers.  You seem to be coming at it from this this angle.

[Malthus]

I have had sex with Jews.

I haven't. 

[Valmy]

Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament.

Of course eating pigs is not in the Noahide laws either and not even in the OT was ever supposed to apply to non-Jews.

Also Paul only says the Jew Dietary Laws do not apply to GENTILE Christians, and this is consistent with Jewish Law.

The only Noahide Law not specifically adopted by Christians is the one about eating parts of living animals...but still I doubt very many people do that.

[Neil]

I have had sex with Jews.

I haven't. 

You should have becoe a doctor then. 

At least Caliga can say 'I'm in health care' and they'll assume he's a doctor.  Although Israel probably considers that rape.

[Malthus]

Some like a ban on homosexuality are retained and can be found in the letters of Paul, but other ritual laws like eating pigs are not retained as they aren't found in the New Testament.

Of course eating pigs is not in the Noahide laws either and not even in the OT was ever supposed to apply to non-Jews.

Also Paul only says the Jew Dietary Laws do not apply to GENTILE Christians, and this is consistent with Jewish Law.

The only Noahide Law not specifically adopted by Christians is the one about eating parts of living animals...but still I doubt very many people do that.

The Koreans are shit outta luck.  Remember that live octopus thing? Least. Kosher. Meal. Ever.

[Malthus]

I have had sex with Jews.

I haven't. 

You should have becoe a doctor then. 

At least Caliga can say 'I'm in health care' and they'll assume he's a doctor.  Although Israel probably considers that rape.

Naw, I shoulda joined the "seduction community", rather than gotten married. 

Actually, I grew up among some truly obnoxious JAPs, which forever put a crimp in my appreciation of Jewish women ... 

[Barrister]

Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.

You can only hear once you start to listen.

[Barrister]

as an intermezzo:

regarding the Samaritans: didn't we have a thread on that a while ago? Or was that some article I read in Der Spiegel (iirc) saying that they might not only have found the Samaritan Temple, but also -after some more studies- found out that the Samaritan version of Judaïsme was apparently the older one (to be supplanted by an anti-samaritan version coming from the gang in Jerusalem)?

Yes we did.

At one point I thought a Samaritan was just a "good person" - I missed entirely that the Parable was a reference to a distinct group of people.  At some point I learned the historical significance of the Samaritans.

But it took that thread for me to learn that there is an incredibly tiny population of live Samaritans on this planet.

[Viking]

Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.

You can only hear once you start to listen.

I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.

[derspiess]

Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.

You can only hear once you start to listen.

I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.

If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.

[Barrister]

Well I'd expect some form of bona fides before taking any mystic hearing voices seriously (e.g. miracles) barring that I'd expect to hear that message myself.

You can only hear once you start to listen.

I'm sorry but that is mere tripe. It is a trivially true statement and meaningless in and of itself.

Most people who report speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have gone out trying to commune with God through prayer.  You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.

The trouble with all of your arguments is you seem to expect so very little out of humanity.  We can't believe in something uness it is right in front of us.  We can't understand a book unless it's completely literally. 

[Viking]

Most people who report speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have gone out trying to commune with God through prayer.  You can hardly argue "God doesn't exist because he won't talk to me" if you haven't made any attempt to talk with Him.

You got any reference for that assertion?

Most people who report to me of speaking with God, or having a personal relationship with Jesus, or whatever language they use, have asserted that God came to them when they were in the gutter helping them out of it. Or at least this is a 100% match with the Pentacostal wing of my family (no snake handlers though).

The entire point of the tripe you uttered was that to be able to hear god must already believe and if you already believe you will convince yourself that you heard something for one of many identified psychological reasons.

The trouble with all of your arguments is you seem to expect so very little out of humanity.  We can't believe in something uness it is right in front of us.  We can't understand a book unless it's completely literally.

Here you are just making shit up. I expect much much more than you do out of humanity, I demand that humans justify their morals end ethics with something other than just referring to an external source ("it's in the bible") or mere subjective emotion ("thats, like, just your opinion man"). You don't understand a book if you can't explain why it means what it means; if you can't explain why you arbitrarily include one verse but exclude another you don't understand it; if you haven't read it you don't understand it; AND if you can't see and reconcile the obvious contradictions, factual errors and downright evil in the book then you don't understand it. This applies to both the bible and huckleberry finn. 

Faith is belief without evidence, I can't respect that and I can't respect anybody who thinks that is a virtue.