Christians who don't believe in God

[barboft]

Aught, you have a scientific method, which encourages / compels scientists to think about how their ideas match up to existing knowledge as well as possible scrutiny. Likewise, having a moral code doesn't stop you thinking, in fact the opposite is the case, thinking about your actions is the whole point of it.

A Christian moral code that encourages you to think about your action, I'm sure this can't be Biblical...

Edit: Wait are you into the whole 'personal relationship with Jesus' thing?

I was simply asking you a question about having a moral code per se, as opposed to not having one. You say that you prefer thinking, however, having a moral code makes you do just that.

 

[Aught3]

I was simply asking you a question about having a moral code per se, as opposed to not having one. You say that you prefer thinking, however, having a moral code makes you do just that.

Well I'm still on my initial point of wondering exactly what the Christian moral code is, but you keep dodging the question.

To answer your question I think having a moral system is better than having no moral system but a system based on goodness and humanity is better than one based on religion and gods.

 

[lrkun]

The better questions are:

1. Why do we need a moral code?

2. How are we to teach these morals?

3. what specific morals should a human learn in order to live in harmony with his fellow man as well as nature?

 

[barboft]

I was simply asking you a question about having a moral code per se, as opposed to not having one. You say that you prefer thinking, however, having a moral code makes you do just that.

Well I'm still on my initial point of wondering exactly what the Christian moral code is, but you keep dodging the question.

To answer your question I think having a moral system is better than having no moral system but a system based on goodness and humanity is better than one based on religion and gods.

The christian moral code is what you said earlier, which I already agreed with, which is the teachings of Jesus, and they're in the bible of course (see sermon on the mount for an example). I wasn't dodging your question, it's just that as far as I was aware it had already been addressed.

Thanks for addressing my question. We agree that having a moral code is better than not having one. I thought you disagreed but now I see that in fact you don't. I think it's fair to say that religion isn't the only type of moral code, however, it is a moral code and as such it is useful. For example, love thy neighbour and judge not lest ye be judged are pretty good guidelines for living, and I dare say I imagine you would probably be inclined to agree (although do correct me if I'm wrong on that). Religion is not just about gods and heaven, it's really, for all intents and purposes, just a moral code at the end of the day. The bells and whistles that come with it can be ignored by all means but the basics are there.

Is there any type of "atheist" moral code? If it's possible to have one without it involving religion and gods (which it is) then maybe there should be one, if there isn't already.




Irkun, I've just spotted your post.

1 Moral codes are useful in that they serve as a guideline for conduct.

2 You teach them like you would teach anything else.

3 That's an interesting question. Do you want to get the ball rolling on that?

 

[lrkun]

Irkun, I've just spotted your post.

1 Moral codes are useful in that they serve as a guideline for conduct.

2 You teach them like you would teach anything else.

3 That's an interesting question. Do you want to get the ball rolling on that?

Can you be more specific with number 2?

Give Effort. My only moral. I don't know if it is a moral. But that is a very basic thing, a human has to learn.

 

[barboft]

Irkun, I've just spotted your post.

1 Moral codes are useful in that they serve as a guideline for conduct.

2 You teach them like you would teach anything else.

3 That's an interesting question. Do you want to get the ball rolling on that?

Can you be more specific with number 2?

Give Effort. My only moral. I don't know if it is a moral. But that is a very basic thing, a human has to learn.

When your'a a kid, your parents teach you stuff at home, when you go to school your teachers teach you stuff, and you learn about behaviour, social interaction and dynamics in the playground, and via all of that, you learn. Society brings you and so do your teachers and parents. And you learn stuff from book, tv, etc.

By the way, are you sure "give effort" is enough? In itself, it's not really a moral.

 

[Aught3]

I think we must be talking past each other because I don't see how I can be any clearer. At least in your last post there were some ideas that start to answer my question.

For example, love thy neighbour and judge not lest ye be judged are pretty good guidelines for living, and I dare say I imagine you would probably be inclined to agree (although do correct me if I'm wrong on that).

So out of about thirty books these are the two central teachings?

Love your neighbour as yourself is okay, and a good call for solidarity. Obviously you can't love your neighbour as much as yourself (which is why I assume you left this part out). You do have to have a slight bias for yourself and your immediate family. Of course, this advice is from the old testament and Jesus is merely quoting.

Judge not lest ye be judged I think is bad advice. When someone does something wrong we need to recognise it and correct them, can't do that without judging. Jesus basically makes an ad hominum with this saying.

Golden rule is good, I get my version from Kant but basically every moral system shares this as a core value.

I already posted something on atheist ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

 

[barboft]

I think we must be talking past each other because I don't see how I can be any clearer. At least in your last post there were some ideas that start to answer my question.

For example, love thy neighbour and judge not lest ye be judged are pretty good guidelines for living, and I dare say I imagine you would probably be inclined to agree (although do correct me if I'm wrong on that).

So out of about thirty books these are the two central teachings?

Love your neighbour as yourself is okay, and a good call for solidarity. Obviously you can't love your neighbour as much as yourself (which is why I assume you left this part out). You do have to have a slight bias for yourself and your immediate family. Of course, this advice is from the old testament and Jesus is merely quoting.

Judge not lest ye be judged I think is bad advice. When someone does something wrong we need to recognise it and correct them, can't do that without judging. Jesus basically makes an ad hominum with this saying.

Golden rule is good, I get my version from Kant but basically every moral system shares this as a core value.

I already posted something on atheist ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I think when they say "judge not lest ye be judged", I don't think that what is meant is that you should never judge others. It's a badly worded soundbite. I think what it means is : You're not perfect yourself, so recognise your own shortcomings before you judge others (...lest ye be judged for not being perfect yourself). It's just another way of saying don't be a hypocritical asshole.

As for love yourself first, I agree. If you have no love for yourself you have no (genuine) love to give. I'd put it like this : Love yourself first, and then love others equally to yourself, if you can.

 

[lrkun]

When your'a a kid, your parents teach you stuff at home, when you go to school your teachers teach you stuff, and you learn about behaviour, social interaction and dynamics in the playground, and via all of that, you learn. Society brings you and so do your teachers and parents. And you learn stuff from book, tv, etc.

By the way, are you sure "give effort" is enough? In itself, it's not really a moral.

1. Effort.

2. Follow the rules.

3. Obey the law.

---

These are my only morals.

 

[barboft]

When your'a a kid, your parents teach you stuff at home, when you go to school your teachers teach you stuff, and you learn about behaviour, social interaction and dynamics in the playground, and via all of that, you learn. Society brings you and so do your teachers and parents. And you learn stuff from book, tv, etc.

By the way, are you sure "give effort" is enough? In itself, it's not really a moral.

Effor is the only thing I do.

Do you apply effort for evil, or do you have morals?

 

[lrkun]

Do you apply effort for evil, or do you have morals?

If evil means something which is against the law, such as theft, then no.

 

[barboft]

When your'a a kid, your parents teach you stuff at home, when you go to school your teachers teach you stuff, and you learn about behaviour, social interaction and dynamics in the playground, and via all of that, you learn. Society brings you and so do your teachers and parents. And you learn stuff from book, tv, etc.

By the way, are you sure "give effort" is enough? In itself, it's not really a moral.

1. Effort.

2. Follow the rules.

3. Obey the law.

---

These are my only morals.

Put effort into what? Follow really bad rules or good, sensible rules? Obey terrible laws or good ones? Rules aren't morals in themselves, they're just rules. You mean you'd obey a law that says you have to do things that cause suffering?

 

[Aught3]

It's just another way of saying don't be a hypocritical asshole.

:lol: Exactly! But accusing someone of being a hypocrite is ad hominem.

 

[lrkun]

Put effort into what? Follow really bad rules or good, sensible rules? Obey terrible laws or good ones? Rules aren't morals in themselves, they're just rules. You mean you'd obey a law that says you have to do things that cause suffering?

I put effort in things which I think are important enough to do. I follow the law, be it good or bad, as long as it is in the law of the land, such as the constitution for example.

Well, lucky for me, we don't have a law that causes human suffering, except as a form of punishment for those who committed crimes, such as when a person kills, murders, or rapes another, then, under the law, a respective punishment will be effected.

 

[Zoten001]

May I add my two cents to this Moral code discussion.

While I think it is a good idea to have a moral code (I have one I follow, developed over many years, taken from many sources.), I don't think a "Cultural" or "Traditional" code would be a good thing. traditions can get stuck in the time frame they are made, and cultures are slow to change, while life generally is not. I believe one's code needs to be flexible enough to allow for the natural changes in life.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

It's interesting how belief in god can be separated from the christian moral code. I'd say that probably for most christians it's the moral code that is the attraction. Most christians are far more familiar with the new testament than the old. The old testament is mainly just ancient stories, but Jesus features in the new, and it is his teachings that keep christianity going.

Matthew 5:17
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 8:32
Matthew 13:41-42, 50
Mark 4:11-12
Mark 7:9-10
Luke 16:17

Charming man.

And because the christian morals are so straightforward and sensible, that's probably the way it will always be.

The modern "we-haven't-actually-read-the-bible-and-have-little-idea-what-it-actually-says-but-we-believe-sunshine-and-rainbows" version of the Christian Morality.

That's not to say that you have to be a christian (in the full sense, or even at all) to be moral. But the christian moral tradition is very longlived and successful.

The Christian moral tradition was proselytized through fanatical persistence, the sword and economic pressures... Tip Top!

It's obviously important to have morals, and the christian tradition is a great vehicle for maintaining morality.

mmmhmmm cause everyone has always been treated fairly under christian moral tradition... oops, nope... the last 2000 years has essentially sucked for the common person. Except when the Enlightenment emerged... funny that..

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I shall apply occum's razor to this argument:

There are single men and woman that attend churches and may call themselves something in order to get some added benefit.

I'm not saying it's right or that I would do such a thing, but I think some of you guys might be over analyzing the issue.

There is tail at church........

QED

:ugeek:

 

[Baranduin]

It's interesting how belief in god can be separated from the christian moral code.

Only if you skip the "whosoever blasphemes against the Father / the Holy Ghost shall burn in Hell" part. And the "Fear the Lord" part. And so on... (Lk12:5 and Lk12:10, in case you are tempted to say those don't come from Jesus).

But the christian moral tradition is very longlived and successful.

Which Christian Moral Tradition (CMT), if I may ask? The homophobic or the gay-accepting one? The one which accepts divorces or the one which condemns them? Or condoms for that matter. The pro-life or the pro-choice? The proselytizing or the... uh... is there a non-proselytizing CMT at all?

You get my point, I'm sure. As far as I can tell, there is not one CMT: there are many, pretty different one from the other. Could you point out which one of those is the true one?

The christian moral code is what you said earlier, which I already agreed with, which is the teachings of Jesus, and they're in the bible of course (see sermon on the mount for an example).

AdmiralPeacock has done a good selection. Here my own:

• Mt 5:32
• Mt 5:37
• Mt 5:40
• Mt 13:12
• Mk 3:29

And last but not less important, Jn 3:36, the one stating that those who don't believe in Jesus - like, say, atheists - shall not see life... which in Traditional Christian Tradition has always meant, until recently, "it's ok to kill heathens".

For instance, I find revolting the prohibition against divorce. People can change over time; what if your husband/wife changes so s/he becomes someone horrible? Should you be stuck with him/her for the rest of your life? Do you really think that a faithful but unhappy marriage is better than the chance for both members to be happy?

Read AdmiralPeacock's and mine selections. Unless you agree with every single point - and in that case, there are still plenty of horrible passages, even restricting ourselves to the Gospels -, you are not following the teachings of Jesus: you are justifying your own moral code with passages from the Bible, making it no longer Christian, but barboftian. At the end of the day, you are nothing but a secular and a humanist, you just don't know it yet.

Yet another question: what do you do in situations Jesus makes no statement at all about? Is it OK, say, to increase the risk for the life of a mother if that implies to increase the chances for the baby? Whose life is more important? (Leviticus has an answer, but I take you won't accept Lev to be a moral source of moral, right?)

Atheists aren't united by anything much other than atheism, but if they had more in common perhaps they too could form a moral tradition, which in my book would be welcome.

Is there any type of "atheist" moral code? If it's possible to have one without it involving religion and gods (which it is) then maybe there should be one, if there isn't already.

You've got that wrong. "Atheists" is what it's left when you have every single human, and then exclude those who are theists.
Look at it this way: "Is there any type of 'non-muslim' moral code?". You will agree that it doesn't make much sense.
An atheist is just someone that has no gods. We can't agree in anything else, because there's nothing else in 'atheism' for us to agree. And we don't. If you want to classify people regarding "moral tradition" (or rather, "school"), you will find utilitarianists, consequentialists, naturalists... And notice that none of those labels says anything about God or Atheism: they are just secular, and you can follow them regardless the god or gods you may follow (unless of course your god says something against them). Many (most?) Deists and Pagans follow secular moral codes, just like atheists do, and even christians. On the other hand, some atheists (and deists, and pagans, and christians) do follow religious moral codes, for many different reasons.

When your'a a kid, your parents teach you stuff at home, when you go to school your teachers teach you stuff, and you learn about behaviour, social interaction and dynamics in the playground, and via all of that, you learn. Society brings you and so do your teachers and parents. And you learn stuff from book, tv, etc.

So it's only a traditionalist moral, and religion is only part of that tradition, not the source.

--
PS. First post in a while. I'm sort of back, so hello everyone!

 

[barboft]

May I add my two cents to this Moral code discussion.

While I think it is a good idea to have a moral code (I have one I follow, developed over many years, taken from many sources.), I don't think a "Cultural" or "Traditional" code would be a good thing. traditions can get stuck in the time frame they are made, and cultures are slow to change, while life generally is not. I believe one's code needs to be flexible enough to allow for the natural changes in life.

You make a good point. Yes it's true that cultures and traditions are prone to moving slowly. I do agree with that. However, having a moral tradition keeps it alive. If it must change, that's fine, but it's better for there to be something to change in the first place, and tweak it as time goes by, rather than no focus at all. What's worse, having a tradition that sometimes gets it wrong, or having no focus whatsoever and probably getting it wrong more of the time? Morals are far too important to leave to pure chance.

In the areas of the arts, law, science, and many other areas there is some kind of tradition. It works.

 

[Noth]

I guess that our morals are tweaked constantly regardless of whether we view it as a tradition to adher to or not. The difference in viewpoint between your (Barboft) view of a moral code and others' is that I think you imply these morals are somehow necessary to have "on paper" for them to be carried out by a society, whereas I think that even if we had no early writings describing the golden and the silver rule we would still intrinsically understand the principal of 'not doing unto others what we don't want done unto us." It is a concept older than the bible, so despite that it's a good thing, I suppose, that the bible adopted it into its philosophy it does not mean we should therefore live by the moral code of the bible, just simply that we should live moral lives. We are able, however, to easily work this out without the bible. It, of course, also has no bearing at all on the rest of the claims in the bible. All it does is give a 'moral story' to what a lof of people see as a collection of mythical stories, not unlike other sagas and bed-time stories.

As for an 'atheist moral code', I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Having a secular humanist set of ethics and morals would pretty much get there. Being an atheist in this regard only says something about the fact that we lack belief. After that we might be as different as night and day from one another and have different ideas about morals and values etc.