Morality is not... by Markuskus555
I respect his view, and he means well. I must disagree, though; my parents are atheists who never cared for belief or worship, my older brother is firmly anti-religious, and I was raised without a shred of faith; and yet despite a lack of religion, we are all living full, meaningful lives, expending sweat, effort and thought in things we think is worthwhile to do.
Really? Well, speaking as a former priest let's just rattle off what the Bible postures to be righteous subject matter, shall we?
Off the top of my head: Slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, infanticide, violence by proxy, bigotry, racism, chauvinism, sexism, gynocentrism, a rape tax (Duet. 22:28-29), genital mutilation of children, and ultimately the infantilizing of the human race by subjecting them to the immortal sovereignty of a patently sociopathic, sado-fascist patriarch; who, honestly, we don't even know if he's perfect, can't prove it, and so therefor are commanded to just kinduh take his word for it. Truly, the bible is a dynamo of ethical delicacy.
And I'm sure you'll call me rude for ripping your favorite piece of literature a new one, but frankly if manners were really your biggest concern you wouldn't've said something so outrageously insensitive to...oh, just about every culture, creed and philosophy since the dawn of sentient thought. And you wannuh talk about what is and isn't arrogant? What is it with people like you? The bible is the paragon of morality? Really? A hastily thrown together tome soaked in the blood and bigotry of a primitive man, that's the epitome of spiritual literature? Have yuh read it!?
Really, where was he on the whole Devil dilemma the entire bible long? Marketing his wafers at mass as the next cheezits? "at its worst". That's a crock. Mankind's greatest threat, the prince of darkness, and that doesn't strike God as someone he needs to annihilate?
What about the firstborns of Egypt? Slaughtering infants to prove a point to a petty little man in a funny hat sounds holy to you? How 'bout sociopathic. And The Flood was thousands fold more psychotic. Speaking of child abuse, what's circumcision? Last I checked that was considered abominable in polite society...when it was proposed for little girls. And yet little boys, with a penis with 20 times the nerve endings as a vagina, were subject to this practice; and still are. In modern times where, unlike then, the outcome isn't mostly death from lose of blood. Or how 'bout the rape tax in Duet. 22:28-29? Or how 'bout the Law of Moses endorsing slavery? Or the 40 years in the wilderness where the children of Israel genocided several nations on its way back to canaan from Egypt? What about creating Man, whom God could never perfect because it would make him a liar ('thou shalt have no other gods before me'); and thusly proved his own evil by Christ's criteria of good: "ye shall know them by their fruits" by basically creating a race of sentient beings that could NEVER be perfected? Any of this ringin' any bells?
"reading" the bible, doesn't mean you've read the bible in its entirety. Front to back. Cover to cover. I'm guessing you, like most, probably stick to the cuddlier stuff in New Testament. Read Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
You questioned my history as a devout priest based on an asinine criteria and I slapped you around a little. You've been patently absurd in every statement you've made in this comment section; and whatsmore impertinent to every one not of your faith by posturing it to be the fountainhead of spirituality. You've been thoroughly horrible: you're meek pomposity doesn't change that. I'm not talking "down" to you. I'm criticizing you because you're being a self-righteous douche.
Sooo anybody who subject you to academic condescension you just ignore? Then obviously you just don't care to have any one criticize you unless it's in a sterilized tone coddling your obvious rudeness; because your rudeness is predicated on the pomposity of your faith.
Look you're obviously a jesus troll. I'm not dealing with your manic twaddle anymore unless you're willing to go on my page, my turf, and have this out. Otherwise...stop responding. That's the only reason I'm responding. You won't go away.
What Einstein did however say is that God is irrelevant as an ethical main stay. He is superfluous.
So? He didn't say the guy didn't exist, he just said ethics don't need him to exist. That man has the capacity to reason and therefor no societal paradigm requires God.
One of those, huh?
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein, The New York Times
I didn't care who said it: it's the truth. I'm not using Einstein's celebrity status to strengthen my argument. Currently, I'm using the cogency dispensed by a man capable of rational thought to do that. Prior, I said I hate when theists use him to strengthen their flimsy arguments. Then I merely articulated in summary what he said regarding ethical behavior and society. From the quote I've enclosed above. I didn't use Einstein, I just recanted fact.
Please don't bring your god into this. With all respect to whatever you've sacrificed and gained in the observance of your faith, I don't accept arguments based on secular dogma or unverifiable hypothesis; and, please, if you're going to rattle off the old 'well, saying there is no God is claiming omniscience' argument, let me just save you the bother. I don't have to prove the non-existence of something, the absolute lack of observable evidence, to assert it patently does not exist. Rather you, the believer, have to do the opposite: I don't have to prove a negative. That would be chaos.
It's easy for folks to say that if a person is bad they go to hell, or karma comes back to get them. Its like a threat to solve a short-term problem, but in the long-run people become self-centered. Trying to rack up points to achieve salvation, rather than helping to a true moral cause.
His most recent response was that you need Christ in order to love.
I just thought that might be an interesting two cents to throw into the pile.
It reminds me of a Facebook comment I once saw that said roughly "You atheists are despicable! If I wasn't a Christian, there'd be nothing to stop me murdering every one of you! So how can you control yourselves without God? The answer is you can't!"
Simply put, it's rude to accost a stranger and tell him that his god-concept (or lack thereof) is wrong and yours is right.
Also, Alain de Botton makes a good case for religions serving a useful role as a social institution, independent from the nonsensical supernatural dogma. In "Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion" he lays out benefits to society and individual psychological well-being that are historically associated with religious institutions, but not intrinsically linked. He asserts that atheism has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and that atheism ought to reincorporate certain traditions while still leaving the supernatural woo-woo behind. It's a good read.
I will link you when finished
I'm on until about one o' clock, I should have it uploaded then. We're both from the same country, so I was just saying...are you on until then? I'll link you anyway.
I probably won't be on at that time though, so I'll check tomorrow. ^^
Hello, what's the moral in doing something because you're told to do so - on the opposite of thinking yourself, empathizing, and taking other people in count.
Not beating up random people because your religion forbids it isn't moral. You're just following orders, not caring about other people. Not beating up random people because you realize it harms those people is moral.
Theists, even though your religion would be a "good" one, think yourselves, don't be mindless sheep.
I love Irony. Can you tell?