I will try to be especially aware if my ears start burning.

... As an atheist, I can say with absolute certainty that "stabbing your son to death is wrong." A Christian would have to defer to god.

 

In your criticism of the Christian worldview you use particular passages of Scripture that you feel are troublesome for the Christian. One of these is the Abraham story and his willingness to offer Isaac. I have noticed in your citing of Scripture that you don’t seem to grasp the purpose of a passage or why it appears where it does and what it means in relation to the whole. In reading any literature, the particular is to be interpreted in light of the message of the whole. One example of this is the supposed contradictions in the Gospels on the issue of how a person may gain eternal life. A proper understanding of the text would erase many, if not all of the issues you raise.

But here’s how this is relevant to our discussion on justice and whether atheism or Christianity provides the better guide to it. In citing the Abraham story you conclude that the text teaches the Christian that it may be all right to stab your own child to death. But what Christian reaches that conclusion from reading this story? I know of no one. It is understood in the broader context of the Abrahamic story and the lessons of faith it is teaching. What’s more, the message of the whole Bible is contrary to the conclusion you draw. And an informed Christian worldview is based on the whole Bible and what it teaches about God, humanity, origins, meaning, morality, justice, etc. As you criticize particular texts in the Bible, you do so by borrowing categories of morality and justice from the very worldview you are criticizing. You did not get your sense of morality or justice from an atheist worldview. You got it from what the Bible and the Christian worldview has provided to Western culture. If Western culture is cut off from its Christian heritage by secularism, materialism, and atheism the categories and understanding of morality and justice that has shaped our culture will begin to erode and disappear. This will lead to the instability of society. How many generations will it take? Ideas have consequences and we are seeing some of that now as we have been undermining the foundations of our culture since the 1960’s.

Here’s a brief summary of the Christian worldview derived from the overall message of the Bible. The first thing is that we have been created and therefore life begins with the Creator and flows from Him. What are the implications of this? There are many but one important implication is concisely summarized in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is the foundation of all human rights. The sacredness of humanity is established in the Bible by the fact that all men are created in the image of God. This gives us equal standing with equal rights. This is a sweeping statement that provides the foundation of all human rights. The Bible gives this as the reason it prohibits murder (Genesis 9:6), promotes the dignity of all classes of people and as the treatment of others with justice, kindness, compassion, and mercy (Job 31:13-23), and prohibits the abuse of others with our speech (James 3:9), to name a few.

Another essential component to the Christian worldview that is important to our understanding of morality comes from the example of Jesus Christ. We understand the meaning of love from what we see in Him. The highest ideals of life are established by His example. In humility, He did not regard his own interests but looked after the interests of others. This expression of love led Him to die on behalf of others and therefore gave us the understanding that true love is not selfish but gives of itself sacrificially to others.

There are many other implications of a Christian worldview but I will just mention one other—gratitude. Everything I have including life itself was given to me by Another. This makes me grateful. It also has the effect of influencing the Christian to be generous. What we have has been given to us and we are encouraged to give to those who are not as fortunate as we. It forms the basis for Christian charity, compassion, and mercy.

The sacredness of human life, the definition of love as humble service in the interests of others, and giving to others out of a grateful heart form much of the foundation of Christian ethics, morality, and even our understanding of justice.

 

(to be continued in another post)

In your criticism of the Christian worldview you use particular passages of Scripture that you feel are troublesome for the Christian. One of these is the Abraham story and his willingness to offer Isaac. I have noticed in your citing of Scripture that you don’t seem to grasp the purpose of a passage or why it appears where it does and what it means in relation to the whole. In reading any literature, the particular is to be interpreted in light of the message of the whole. ................ In citing the Abraham story you conclude that the text teaches the Christian that it may be all right to stab your own child to death. But what Christian reaches that conclusion from reading this story? I know of no one. It is understood in the broader context of the Abrahamic story and the lessons of faith it is teaching. ..........................

 

(to be continued in another post)

 

Thanks for the reply. However, the positions you are refuting are not the points I was trying to make. So, in the service of clarity....

 

If there was a god, who could create all this, then he most certainly would not do horrible things like ask a man to stab his son for any reason, including as a test of faith. It is a horrible story, involving the torture of a child. No god would do that. That you read it as a wonderful story about "faith" merely makes one of my overall points: that people create god in their own image. You are stuck with the story, and you are a reasonable person, so you must "gloss over" the stuff where the child is tortured and make it into a story about faith. The vulgarity of the story is proof that there is no god.

 

The other point is that when one surrenders morality to god, then one pretty much has to surrender it. If a guy today in 2016 stabs his son to death, and then claims god told him to do it, the ONLY basis that you could say it was a bad thing is to believe that god did not tell him to do it. You yourself, have no basis to judge his actions other than to defer to god. I don't share that, and I can say without any equivocation that stabbing your son to death is bad.

 

The rest of your post, which I did not copy, misses the mark badly, claiming, very eloquently, that there is no morality without god. This is not the case, and there is absolutely no moral value articulated in the bible that was not articulated earlier by other cultures and religions.

 

You also make some rather dubious claims about the bible affirming the equality of all "men." Good that you used "men" given that so many women still are afforded second class treatment based on biblical principles. And the slavery in the bible sort of undercuts this idea, as well as the "god's chosen people" stuff. Are people who are not "god's chosen people" equal? They sure weren't treated equally by god in the bible. Yet another example of you, a reasonable person, creating god in your image. You want people to be equal. So your god must want the same thing. But it takes some extraordinary convoluted interpretations to get there.

 

If god existed, his book would be better,...period. You would not have to dance around these horrible stories of murder, rape, slavery, genocide, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice and inconsistencies within the text. Bible is the best proof that god does not exist.

Well, I just killed 35 minutes reading this thread and my opinion on faith is unchanged. A good read though.

The Abraham thing is intriguing to me. I think that Abraham knew that he was going to be stopped by God or God was going to bring Isaac back from the dead.

 

Hebrews 11 reads...

"17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[a] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"

 

I have often wondered what Abraham actually knew and what he did not know.

Like I said in post #11

 

"Religion allows perfectly decent and sometimes intelligent sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own."

 

 

Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

 

Of course I can't counter that quote with knowledge that there isn't a god, or offer any definite information on just what the ultimate truth is, so I'm not adverse to considering the possibilities of things beyond my human limitations of comprehending, but I'm not just going to believe in something as a "for sure thing" just because a billion of others throughout time with no evidence believes, or have believed it.

 

I know too well the effects of human conditioning and though those numbers of people who have or do believe is astronomical there's no mystery as to how they came about believing. It's no mystery why so many Indians are Hindus. It's no mystery why so many Arabs are Muslims and so on and so on.

 

I'm open to the idea that there are possibly things beyond my comprehension, but I'm not satisfied with what human invented world religions have to offer and claim it to be the truth when they have no way of knowing, and aren't even willing to admit as much.

 

I'm extremely interested in knowing what the truth is, and I'm open to learn if by chance there's any way for me to know, but logic and reality are important to me as well. Can't simply live in fantasy as that won't be enough to satisfy my desire to know.

The Abraham thing is intriguing to me. I think that Abraham knew that he was going to be stopped by God or God was going to bring Isaac back from the dead.

 

Hebrews 11 reads...

"17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[a] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"

 

I have often wondered what Abraham actually knew and what he did not know.

 

So @oldgrappler says the story of Abraham "teaches lessons of faith." Ignoring the trees for the forest, if you will. Ignoring the specific, and horrible, elements of the story, and instead focusing on what is alleged to be the point of the story, though one should wonder what sort of god would use such a bad story to make such a point.

 

You take a different route. You suppose, or imagine, that the story is not horrible at all, because you suppose Abraham knew god would either stop him or raise his son from the dead. Abraham was calling god's bluff, so to speak. The classic version of the story was that Abraham's faith was so strong that he was willing to kill his son. You undercut that completely by saying Abraham was not willing to kill his son, but he was willing to stab him in the belief that god would raise him from the dead.

 

Between the two of you, you make my point over and over. The bible is an empty vessel into which you pour your beliefs, and then you each deceive yourself into believing the beliefs were there to start with. Thus the conflict between what the story means to each of you (though neither of you even begin to address it from the son's point of view).

 

It's not that hard to decipher. It's a story where a father tells his son to walk up to the altar. The son says "hey where is the lamb?" and the father says "surprise, it's you." Ties him up and gets ready to stab him. It's a basic story about a deranged father. Teasing the meaning out is only hard when you start with the conclusion that there is a loving god that exists who wants us to learn something from this story.

Of course I can't counter that quote with knowledge that there isn't a god, or offer any definite information on just what the ultimate truth is, so I'm not adverse to considering the possibilities of things beyond my human limitations of comprehending, but I'm not just going to believe in something as a "for sure thing" just because a billion of others throughout time with no evidence believes, or have believed it.

 

I know too well the effects of human conditioning and though those numbers of people who have or do believe is astronomical there's no mystery as to how they came about believing. It's no mystery why so many Indians are Hindus. It's no mystery why so many Arabs are Muslims and so on and so on.

 

I'm open to the idea that there are possibly things beyond my comprehension, but I'm not satisfied with what human invented world religions have to offer and claim it to be the truth when they have no way of knowing, and aren't even willing to admit as much.

 

I'm extremely interested in knowing what the truth is, and I'm open to learn if by chance there's any way for me to know, but logic and reality are important to me as well. Can't simply live in fantasy as that won't be enough to satisfy my desire to know.

 

My thoughts exactly. More wisdom. Keep it coming. It's needed badly.

So [MENTION=1230014447]

 

Between the two of you, you make my point over and over. The bible is an empty vessel into which you pour your beliefs, and then you each deceive yourself into believing the beliefs were there to start with. Thus the conflict between what the story means to each of you (though neither of you even begin to address it from the son's point of view).

 

Friend, I really wonder if you read what I post. Please go back and read the first two words in Hebrews 11:17. It should be listed above.

 

I thought your point was that Christians were lunatics that just followed whatever they were taught without trying to find answers out for themselves. Since multiple Christians have different views on scripture, it should tell you that we study and take different perspectives on issues.

 

BTW there are several types of Atheists out there with different viewpoints on the creation of the world, the evolution of man, morality, the development of love, the necessity of religion, the absurdity of society and hopelessness of living, and several other things. Would it be correct for me to say "The only thing you atheists can agree on is that there is not God. You cannot even decide what your own doctrine is."

Friend, I really wonder if you read what I post. Please go back and read the first two words in Hebrews 11:17. It should be listed above.

 

I thought your point was that Christians were lunatics that just followed whatever they were taught without trying to find answers out for themselves. Since multiple Christians have different views on scripture, it should tell you that we study and take different perspectives on issues.

 

BTW there are several types of Atheists out there with different viewpoints on the creation of the world, the evolution of man, morality, the development of love, the necessity of religion, the absurdity of society and hopelessness of living, and several other things. Would it be correct for me to say "The only thing you atheists can agree on is that there is not God. You cannot even decide what your own doctrine is."

 

Yes, that would be exactly correct. There is no god. That's all it is. No books, no doctrines, no anything else. The rest is all up to each individual.

 

Yes, I read Hebrews 11. Which is not the Abraham story. The story itself is in genesis.

@MayfieldFan Do you think I don't know that Abraham is in genesis. That's it! I've had it! I am disliking your post!!!!!!!!! There it is baby!!!! A big fat thumbs down!!!

 

I'm just playing around by the way.

Friend, I really wonder if you read what I post. Please go back and read the first two words in Hebrews 11:17. It should be listed above.

 

I thought your point was that Christians were lunatics that just followed whatever they were taught without trying to find answers out for themselves. Since multiple Christians have different views on scripture, it should tell you that we study and take different perspectives on issues.

 

BTW there are several types of Atheists out there with different viewpoints on the creation of the world, the evolution of man, morality, the development of love, the necessity of religion, the absurdity of society and hopelessness of living, and several other things. Would it be correct for me to say "The only thing you atheists can agree on is that there is not God. You cannot even decide what your own doctrine is."

 

Atheism or Agnosticism for that matter is not based on doctrine or beliefs. It's more or less the absence of them. It's not really a group of joiners and followers. It's not a religion. It can't be considered just another club or church where rituals are performed, or people trying to follow some same exact dogma or doctrine.

 

It might be refreshing for like minded people, in a world surrounded by religion, to identify with each other if they happen to have similar experiences with thinking or pondering outside of the realm of religion, but I'm not aware of a group of people bent on the idea that others join them in identical thoughts in some cult like fashion that urges each other to be on the exact same page.

 

Sure there can often be a nod of agreement with people to be delighted that though they are a minority in this world that at least someone else has experienced similar thoughts, or have arrived at similar assessments.

 

It's not always easy to think this way and know that you're surrounded by perhaps 90% of the world that doesn't. You know that your ideas are not popular, but because you are a realist it's easy to conclude while also being dumbfounded that so much of humanity follows so passionately and sometimes vehemently unprovable beliefs, while often times expecting others to as well.

 

Though it's refreshing to identify with others, I think that the last thing an Atheist or an Agnostic wants to do is join another church or club to follow rules and beliefs, unless maybe it's a social support group helping to take the pressure off of living in a world full of religion, which if there is one I'm not aware of it. A few dudes out here on BGP is about as close as I've ever come.

@B-Ball-fan

So you don't think that Nihilism, Naturalism, Atheistic Existentialism, or Postmodern atheism have a doctrine?

 

I also would not use atheism and agnosticism interchangeably. You didn't really do that but kind of came close.

@B-Ball-fan

So you don't think that Nihilism, Naturalism, Atheistic Existentialism, or Postmodern atheism have a doctrine?

 

I also would not use atheism and agnosticism interchangeably. You didn't really do that but kind of came close.

 

Personally I came to my own assessments on my own without following any philosophers, or specific labeled philosophies that you have listed. I'm not much of a reader as much as I have just been a ponderer and thinker.

 

I really don't even like to refer to myself with the use of a label.

 

I dabble with Agnosticism or possibly Existentialism, but I don't necessarily confine myself to them or even completely consider myself as such.

 

B-Ball-fanism is about the closest label I can be comfortable with.

 

Considering that you are comparing Apples to Oranges, I don't really even know how to address what you are suggesting, but I will try the best way I can.

 

There most definitely have been authors and philosophers within the philosophies that you refer to and many more, who have seekers who have read and plucked for themselves a little or a lot of what they've can identify with.

 

Because there are so many people in the world with so many various ideas, within or without religion, the ideas are vast which as a result you'll have so many variations of people connecting in thought with this and that.

 

Sure various philosophies can be identified, named and subdivided into categories where you'll have all sorts of people subscribe to their ideas, but non religious philosophies hardly can be viewed as having doctrines such like religions do.

 

Philosophers can spell out their ideas, and others can perhaps agree, but I personally have never seen them considered to be doctrines as such that encourage joining and following, unless perhaps a non-religious philosopher is also an egotist who demands attention and wants others to applaud and follow his ideals.

 

Unless we're talking cults, I don't much think of non-religious philosophies as doing anything other than putting out their consolidated ideals into a concise analysis for others to review and subscribe to it agreed upon.

 

Sure each of the various non-religious philosophies might have different specific variations having certain distinctions separating itself from other philosophies, and I can't exactly lay a blanket statement over each and everyone of them to say it's not "doctrine" per se, but the more non-religious a philosophy the likelihood of "doctrine" is not present if we're both agreeing on the definition of "doctrine". If you label all specific ideals and philosophies as doctrine then we'll just have to agree that we disagree on the definition.