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.

 

Guys, I am sorry. I do not know what happened yesterday. As you can see I intended to post more in answer to @MayfieldFan but it would not allow me. So I let it go and tried to do so later but then I couldn't even log on to BGP. I tried numerous times all day with 3 different computers. Today I have finally got on again after trying a different location. I will attempt to complete my answer but as I learned yesterday, I can't make any promises. The actual issue we were discussing had to do with the morality of Abraham being asked to stab his child. Mayfield Fan asserted that it is absolutely wrong for a person to stab his or her own child (see quote above. What you read in my post yesterday was only preamble to what I wanted to say. I post it again for the context of my remarks to follow.

 

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)

 

So let’s return to your (Mayfield Fan) conclusion about Abraham, …

You said a Christian can’t know whether he should stab his own child without consulting God while the atheist can know “absolutely that one should not stab his own child.” In addition, you said the atheist doesn’t need a god to tell him what is right and wrong he determines this by reason.

 

Let me say, you haven’t gone very far out on a limb by saying one should not stab his own child. I think we agree. But you said the atheist can say one should “absolutely” not do this. I am not sure the atheist can come to a place where he can state anything as a moral “absolute.” This just does not follow from the materialist, secular, atheist understanding of the universe. There is no absolute morality in this worldview nor can you get to one with this as the starting point of your reasoning. Richard Dawkins said in the universe, “there is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless existence.” Atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen agrees: “Pure practical reason even with a good knowledge of the facts will not take you to morality.”

 

I am not saying that an atheist cannot act morally. I’m saying the atheist has no logical basis to establish absolute or objective moral standards. I think it is evil to stab one’s own child but I don’t think the atheist can make this same statement based on a materialist understanding of the universe. So it seems that the atheist can’t say anything meaningful about morality, let alone that anything is “absolutely” right or wrong.

 

You claim an atheist comes to a moral judgment based on reason. I would suggest that in real life, one does not come by moral judgments through reason or logic alone. Another factor has influence, and I suspect a larger influence than one would want to admit. Without an objective moral standard outside oneself, one is bound to also be strongly influenced by self-interest. This is really what the early chapters of Genesis talk about. When Genesis 3 says that by disobeying the instruction of God and eating fruit from the forbidden tree the couple became “Like God knowing good and evil.” This did not mean that they suddenly became a god with omniscience, omnipotence and all the other attributes. It means they became a god to themselves. They determined what would be good for them or evil for them. They threw off the authority of God and became their own god, making their own decision without reference to God’s moral command. In effect, this is what secular atheism also accomplishes. Instead of there being one god, each person becomes his or her own god. We now have gone from there being one God in the universe to there being as many gods as there are humans on the planet. Decisions are not made based on reason alone but on reason influenced by self-interest. After all, if natural selection and survival of the fittest is how we got here, self-interest was a huge factor in shaping us and continues to be a powerful motive in why we do what we do.

 

Each person relying on his own reason will lead us to an ethic of pragmatism. And because humans are strongly influenced by self-interest, that ethic may change based on how the person thinks any given situation may work to his advantage. Obviously, people do not always give in to their basest desires and we may not always act out of self-interest but there is no objective reason for us to not act in our own self-interest, if atheism is true.

 

(to be continued, if allowed)

(here is the last installment -- third post) @Mayfield Fan

 

So we return to the issue of whether one should stab his own child or not. You said that the Christian cannot be sure. He must consult God and perhaps God will tell him to do so. In your view, this is where the Christian worldview leads. You believe the atheist position to be superior because reason tells us that absolutely no one should stab his own child.

 

I believe your conclusion to be false on both the results of the Christian view and on the results of the atheist view. First of all, the Christian worldview is based on the whole Bible and the ethic it teaches—the sacredness of each human being and so it tells us we should not kill our own child. I think the atheist position is on shakier ground here because what if a person reasons that it is in his or her best interest to stab his or her child? Atheism has no rational basis to prevent it. Let’s test this hypothesis. How many Christians can you produce who have stabbed their child? If the Bible leads Christians to conclude that God may want them to do this then there should be many ready examples of this actually occurring.

 

I’ll tell you what, for every Christian you produce who has stabbed their child I will produce a thousand secularist who have done so. It is not Christians living by the ideals of their worldview who are killing their own children. It is those who have been influenced by a secular, materialist, atheist worldview who can justify, based on their own reasoning and self-interest, the killing of their own child in the womb. The Christian worldview does not permit this because the child in the womb is made in God’s image and is sacred. Love dictates that the mother gives the child every chance as she looks out for the interests of the child not her own interests. But the atheist position allows a person to reason within themselves that it is in their best interest to kill their own child. Let’s set aside those who terminate pregnancies through incest, rape and the like. They are in an emotionally difficult place and perhaps their judgment is impaired. But what is the number of abortions that are performed each year for other reasons ranging from, “I’m too young,” to “I don’t want to interrupt my career”? Those who do this each day do not do it as a consequence of a Christian worldview. This decision is made as a consequence that each person may reason within him/herself what is in his/her best interest. This is a decision entirely consistent with an atheist, materialist, secular worldview. A Christian who makes this choice only does so in contradiction to her worldview and the ethic that Christianity provides.

 

So to understand and live by a Christian worldview one must understand Christ. Reading through the gospels one at a time and reading each one several times will allow the portrait of Christ being drawn by that particular author to be properly understood. As this is done, what will emerge from these accounts of Jesus is a life that was beautifully lived, a death that was on behalf of others, and a resurrection that demonstrates that Jesus was not only a moral example to be emulated but the means to eternal life for all who will believe.

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.

 

You say this regarding yourself. "I'm not much of a reader as much as I have just been a ponderer and thinker."

 

You are very intelligent and well-spoken and irenic. I appreciate that, but there may be much that you have missed. Let me suggest you try this web site that will have many resources, some quick-hitters, others lengthier discussion, including transcripts of debates, and recommended resources.

 

ReasonableFaith.org – Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions

@oldgrappler Some good posts, a quick response before work duties. I may come back to the posts, but the quick one now.

You are setting up your own straw man to argue against. I am not saying christians don't know they should not stab their children. I am saying they have to defer to god to know it, at least under the "moral arbiter" (divine command) theory you stated.

 

But you say, well then, where are the christian child stabbers? Here is what happens. Everyone knows you should not stab children. I accept that there is no god, but I also know I should not stab my children. You believe there is a god, and you also know you should not stab your children. But you then have to open up the bible and come up with a reason for not stabbing your children, (which is in your post, about sacredness of life) and then...viola! God believes that you should not stab your children! (you just have to ignore the part where god tells a dude to stab his child).

 

That's essentially what is happening. We all know not to stab the children, so the lack of christian child stabbers doesn't mean anything, simply not relevant.

 

Thought exercise of proof. This is a thought exercise. Pretend for a second you just learned there is no god. Would you go out and stab your kids, rape people, kill them, and rob them? Would you want to do that? The answer is no. You would be the same person. Just like the rest of us atheists who don't do any of that stuff.

You say this regarding yourself. "I'm not much of a reader as much as I have just been a ponderer and thinker."

 

You are very intelligent and well-spoken and irenic. I appreciate that, but there may be much that you have missed. Let me suggest you try this web site that will have many resources, some quick-hitters, others lengthier discussion, including transcripts of debates, and recommended resources.

 

ReasonableFaith.org – Defend Biblical Christianity, Apologetics, Bible Questions

 

Thank you for the the link and I will give it a look, but I'm not sure what others with no real evidence of the unknown can teach me about the unknown?

 

I'm no more or less gifted or special than the rest of humanity. I wasn't born with the knowledge of the ultimate truth, and living hasn't offered it to me either. I'm not convinced that living has offered it to anyone else either.

 

I've had personal unexplainable experiences in life that have prompted me to suggest to myself that they possibly have been glimpses of something that I can't fully explain, and for myself they have offered an amount of spiritual hope within me.

 

I wouldn't expect anyone else to understand my experiences nor would I suggest that they take my word for it, so I can't and won't preach to anyone to suggest I have concrete answers of anything.

 

I imagine that if there is any truth to what I feel I have experienced, then similar type experiences are available to others as well, and from their own experiences they are free to arrive at whatever they arrive at.

 

It would probably reinforce certain lines of beliefs and thinking if two or more can identify with each other in relationship to their unexplainable experiences and more validity of a truth could possibly be shed from that as long as the tendency for humans to add and subtract their own man made concepts even within their own experiences is avoided, which is rare at best.

 

Within my own analysis of my own experiences I keep an open mind so much to take notice of the possibility of my own delusions. If others describe unexplainable experiences I'm open to their true possibilities as well as their possible delusions, but since it's not my experience it hardly can do much to supply me with indisputable evidence.

 

I'm content with having no particular beliefs or labels. I'm content with living as long as I can and doing my best not to hurt others, and then letting the chips fall where they may.

 

I'm not convinced that living and dying requires detailed knowledge of a man made doctrine. I am attracted to simplicity and I shy away from ideals that offer me more than that as an answer to finding the truth.

 

To me truth is where I stand and man made concepts are clouded pathways leading me away from the simplicity of it.

(here is the last installment -- third post) @Mayfield Fan

 

So we return to the issue of whether one should stab his own child or not. You said that the Christian cannot be sure. He must consult God and perhaps God will tell him to do so. In your view, this is where the Christian worldview leads. You believe the atheist position to be superior because reason tells us that absolutely no one should stab his own child.

 

I believe your conclusion to be false on both the results of the Christian view and on the results of the atheist view. First of all, the Christian worldview is based on the whole Bible and the ethic it teaches—the sacredness of each human being and so it tells us we should not kill our own child. I think the atheist position is on shakier ground here because what if a person reasons that it is in his or her best interest to stab his or her child? Atheism has no rational basis to prevent it. Let’s test this hypothesis. How many Christians can you produce who have stabbed their child? If the Bible leads Christians to conclude that God may want them to do this then there should be many ready examples of this actually occurring.

 

I’ll tell you what, for every Christian you produce who has stabbed their child I will produce a thousand secularist who have done so. It is not Christians living by the ideals of their worldview who are killing their own children. It is those who have been influenced by a secular, materialist, atheist worldview who can justify, based on their own reasoning and self-interest, the killing of their own child in the womb. The Christian worldview does not permit this because the child in the womb is made in God’s image and is sacred. Love dictates that the mother gives the child every chance as she looks out for the interests of the child not her own interests. But the atheist position allows a person to reason within themselves that it is in their best interest to kill their own child. Let’s set aside those who terminate pregnancies through incest, rape and the like. They are in an emotionally difficult place and perhaps their judgment is impaired. But what is the number of abortions that are performed each year for other reasons ranging from, “I’m too young,” to “I don’t want to interrupt my career”? Those who do this each day do not do it as a consequence of a Christian worldview. This decision is made as a consequence that each person may reason within him/herself what is in his/her best interest. This is a decision entirely consistent with an atheist, materialist, secular worldview. A Christian who makes this choice only does so in contradiction to her worldview and the ethic that Christianity provides.

 

So to understand and live by a Christian worldview one must understand Christ. Reading through the gospels one at a time and reading each one several times will allow the portrait of Christ being drawn by that particular author to be properly understood. As this is done, what will emerge from these accounts of Jesus is a life that was beautifully lived, a death that was on behalf of others, and a resurrection that demonstrates that Jesus was not only a moral example to be emulated but the means to eternal life for all who will believe.

 

Pretty shaky ground there. Studies have shown that christians have the most abortions. I get it, you hedged your bet by defining it not as "christians" but as "christians who are living by the ideals of their worldview." Now you are not deferring to god, you are playing god. Deciding who is, and who is not, living according to christian ideals.

 

Could be that they have a different christian worldview. God in the bible was pretty specific in how to perform abortions, and while that may not be YOUR view, it is certainly a reasonable interpretation to say god approves of abortions because he ordered them to be done and later gave instructions on how to do them. But if you want to believe that it is atheists who are responsible for all the abortions, in the face of the evidence that it is christians who are having them, then you are free to do so of course. It just isn't a real convincing position.

 

The lack of clarity and morality in the bible is proof there is no god. Bible filled with nonsense, and horrible teachings. But it truly does not matter what is in that book. Not one little bit. The only thing you are going to get from the bible is what you put into it. That holds true for matters of salvation, eternal life, child-stabbing, slavery, abortion, homosexuality, murder, rape, jealously, justice, morality, etc.

Could be that they have a different christian worldview. God in the bible was pretty specific in how to perform abortions, and while that may not be YOUR view, it is certainly a reasonable interpretation to say god approves of abortions because he ordered them to be done and later gave instructions on how to do them. .

 

I know our debate has kind of fizzled out, but you have very much peaked my curiosity.

 

Are you talking about Exodus 21, 2 Kings 6, or still kind of relating this to Abraham and Isaac? Or is there another passage you got this from?

 

I've never heard anyone quite put it the way you just stated it.

@PP1 there are numerous verses, at least a half dozen. Other than the ones you mention. The abortion procedure is found in Numbers 5 11-31

The God of the OT seemed rather fond of child killing. Always made me sad, even as a kid who went to Sunday School regularly and was taught the importance of obeying God. Never could understand my Lord's thirst for blood. Go ahead... be mean to me now. :cry:

@PP1 there are numerous verses, at least a half dozen. Other than the ones you mention. The abortion procedure is found in Numbers 5 11-31

 

Could you specify. I may have missed it but numbers 5:11-31 has nothing to do with abortion. Are you talking about the part where it says is (paraphrase) "a woman has been innocent of adultery then she will be allowed to conceive?"

 

Also, the examples I gave are not about what we call abortion. I was just trying to match what you were talking about with a verse.

The God of the OT seemed rather fond of child killing. Always made me sad, even as a kid who went to Sunday School regularly and was taught the importance of obeying God. Never could understand my Lord's thirst for blood. Go ahead... be mean to me now. :cry:

 

I agree

 

I actually struggle with the same thing. I assume you are talking about David's battles. That is the most difficult part of scripture for me to reason or understand

I agree

 

I actually struggle with the same thing. I assume you are talking about David's battles. That is the most difficult part of scripture for me to reason or understand

 

I appreciate your honesty.

Could you specify. I may have missed it but numbers 5:11-31 has nothing to do with abortion. Are you talking about the part where it says is (paraphrase) "a woman has been innocent of adultery then she will be allowed to conceive?"

 

Also, the examples I gave are not about what we call abortion. I was just trying to match what you were talking about with a verse.

 

If you want to play with words, I will oblige you and reword it. The passage is god's step by step instructions for causing a miscarriage. If you don't think intentionally causing a miscarriage is the same thing as an abortion, then ok, easier just to play along with the wordplay. God tells how to cause a miscarriage.

If you want to play with words, I will oblige you and reword it. The passage is god's step by step instructions for causing a miscarriage. If you don't think intentionally causing a miscarriage is the same thing as an abortion, then ok, easier just to play along with the wordplay. God tells how to cause a miscarriage.

 

Not true. That passage is regarding appropriate punishments for cases in which someone has caused a miscarriage.

 

But that example is from Exodus 21. I am the one that brought that up. You mentioned Numbers 5:11-31.

Are you saying Numbers 5 is appropriate punishment for someone who has caused a miscarriage?