The flaws of NT-based morality

[Charles]

Does chucky want a cookie? sit boy.

And you could not answer that one either?

[Sparko]

And you could not answer that one either?

Chuck, when you actually express a stance on something, instead of just making critical snipes and asking dumb questions, I will respond to you seriously. Until then.. well.. woof.

[Charles]

Chuck, when you actually express a stance on something, instead of just making critical snipes and asking dumb questions, I will respond to you seriously. Until then.. well.. woof.

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

[Sparko]

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

as long as you do.

[hedrick]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle. Apparently christians, or the religious in general, think the only reason for themselves to be morally good persons is if there is an ultimate reward for their behavior. But then again, when you think about it, it is because of such thinking that we had to create gods and ultimate rewards, or punishments, in the first place.

I think the question of the basis for morality is unsolved and possibly unsolvable. But most people seem to be moral because they care about other people, and in general about the consequences of their actions. Someone who lives in fear of being sent to hell if they do the wrong thing is likely to act in a legalistic way, and may well not produce good results for the people around them.

Jesus thought right behavior came from right motivation, from caring about people. How do you produce that kind of thing? I think it's more likely to be produced by inspiring people by good examples and by the love of God than by threatening them. Most of my non-Christian friends care about others also, even though they don't fear God's judgement. I'm not convinced that their actual motivation is all that different from the actual motivations of Christians.

[Tassman]

Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle. Apparently christians, or the religious in general, think the only reason for themselves to be morally good persons is if there is an ultimate reward for their behavior. But then again, when you think about it, it is because of such thinking that we had to create gods and ultimate rewards, or punishments, in the first place.

Yes. Pavlov adopted the same "carrot and stick" approach to train dogs; it's pretty basic. Actual moral principles are instinctive. They're derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and a consequence of natural selection.

[Tassman]

Yeah, that is the easy way to get out of it. But I wonder how long you will keep making a fool of yourself and act in an unworthy manner.

[Mountain Man]

Yes. Pavlov adopted the same "carrot and stick" approach to train dogs; it's pretty basic. Actual moral principles are instinctive. They're derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and a consequence of natural selection.

Still doesn't address the problem of moral obligation, which is far more complex and critical than I think any skeptic here appreciates. I'll let Dr. William Lane Craig explain it:

Source: Can We Be Good without God?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Dang it, you found us out. Did you find our secret handbook? We need to hide it better.

I am just treating Charles like he does MM and Seer. Maybe a tad exaggerated to make the point. When he starts contributing substantially to a debate I will take him seriously and treat him respectfully. Same with you. You denigrate Christians in the very statement that you accuse us of using denigration in lieu of substantive argument.

Irony much?

[37818]

Roy,
A note about a fallacy. You can be assured your opponent is loosing an argument when resorting to use of an ad hominem.

[JimL]

Which atheist's principles Jim? Yours? The Stalinist? The Maoist?

Morals are not ours seers, they don't belong to us, they are personal behaviors found to be in the best interests of human society. I didn't say anything about Stalin or Mao. There were many immoral religious figures throughout history as well. Morality need have nothing to do with religion, which is why God need have nothing to do with morality.

[seer]

Morals are not ours seers, they don't belong to us, they are personal behaviors found to be in the best interests of human society. I didn't say anything about Stalin or Mao. There were many immoral religious figures throughout history as well. Morality need have nothing to do with religion, which is why God need have nothing to do with morality.

Jim you said: Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

Which atheist are you speaking of and what principle? Are you speaking just for yourself and your principle? Or are you speaking for a Stalinist? Or a Maoist? They too were atheists, they too had their moral principles.

[JimL]

I think the question of the basis for morality is unsolved and possibly unsolvable. But most people seem to be moral because they care about other people, and in general about the consequences of their actions. Someone who lives in fear of being sent to hell if they do the wrong thing is likely to act in a legalistic way, and may well not produce good results for the people around them.

Jesus thought right behavior came from right motivation, from caring about people. How do you produce that kind of thing? I think it's more likely to be produced by inspiring people by good examples and by the love of God than by threatening them. Most of my non-Christian friends care about others also, even though they don't fear God's judgement. I'm not convinced that their actual motivation is all that different from the actual motivations of Christians.

I agree, most non-believers, aka atheists, are just as moral the God believers, but the moral acting believers, unlike the moral acting atheists, need to believe in god in order to behave morally. I hear that from those very believers here on tweb quite often. They argue; 'why should they care about morality if there is no ultimate reward or punishment for their behavior!

[JimL]

Jim you said: Morality is not about what one prefers, nor is it about obligation, why it matters to the atheist is simply a matter of principle.

Which atheist are you speaking of and what principle? Are you speaking just for yourself and your principle? Or are you speaking for a Stalinist? Or a Maoist? They too were atheists, they too had their moral principles.

The moral atheist.

[seer]

The moral atheist.

Well I'm sure the Stalinist and Maoist considered themselves very moral. Serving the greater good of the Collective.