What is the purpose of deciding what is right and wrong?

It just occurred to me that maybe the only time I see people talking about morality is when they’re trying to stigmatize atheists, or to defend atheists against people stigmatizing them. The only interest in moral issues that I'm seeing here is in using them to stigmatize people across some belief divides.

(later) I'm thinking now that maybe the topic of morality is only being used here as a platform for promoting and defending prejudices across belief divides, so it might be a waste of my time and energy to try to have any rational discussion about it with anyone. I'll just restate what I think about the topic. Whatever anyone means by "the moral dilemma," I don't think that it's solved by the existence, or the nonexistence, of a God, no matter if it's a Christian God or some other one.

On the topic of morality in general, I think that one of the reasons for our social problems is a moral vacuum in which any excuse will do for people to indulge their worst impulses, and that has nothing to do with people believing or not believing in the existence of a God. It's a part of human nature which is spiraling out of control. I see some things that anyone who wants to can do to help it stop gettting worse and start getting better, and to help reduce the damage from it.

Wilgrea7:

For someone who claims to lack belief in a God, your concept of "serving Jesus" above "all others" is something I find a bit odd.

What's odd about it? Because of the teachings of Jesus revolving around a God?

Also, while the Jesus character is admirable in certain areas, I don't consider him in any way to be a perfect guide, capable of solving "all moral issues" like you've claimed... at least based on the information we have about him in the gospels

He attitude and behavior don't look admirable to me at all, in the gospels, I don't see any examples in the gospels of Him practicing what He's preaching. It's His teachings that will help solve moral issues, and not simply by people agreeing with them. It will be by people using His teachings in a process of learning together to live the way He says to live.

(later) Can you say again what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, why you think it needs to be solved, and what you think people can do in their everyday lives to help solve it? I understand that one of your ideas is debating with people about their beliefs. Do you have any other ideas besides that?

AuthenticKing:

... for people who, religious or not, do not base their morality on God (a being who supposedly created us and has the final say in our lives). It is very easy to challenge their views on morality, to understand their motives and possibly find ways to come up with better ways of dealing with moral issues. There are so many ways of doing that which I don't want to elaborate now but the point is that it's more easier to challenge people's views on morality when they do not base it on an authority figure who has a final say on everything.

But just look at people who use "God says" to make their decisions. All forms of rational discourse is closed up. I gave an example with a nairalander here (let me not call his name again to avoid fight ) who vehemently believes that non-believers of his God and his Bible are evil and even deserves to die, this guy has no better reasons to back up this belief except from what the Bible says (or maybe from the parts he picked from the Bible that falls in line with his true personal beliefs and personality). As long as he has used the Bible as a form of defense, it's almost impossible to reason with him. Again, I allude to Wilgrea7's examples... Take a look at Muslim majority countries and see how they kill apostates, gays, blasphemers, etc. How they beat their wives, etc. How they control people's lives, all these based on the fact that their god commands them to do so. You can't argue with these people because it means you're arguing with God himself, the supposed creator of the universe.

Another way we run into moral problems asides religious beliefs is authoritarian regimes, but it still falls in line with my point... Any form of appeal to authority, be it God, military leaders, religious leaders, parents, etc as a form of coming up with moral solutions is still problematic because anything, I mean anything can be justified as long as it's what that authority commands.

For the other authority figures (asides religious leaders anyway), we can challenge them. Either by usurping the military leader or giving the parents other perspectives to think about. But when it's God! It's just impossible to challenge it

Sometimes when people are using "science says" or "freedom and democracy" or "justice" or "lived experience" or even "free thinking" as their excuse for promoting cruelty, violence and oppression, they are immovable and impervious to facts, reason and logic; and ignoring, denying and excusing the harm in what they're promoting; just as much as they are sometimes when they're using "God says."

AuthenticKing:

Secondly, for people who, religious or not, do not base their morality on God (a being who supposedly created us and has the final say in our lives). It is very easy to challenge their views on morality, to understand their motives and possibly find ways to come up with better ways of dealing with moral issues. There are so many ways of doing that which I don't want to elaborate now but the point is that it's more easier to challenge people's views on morality when they do not base it on an authority figure who has a final say on everything.

There are also ways of doing all that with people who believe in the infallibility of their scriptures, and how easy or hard it is has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the existence of any God.

(later) Can you say again what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, why you think it needs to be solved, and what you think people can do in their everyday lives to help solve it? I understand that one of your ideas is debating with people about their beliefs. Do you have any other ideas besides that?

Endtimer:


This is another good example of pseudo-moral indignation. AuthenticKing, what you are saying is very much in line with the the point I've been making in this thread. You condemn Muslim extremists as immoral because they do things you disagree with.

No sir, not really. I condemn it because it brings harm to the said individuals who suffer from their actions and of course, they do not have any justified reasons for their actions asides from appealing to the Quran or Hadith. Books that have no evidence of being inspired by a supernatural being not to talk of a God.

Endtimer:

What you don't understand is that those things are very much moral to them. Whether we like it or not there is nothing innately immoral about beating ones wife or killing unbelievers.

I'm not really appealing to what is moral and what is not moral but even though I do not agree with "objective morality", what I see our society trying to achieve is what will enhance our human experience and extend it to other parts of nature. Beating one's wife or killing unbelievers might not be immoral (according to you) but for now, as long as it causes harm to individuals who suffer from it, it deprives of them the experience they would have had in the world and more importantly those who do so have no justified reasons for their actions, it's wrong.

Endtimer:

We interpret these actions through our own moral lenses. You cannot convince them that your Christianized notions of morality are correct because they do not adhere to the Christian morality that you do. You and I only believe those actions are wrong because we were raised in Christian Nigeria.

Haha. I think this is a summary of what many Christians do believe, that your religion teaches us our morality.
Firstly, there are many people raised in non-religious families, having no knowledge of Christianity who still manage to be moral or at least what you call Christianized forms of morality.
Secondly, I do not condemn such actions because I was raised in Christian Nigeria, infact, I have heard so many different versions of what should be moral or not from many Christians here. Even though religion (and of course my parents and school) played a role in teaching me that killing is wrong, I only have the courage to speak against it here because I have come to understand why it's wrong on my own.
Thirdly, this is directly related to your claims about not killing being a Christianized form of morality, I have shown in my former replies, how Christianity borrowed from religions/cultures that existed before it and shown how it was really men that were creating these rules, you can check them out and read them and we can have a discussion about that.

Endtimer:

Telling them that those actions are wrong holds as much weight as their telling you that not killing apostates is wrong. In fact, your own position weighs far less because your positions are grounded in mere opinion. You think killing is wrong because you think it is wrong.

I have replied this in my above comments.

Endtimer:

Were I a Muslim, I would resort to the Quran of Hadith to explain that their actions are wrong. As a Christian, I can challenge their morals by attempting to nullify their belief in Allah and converting them. As an atheist, you can only call them close-minded because they don't agree with something you've provided no proof of.

That's not how it works, Mr Endtimer. If not everybody in Southern Nigeria especially in parts where majority of Christians live would have been good. Reality shows that we do not challenge people's morals by appealing to holy books but by actually investigating the real consequences of their actions on the society, understanding why they do what they do and finding a way to use contrasting perspectives to change them.

Endtimer:

What we are talking about is not whether you can organize a coup against God.

That wasn't exactly my point. I was trying to compare God's rule to an authoritarian leader's rule whose laws are absolute and can't be challenged. For the authoritarian leader, he can be seen and usurped but for a God we can't see but somehow has an overwhelming influence on our decisions, we can only challenge him by first of all trying to find out if he actually exists.

Endtimer:

To use your own terms we are talking about how we know what right or wrong themselves are, and how to ascribe them to actions. Theists here agree that God is the answer. Atheists disagree and provide no answer, other than what they just believe is right or wrong.

A God (or gods) who hasn't been visible and consistent in his commands throughout history. A God (or gods) who gives commands we find incredulous today. The theist's answer is just an unreliable shield to hold onto.

Endtimer:

Were you and another atheist here to disagree on the morality of an issue, how would you go about convincing him? Would you tell him that his view would cause harm to other people and is therefore bad? What if he disagrees that causing harm to others makes something bad. What then? How does causing harm (or anything else you can come up with) tell us what good and evil are, without being a circular answer?

What of Christians that argued on whether slavery should prevail or stop some centuries ago? The both groups appealed to the Bible (with common sense and personal preferences). But which side prevailed? That which would advance the human race and make the society move forward. (This is just one example) It's the same result we would get if I disagree with another non-believer on what morality should be.

Wilgrea7:


I think to a certain degree. There are a number of Christians that try to be rational. What I've noticed anecdotally is that the more deeply religious a person is, the less room they give for rational thought, especially when it opposes their beliefs.

Some of the less religious ones tend to have a bit more wiggle room in terms of that.. and sometimes try to update their beliefs as time goes on.

At least that's what I've observed with some of the theists I've engaged with.

You know what sir? I didn't even read and understand that part of your comment so well, I had stupidly thought you meant that the deeply religious are moral.
The bolded is what Endtimer and many Christians have failed to understand. The things we know about morality today were not as a result of God or the Bible, but because Christians (and other people from other faiths or lack of), regardless of what the Bible says, chose to update their views based on recent data, findings and knowledge.

Wilgrea7:


Yes Sir... Correct... I think i said something about this earlier. Especially in Christianity where you see people making claims like “you need the holy spirit to understand". It's a topic I intend to address one of these coming days.

Tag me if you start the thread.

ReubenSandwich:


Sometimes when people are using "science says" or "freedom and democracy" or "justice" or "lived experience" or even "free thinking" as their excuse for promoting cruelty, violence and oppression, they are immovable and impervious to facts, reason and logic; and ignoring, denying and excusing the harm in what they're promoting; just as much as they are sometimes when they're using "God says."

You tend to compare those stuffs with religion.
Science doesn't just say, it observes, makes experiments, creates hypothesis, makes more experiments and come up with theories and laws based on it's findings. It uses very complex methods to make its findings.
Freedom and democracy doesn't actually dictate how humans live, infact humans came up with those based on what we believe will enhance human experience. Same with justice.
Freethinking and lived experience are completely subjective and can be challenged.
Those who succeed in executing cruelty, violence and oppression do so with manipulation and force, there's no real rational consensus.

ReubenSandwich:


There are also ways of doing all that with people who believe in the infallibility of their scriptures, and how easy or hard it is has nothing to do with believing or not believing in the existence of any God.

And the best way to do that is by making them look beyond their scriptures and many refuse to do that because of their strong beliefs in the infallibility of their scriptures and cause harm to others, that's why we challenge the existence of that which supposedly inspired these holy books.

ReubenSandwich:

(later) Can you say again what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, why you think it needs to be solved, and what you think people can do in their everyday lives to help solve it?

I have addressed this a bit in my former replies to you, read them again and come let's discuss.

ReubenSandwich:

I understand that one of your ideas is debating with people about their beliefs. Do you have any other ideas besides that?

I have so much ideas but for now, let's focus on the ones I've talked about.

ReubenSandwich:

Can you say again what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, why you think it needs to be solved, and what you think people can do in their everyday lives to help solve it? I understand that one of your ideas is debating with people about their beliefs. Do you have any other ideas besides that?

AuthenticKing:

I have addressed this a bit in my former replies to you, read them again and come let's discuss.

I searched through all your posts and didn't find any ideas in them about what people can do besides debating with other people about their beliefs.

My understanding of what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, is people using what they think God says to decide what's right and wrong. The reason it needs to be solved is because some things that people do, saying that it's for God, are doing a lot of harm, and sometimes it's hard to convince people that what they're doing or promoting is wrong if they think that it's what God says to do.

Wilgrea7, I went back to some earlier posts to try to see what are your main points.

Wilgrea7:

Sure, some humans always find ways to be cruel and violent, but the issue becomes more severe when this violence is believed to have been sanctioned by a God. By adding the tag of a God, you can make even the nicest of people, perform the most abhorrent of acts.

We have sects of religions where people believe it is perfectly Ok to blow themselves up in the name of "punishing infidels". We have religions that suggest people should be killed simply for leaving. We have religions that say it is okay to own a slave, and beat it, just as long as the slave doesn't die. That's just one part of the cake.

The main issue I have with religion, most especially the fundamentalist side, is that it gives people an excuse to stop thinking. To stop doing.

Some people today believe that a magical bearded jew is going to come down from the sky soon, and "save us". And because of that, they make no effort to try to fix the world we live in today. They leave it up to "God"

Some people take no responsibility for their own actions. Whatever happens, they claim "God did it for them". They have way more children than they can afford to feed, and they claim "God sent them to me". They put themselves in dangerous situations, and claim "God has a plan".

They are instructed to "leave it to God", and they do just that. Rather than taking control of their lives, they expect an imaginary deity to solve their problems for them.

Imagine someone having a disease. And rather than trying to figure out what it is, what caused it, and how to cure it, they instead think it's a punishment from God and pray to him instead.

The former thinking leads to innovation and medical improvements. The latter leads to absolutely nothing.

There are many more things I'd have loved to add, but I'll stop here for now.

In summary, religion, especially the fundamentalist kind, causes way more problems the world would be honestly be better off without

I'm taking your point to be that even if "God says" is not the only reason that people use for doing harm and not doing anything to help solve the problems, you think that it's the biggest reason and doing the most harm, and that's why you're focusing on that reason more than on any others. You think that debating with people who think that way, about their beliefs, might help some people who are watching stop thinking that way. Am I understanding you correctly?

Wilgrea7:

The topic of the thread says that even if we agree that a God exists, it still does not solve the "moral dilemna"

I used those words because theists who often don't know any better say things like "If atheists don't believe in God, then how do they know what is right and wrong" or something along those lines.

It's a statement I've heard countless times, and even popular Christian apologists like Frank Turek parrot such narratives as the silver bullet against atheism.

But when you look at it closely, even if you accept that A God exists, you still run into moral problems. 2 of which I've discussed earlier in the thread.

Believing in a God doesn't give a person any better way of knowing what is right and wrong than not believing in one. I agree.

AuthenticKing, I went back through the thread to review the points that you're making.

AuthenticKing:

Firstly, think about this, these are things we constantly hear from religious leaders/motivational speakers/visionaries, etc yet what do we see? The world or for the sake of the point I want to make, Africa keeps being a messy place.
Secondly, I strongly believe that these your points can only work only when humans decide on their own, and how do humans decide on their own when many of us lack awareness to do so? When many of us keep waiting for a god to do that for us? When many of us believe that forces of darkness are keeping us back from making ourselves better? How do we achieve that when many listen to people say these things you just wrote up there but pay no heed to them?

Ever since, I dropped religion, I've become more self-aware and observant of human nature and I make efforts on my own to make myself better and also spread this to others, but for us to achieve that on a large scale, we have to first of all, challenge people's old ways of thinking and since I can't, for some reasons yet, do that openly, I have to lend my voice on a platform like this to do that.

Ok look, ignore the atheists who are quite abusive in their replies to theists and check out atheists who try their best to raise challenging topics to question religious people on what they believe in, check out atheists and other freethinkers who respectfully engage theists on this platform.

Threads like this helped fuel my objections about religion. Yes there are threads that are devoid of reasoning but why not look at those that promote so much reasoning and knowledge, that help people think?

Using Nigeria as a case study, people must drop religious fanaticism and dogmatism in order to begin to see things clearly. Superstitious beliefs must be challenged to help people see through these beliefs. Wilgrea7 has already elaborated on this in his first reply to you, the one you just responded to, you can go back and read them again to understand why I'm emphasizing on religion and superstitious beliefs.

Of course, religion is not the only thing that blocks people from thinking clearly but as long as Africa is concerned, it's our biggest problem.

As I understand it, your view is similar to Wilgrea7's, that even if people use other reasons besides "God says" for doing harm and not trying to help solve the problems, that's the biggest reason and doing the most harm and holding people back the most from helping to solve the problems. That's why you're focusing on that more than on any other false ways of thinking.

Seeing this again put what you and Wilgrea7 are doing in a different light for me:

Ever since, I dropped religion, I've become more self-aware and observant of human nature and I make efforts on my own to make myself better and also spread this to others, but for us to achieve that on a large scale, we have to first of all, challenge people's old ways of thinking and since I can't, for some reasons yet, do that openly, I have to lend my voice on a platform like this to do that.

Now I'm thinking that you might really be helping to improve people's attitudes and behavior, but not for the reasons that you're saying.

Endtimer:

The first sentence is completely correct. People can act morally without belief in God. They have no reason to, but they can. They can be wonderful people in spite of not believing God exists.

The second statement is false. We cannot agree about right and wrong except where our beliefs intersect. We can learn nothing from one another unless it backs up our individual beliefs. Faith in the same God provides common ground to discuss morality. Without it we are left talking past each other.

I was thinking about what your main points in this discussion might be. As I understand it, your view is that believing in the God who created us and who knows and wants what's best for us, gives people a better way of knowing what's right and wrong than they can have without believing in Him. Am I understanding you correctly?

ReubenSandwich:
AuthenticKing, I went back through the thread to review the points that you're making.
As I understand it, your view is similar to Wilgrea7's, that even if people use other reasons besides "God says" for doing harm and not trying to help solve the problems, that's the biggest reason and doing the most harm and holding people back the most from helping to solve the problems. That's why you're focusing on that more than on any other false ways of thinking.

I won't say it's the biggest reason, as I've been explaining before, "God says" is a very ambiguous statement. Referring to a being we can't see or have no verifiable evidence for. A being we can't ask directly why he commands what he does command or even confront him. This being still manages to exert influence in our lives, a very overwhelming one. We're focused on this particular "God says" more because of this reason (and the many other reasons we've listed above)
I've shown you other false ways of thinking (which you did not reply to) which I'll paste it as I reply to the first reply you sent now.

ReubenSandwich:

Seeing this again put what you and Wilgrea7 are doing in a different light for me:

I alluded to that personal anecdote because of what you were asking, "what am I doing to ensure people live better?" (I'm paraphrasing). I wasn't using it to make a point that everyone must be that way.

ReubenSandwich:

Now I'm thinking that you might really be helping to improve people's attitudes and behavior, but not for the reasons that you're saying.

What reasons?

ReubenSandwich:


I searched through all your posts and didn't find any ideas in them about what people can do besides debating with other people about their beliefs.

What of this?

AuthenticKing:

Other things one must do is to drop reliance on wishful thinking, cognitive biases and every form of emotional thinking before one can be able to reason clearly, to gain critical thinking, to be rational, etc. This is just the first step. All these are not easy but it's possible. Amongst everything I listed above, the only one that should be retained but should be balanced with rationality is emotional thinking but the rest blocks our ability to think clearly.

Besides stop looking at it from the context of just "debating with people about their beliefs" but see them as discussions and arguments that serve as a fuel to generate change in people's thinking. This is what I've been explaining to you in my replies but you're still not getting the point!

ReubenSandwich:

My understanding of what moral dilemma you think needs to be solved, is people using what they think God says to decide what's right and wrong. The reason it needs to be solved is because some things that people do, saying that it's for God, are doing a lot of harm, and sometimes it's hard to convince people that what they're doing or promoting is wrong if they think that it's what God says to do.

Yes at least for the discussions on this thread.

Wilgrea7, Endtimer, AuthenticKing, I want to tell you more about my way of thinking about a God. Sometimes I think of the universe metaphorically as being created by someone, and I call the creator in that metaphor "God." I think of everything that God says and does in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures the same way, as metaphorical. I can't see what it could possibly mean to say that He exists, or does not exist. Metaphorically, what the God who created us says and does includes what Jesus says and does in the Bible gospels. Metaphorically, the words of Moses, of some of the prophets, and of the Quran were spoken by the God who created us.

ReubenSandwich:
What is the purpose of deciding what is right and wrong?

Peaceful coexistence among intelligent beings (Humans) that's the only purpose of deciding what is right and wrong, moreover that's the only reason why God created us with the ability to speak as in communicate, in the absence of peaceful coexistence there's no need thinking of right and wrong which equates the inhabitants to BEASTS!

MaxInDHouse:


Peaceful coexistence among intelligent beings (Humans) that's the only purpose of deciding what is right and wrong, moreover that's the only reason why God created us with the ability to speak as in communicate, in the absence of peaceful coexistence there's no need thinking of right and wrong which equates the inhabitants to BEASTS!

Thanks for sharing.

ReubenSandwich:

Thanks for sharing.

You're welcome Sir, we all need to know why we are here chatting about religion. The atheist believe we don't need God in order to keep morals yet if allowed each person can define what morals is to them in various ways that will surely lead to contradictions hence troubles which brings us back to where we started: There is need of a SUPREME BEING whose say should be final regarding what is right and what is wrong!

ReubenSandwich:
Wilgrea7, Endtimer, AuthenticKing, I want to tell you more about my way of thinking about a God. Sometimes I think of the universe metaphorically as being created by someone, and I call the creator in that metaphor "God." I think of everything that God says and does in the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures the same way, as metaphorical. I can't see what it could possibly mean to say that He exists, or does not exist. Metaphorically, what the God who created us says and does includes what Jesus says and does in the Bible gospels. Metaphorically, the words of Moses, of some of the prophets, and of the Quran were spoken by the God who created us.

Reading your comments, I was looking at you as a sort of a Christian Deist, but after reading this particular comment, I'm changing my opinion, you're a theist, an Abrahamic one.

I used to kind of see 'God' this way but not exactly your way. I was not really taking the words of the Bible literally but grabbing the 'metaphorical' meanings from it. I didn't believe the God was real (I sometimes thought he was real but his words were adulterated in many ways) but now, I've seen the holy books for what they are: books written by men like you and I to explain what they didn't understand. Using the propensity for man to believe in a supernatural being, they created the concept of gods that suited their culture, time and personal desires and whims.

Even after discovering this, I could go on telling people to see God 'metaphorically' not literally, grabbing the useful lessons from the holy books and using them to live rightly and throwing out the nonsense but by doing this, I would still be contributing to the problem, helping humans to create a sort of morality that suits them and shielding this morality from being scrutinized by inserting a 'god' in it.

I rather appeal to reality.

MaxInDHouse:

You're welcome Sir, we all need to know why we are here chatting about religion. The atheist believe we don't need God in order to keep morals yet if allowed each person can define what morals is to them in various ways that will surely lead to contradictions hence troubles which brings us back to where we started: There is need of a SUPREME BEING whose say should be final regarding what is right and what is wrong!

If you accuse humans of having contradictions when they try to come up with what morality means, then, as I have repeated so many times on this thread, we could throw that accusation back to the SUPREME BEING(S) you've come up with to have the final say regarding what is right and wrong.
Your Supreme being(s) do not only have contradictions in his (their) laws but also absurdities. Your Supreme being ain't consistent with his laws, restricted to culture, time and place and uses flawed humans to decimate and enforce his laws without showing himself. That's not a person or a being we can entrust the final say on our morality to.
We have non-religious countries that have succeeded living without the laws of your Supreme being(s) and we also see how religious countries do not rely fully on holy books to make laws but also on external sources.

I understand your need for a Supreme being but we would and have always gotten the same results (even worse results) we get when we let humans decide on their own.

AuthenticKing:

If you accuse humans of having contradictions when they try to come up with what morality means, then, as I have repeated so many times on this thread, we could throw that accusation back to the SUPREME BEING(S) you've come up with to have the final say regarding what is right and wrong.
Your Supreme being(s) do not only have contradictions in his (their) laws but also absurdities. Your Supreme being ain't consistent with his laws, restricted to culture, time and place and uses flawed humans to decimate and enforce his laws without showing himself. That's not a person or a being we can entrust the final say on our morality to.
We have non-religious countries that have succeeded living without the laws of your Supreme being(s) and we also see how religious countries do not rely fully on holy books to make laws but also on external sources.

I understand your need for a Supreme being but we would and have always gotten the same results (even worse results) we get when we let humans decide on their own.

First of all i want you to know that the SUPREME BEING has no nation situated in one geographical location that's using His laws today and when talking about success in morality it's obvious you still need some enlightenment on that.
Success in morality is when we live without anyone carrying weapons in our society as law enforcement agents. So where there are law enforcement agents around morality is a failure that's why you need fully armed men to force what you've signed into law on everyone.

In a society where the SUPREME BEING rules we don't need weapons to force ourselves in living by what we've all agreed upon as standard from the supreme being!

ReubenSandwich:
It just occurred to me that maybe the only time I see people talking about morality is when they’re trying to stigmatize atheists, or to defend atheists against people stigmatizing them. The only interest in moral issues that I'm seeing here is in using them to stigmatize people across some belief divides.

(later) I'm thinking now that maybe the topic of morality is only being used here as a platform for promoting and defending prejudices across belief divides, so it might be a waste of my time and energy to try to have any rational discussion about it with anyone. I'll just restate what I think about the topic. Whatever anyone means by "the moral dilemma," I don't think that it's solved by the existence, or the nonexistence, of a God, no matter if it's a Christian God or some other one.

On the topic of morality in general, I think that one of the reasons for our social problems is a moral vacuum in which any excuse will do for people to indulge their worst impulses, and that has nothing to do with people believing or not believing in the existence of a God. It's a part of human nature which is spiraling out of control. I see some things that anyone who wants to can do to help it stop gettting worse and start getting better, and to help reduce the damage from it.

Outside Christianity there are sects of the will or the thought. The propagate of the will the will of creation put the divine creator as morally right and associate him with light his will the force that put creation into motion it dis force that’s responsible for our position in the cosmos rich or poor sick or healthy ugly or beautiful and continues bringing us back to life (reincarnation) though most scholars do not agree to what purpose. In the will school of thought many say the creator has the upper hand in our position while others say we are responsible for position in the cosmos.

Now the thought school of thought says it's our thoughts dat places us in our position in the cosmos the creator is not interested. If u look at most occult teachings it's every man for himself.

But if every man for himself why does the creator wants me to have compassion on others and help others.

There are those who feel life is never worth starting the creator is just playing with us basically a cruel consciousness. because how come we are made to forget the past deeds that place us in This current position that can't be justice. The more u look d less u see. Follow Ur way.

MaxInDHouse:

Peaceful coexistence among intelligent beings (Humans) that's the only purpose of deciding what is right and wrong, moreover that's the only reason why God created us with the ability to speak as in communicate ...

I think that's a good way of looking at it. I also think of it as bringing out the best in people, in society, and in the world around us.

MaxInDHouse:

You're welcome Sir, we all need to know why we are here chatting about religion. The atheist believe we don't need God in order to keep morals yet if allowed each person can define what morals is to them in various ways that will surely lead to contradictions hence troubles which brings us back to where we started: There is need of a SUPREME BEING whose say should be final regarding what is right and what is wrong!

I think that the best knowledge of right and wrong is in the words of the God's messengers, but I don't think that people have to believe that God exists to agree about what's right and wrong and to live together peacefully.

AuthenticKing:

I used to kind of see 'God' this way but not exactly your way. I was not really taking the words of the Bible literally but grabbing the 'metaphorical' meanings from it. I didn't believe the God was real (I sometimes thought he was real but his words were adulterated in many ways) but now, I've seen the holy books for what they are: books written by men like you and I to explain what they didn't understand. Using the propensity for man to believe in a supernatural being, they created the concept of gods that suited their culture, time and personal desires and whims.

Saying that I think of the words of some prophets metaphorically as words of God doesn't mean that I take them literally. Also, I don't think that we have any way of knowing how well their words were translated and preserved, before they were written into the manuscripts that have been found.

Even after discovering this, I could go on telling people to see God 'metaphorically' not literally, grabbing the useful lessons from the holy books and using them to live rightly and throwing out the nonsense but by doing this, I would still be contributing to the problem, helping humans to create a sort of morality that suits them and shielding this morality from being scrutinized by inserting a 'god' in it.

I agree that even if a person is thinking about God metaphorically, they can still be helping to perpetuate the problems.

scaryblake:


Outside Christianity there are sects of the will or the thought. The propagate of the will the will of creation put the divine creator as morally right and associate him with light his will the force that put creation into motion it dis force that’s responsible for our position in the cosmos rich or poor sick or healthy ugly or beautiful and continues bringing us back to life (reincarnation) though most scholars do not agree to what purpose. In the will school of thought many say the creator has the upper hand in our position while others say we are responsible for position in the cosmos.

Now the thought school of thought says it's our thoughts dat places us in our position in the cosmos the creator is not interested. If u look at most occult teachings it's every man for himself.

But if every man for himself why does the creator wants me to have compassion on others and help others.

There are those who feel life is never worth starting the creator is just playing with us basically a cruel consciousness. because how come we are made to forget the past deeds that place us in This current position that can't be justice. The more u look d less u see. Follow Ur way.

Thank you. I'm aware of those ways of thinking. Is there anything in there about your ways of thinking?

I think that the best written knowledge and resources we have for learning to live the best life we can are in some of the scriptures of some of the religions, and that the knowledge and power in them is from the messengers of the God who created us.

AuthenticKing:

I've seen the holy books for what they are: books written by men like you and I to explain what they didn't understand. Using the propensity for man to believe in a supernatural being, they created the concept of gods that suited their culture, time and personal desires and whims.

I have a different theory about that, but I don't know if it would be interesting or not to discuss it.

AuthenticKing:

I could go on telling people to see God 'metaphorically' not literally, grabbing the useful lessons from the holy books and using them to live rightly and throwing out the nonsense but by doing this, I would still be contributing to the problem, helping humans to create a sort of morality that suits them and shielding this morality from being scrutinized by inserting a 'god' in it.

That started me on a new line of thinking about using the word “God.” I might want to practice and promote using it only in the context of understanding what lessons are being taught in Abrahamic scriptures. Thinking of them as collections of parables to teach lessons, with the word "God" being used sometimes as a name for one of the characters in a parable. The "God" in one parable might be a completely different character from the "God" in another one.

MaxInDHouse:

You're welcome Sir, we all need to know why we are here chatting about religion. The atheist believe we don't need God in order to keep morals yet if allowed each person can define what morals is to them in various ways that will surely lead to contradictions hence troubles which brings us back to where we started: There is need of a SUPREME BEING whose say should be final regarding what is right and what is wrong!

Contradictions are everywhere…. The Christian Bible is full of contradictions, and so is life. Contradictions are IMO an intrinsic part of the human experience. I don’t think the existence of contradictions is a valid basis for dismissing a worldview… the world is messy and logical statements generally do poorly when trying to describe the reality we live in. Life is very very messy. It is what it is.

I think we have more pressing problems than wondering whether or not a supreme being exists. That’s all just, IMO, pointless deliberation. How do we take practical steps to improve the human conditio?. What can we do to save us from ourselves? These are the questions I think we should seek answers to.. I don’t believe any supernatural entity will do those things for us… I think that’s something we need to figure out ourselves. I think all this fixation on what i consider to be abstract entities bring nothing to the table.

Nothing is coming from anywhere to save us from ourselves we have to figure that sh*t out ourselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Permafrost:

I don’t think the existence of contradictions is a valid basis for dismissing a worldview.

I agree.

How do we take practical steps to improve the human condition?

I would be very interested in a discussion about that, but not in this thread. Maybe we can find or start a thread for it.

Permafrost:


Nothing is coming from anywhere to save us from ourselves we have to figure that sh*t out ourselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same figuring out men have been doing for centuries yet none is able to save himself all complaining about how hard and tough living is.

And I ask did God not Curse you people with hardness and suffering because you are evil?

ReubenSandwich:


Saying that I think of the words of some prophets metaphorically as words of God doesn't mean that I take them literally. Also, I don't think that we have any way of knowing how well their words were translated and preserved, before they were written into the manuscripts that have been found.



I agree that even if a person is thinking about God metaphorically, they can still be helping to perpetuate the problems.

It honestly seems to me like you're trying to eat your cake and have it.

What exactly makes these people “prophets"? ... and what differentiates the people you regard as prophets from the ones don't regard as such.

Do you regard buddha as a prophet? What about Zoroaster? What about Joseph smith? Muhammad? L. Ron Hubbard?

If you do, why? ... If you don't, also why?

You cannot recognize someone as a “prophet" while simultaneously claiming not to believe in the very God whose alleged existence makes them the very thing you call them. Otherwise you would just call them normal men.