MaxInDHouse:


What PROBLEM is MORALITY expected to solve?

I believe it's until we know the PROBLEM that we can work out a SOLUTION!

Why did you edit my response to make it look like I said something i didn't say? What sort of game are you trying to play here?

I clearly said that hinging morality on a God doesn't solve the problem. Not that morality itself doesn't solve the problem. The statement in itself doesn't even make sense.

FemiAjani:


Neither do I. My attitude is that the religion is what the religious do, and what the book says is just words on a page unless people actually adhere to it. The practice is the religion, and everything else is just spin, trivia, or abstractions. And Christians who will refuse to help their neighbors and, for that matter, actively hate their neighbors (homophobes and transphobes, for example) because that's what the religion teaches them? They're part of the practice, and so how they practice the religion is part of the religion. Is that every last Christian? No. I'm not pretending that Christianity is consistently about abandoning and hating your neighbors. But let's also not pretend that it's consistently about helping and loving them, either.

We have different attitudes I guess. My attitude is that a religion is what they book says, and not what people do. The people might be taught wrong or not even bother reading the book or not even bother doing what they read in the book.

Wilgrea7:

Why did you edit my response to make it look like I said something i didn't say? What sort of game are you trying to play here?
I clearly said that hinging morality on a God doesn't solve the problem. Not that morality itself doesn't solve the problem. The statement in itself doesn't even make sense.

We are saying the same thing, you agreed with me that MORALITY will solve a PROBLEM so i asked "what problem is morality expected to solve?"

Let's know as in agree on what the problem is first then we can think of how to solve it!

MaxInDHouse:


We are saying the same thing, you agreed with me that MORALITY will solve a PROBLEM so i asked "what problem is morality expected to solve?"

Let's know as in agree on what the problem is first then we can think of how to solve it!

I'm genuinely confused

What are you talking about... What problem is morality supposed to solve? The problem of morality?

The problem I was referring to was the answer to moral questions. I said shifting the burden to a God doesn't solve the problem.. meaning it doesn't make moral problems any easier to answer.

How does what you're saying now relate to what i said?

Wilgrea7:

I'm genuinely confused
What are you talking about... What problem is morality supposed to solve? The problem of morality?
The problem I was referring to was the answer to moral questions. I said shifting the burden to a God doesn't solve the problem.. meaning it doesn't make moral problems any easier to answer.
How does what you're saying now relate to what i said?

MORALITY

Recognition of the distinction between good and evil or between right and wrong; respect for and obedience to the rules of right conduct; the mental disposition or characteristic of behaving in a manner intended to produce morally good results.

So morality supposed to help people relate well if this definition is correct. Right?

Tamaratonye5:

In many passages

The entire concept of "salvation" is about not winding up eternally tortured by burning sulphur. So called "salvation" is only possible by believing the Jesus doctrines. You could end global hunger and eradicate aging and make unlimited ice cream available to everyone 24/7 and still spend eternity impaled on a spit for failing to believe in Jesus.

Any actual "salvation" of humanity will only be realized by the complete eradication of religion.

Forgive me, but I don't take the words of ignorant people (as expressed in your link as opposed to what I read in a book myself). And I don't do salvation in some imaginary after life while suffering on this very real earth. After some tell me I am going to hell for not believing, they then beg me for food. I love the fact that I can get to tell them their hunger would be salvationalised away if they believed harder, perhaps.

Last time I checked, believing does not put food on the table, nor would it save anyone from suffering on this earth, which is what I see in the teachings of Jesus. The priest and Levite both believed, but the Samaritan who was not a believer, is the one Jesus said one should go and do likewise. A version of the same parable today would use a pastor and an imam and a traditional god worshipper, with Jesus saying "Go and do as the traditional god worshipper did".

One of the most unfortunate things about the Bible was it was written when human understanding was limited. What's more unfortunate though is most don't evolve their own understanding of what they read in the Bible, and just take it literally, and that's if they read it from the beginning to the end.

Education itself used to be about believing facts. Charles Dickens parodied the idea with his "Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life", but we (not Nigeria yet, mind) have now evolved from believing facts to critically analysing what we are told. Critical thinking is even being taught in primary schools where I am.

Readers should compensate with knowledge and experience we have subsequently acquired. Jesus is even written to have given an out with his sending of the individualised Holy Spirit ministering to one.

The eradication of religion belief comes from understanding what the religious books teach. Once understood, religion has served its purpose of educating and then it dies. Or to be precise, it evolves into a new religion, though we might not call it one.

Tamaratonye5:

In many passages

The passages you quoted are not about belief, but about what one does.

If I murder you. No that's a bit far. If I am rude to you I will agonise about it, and it feels like hell to me, so I try not to be rude.

MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?

If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

No, I don't expect my neighbour to comply with my own morality. What I can do is organise my other neighbours who share my morality and we can then impose it on our neighbours.

That's how we got thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not murder, and thou shalt not covet thy neighbours goods, and Nairaland rules. The neighbours did not like these things done to them so they passed laws to impose it on their neighbours and their community.

Wilgrea7:


Why did you edit my response to make it look like I said something i didn't say? What sort of game are you trying to play here?

You must not be familiar with Maximus. Ignorant, unscholarly, uninformed, crass,
mendacious, self-righteous, chief of obfuscation, lies, prejudice - it's all a part of his M.O. Requesting honest, flexible discussion from this man is a tough ask. Would be better off playing chess with a pigeon.

Wilgrea7:

The problem I was referring to was the answer to moral questions. I said shifting the burden to a God doesn't solve the problem.. meaning it doesn't make moral problems any easier to answer.

How does what you're saying now relate to what i said?

As I said earlier, he doesn't know jack, nada, zilch. Not a single thing, nope, he hasn't got a clue, what's being discussed right now on this thread. He's not aware of the requisite details and facts concerning the subject of morality. He doesn't know the basics. To top it all off, he's not even aware of this fundamental ignorance and insists on making blind arguments and assertions.

When it comes to intellectual discourse, simpletons like this only serve as a cheap form of amusement to those who know better, that is, until they start to bore the crowd and become nothing more than a nuisance.

MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

Can't be good without God is an open admission that your belief in god is the only thing preventing you from killing people and stealing things.

I hope you never lose your faith, please, please keep on believing.

Tamaratonye5:

Can't be good without God is an open admission that your belief in god is the only thing preventing you from killing people and stealing things.

I hope you never lose your faith, please, please keep on believing.

You have prayed for him, lol.

FemiAjani:


Neither do I. My attitude is that the religion is what the religious do, and what the book says is just words on a page unless people actually adhere to it. The practice is the religion, and everything else is just spin, trivia, or abstractions.

I have to add. The above is what made me atheistic to religion as practised in Nigeria. What made it worse was after reading the book from the beginning to the end between 9 and 12 years old, I realised those telling me to accept Christ into my life had not read the book from beginning to end and were talking rubbish.

I guess it's due to my primary education that taught me who and what and where and how and when and why, and the fact we were taught about the Greek and Roman and Egyptian gods which were unbelievable, and was not taught about Yahweh until I met it in Nigeria. The way they thought of oyinbo rats is how they saw their God.

budaatum:

When I was like really young, these mates of mine who grew up in Obanikoro Village told me rats talk. Well, even at barely 7, I was atheistic in nature, so I argued that rats don't talk. Now there were like 5 of them, so they ganged up on me calling me all sorts of names and that I know nothing, "rats talk jo!".

One day, about two years later, we were in the home of one of them and NTA was showing Tom and Jerry. "There," they said, pointing to the telly. "I thought you said rats don't talk?"

Turns out oyinbo rats do talk, silly me!

Tamaratonye5:

Can't be good without God is an open admission that your belief in god is the only thing preventing you from killing people and stealing things.

I hope you never lose your faith, please, please keep on believing.

My friend you don't have the answer so there's no need disturbing your brains!

MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?


If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

The one and only organization where you can find answers to these two questions is JWs!

No matter what your religion is you will only get annoyed over these two questions!

I will answer but let's see if anyone from any other school of thought can answer the two questions directly!

MaxInDHouse:


The one and only organization where you can find answers to these two questions is JWs!

No matter what your religion is you will only get annoyed over these two questions!

I will answer but let's see if anyone from any other school of thought can answer the two questions directly!

Have you noticed we are not all JWs here, yet we all have morals, to some extent?

I, for instance, find it immoral to promote Buddhism here, though in all honesty, that's rather because people who have not read and understood their own religious book might find it difficult to engage with the complexity of Buddhism where no gods will save you but teach you to save yourself, which is what I see in my own Holy Bible.

budaatum:


We have different attitudes I guess. My attitude is that a religion is what they book says, and not what people do. The people might be taught wrong or not even bother reading the book or not even bother doing what they read in the book.

I suppose we could talk about Christianity in the abstract. Or, at least, we can talk about this or that abstract version of Christianity, since the Bible is essentially a Rorschach test and Christians won't agree on what form of the religion the Bible is presenting in the abstract. But why bother? My focus is on (for example) actual Christians storming a nation's Capital and working to destroy democracy, or on actual Christians working for ways to turn everyone (like me) who doesn't look like them into second-class citizens, or on actual Christians doing some good stuff on the subject of poverty. Admittedly this last example interests me less, because I'm going to focus on the person pointing the gun at me rather than on the person who isn't. Hypothetical, abstract Christians don't rate my attention at all. I prioritize actual threats over imaginary ones. If instead you want to present some idea of True Christians vs False Christians to No-True-Scotsman your way out of having to deal with less pleasant Christians being part of the religion, then you would communicate this much more clearly if you were to describe which version of the religion you're talking about and name it something more specific than just "Christianity".

MaxInDHouse:

What PROBLEM is MORALITY expected to solve?
I believe it's until we know the PROBLEM that we can work out a SOLUTION!

MORALITY has to do with cohabitation so in the absence of cohabitation whatever you do is morally right since it's you and you alone nobody is offended as you choose to live the way you like.
So morality is expected to solve the problem resulting from misunderstanding if we agreed on the same standard we can solve any problem that may arise from cohabitation!

MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?

NO!
If my morality doesn't come from a SUPREME BEING then i can't impose it on my neighbour which takes us back to the starting point, since two wrongs can't make a right then we can't agree meaning there is no morality!

MaxInDHouse:

If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

NO WAY!

Each human is unique on his/her own so in the absence of a SUPREME BEING there can never be peaceful coexistence, we will always need weapons and task forces to impose what we call morality on our fellowman!

MaxInDHouse:


Why you do atheists often confuse yourselves?

If you don't have the answer just say so instead of giving a lengthy epistle without the answers!

I believe I sufficiently addressed your questions in my previous post. You strike me as a bit rude and impatient, and you seem to have trouble understanding my answer. If you are interested, let's try this again - please pay close attention: (1) Theistic morality is even more subjective, because objectivity is about everyone being able to look at something (god, the supernatural, the divine, etc) and agree on what they see, and that's not what happens when people base morality on belief in gods. For example, if religious morality were objective (from a supreme being, as you put it), then the Episcopalians and NIFB would agree on the subject of same-sex marriage. (2) Secular morality, meaning morality arrived at independent of our beliefs about a god, can be much more objective. It's often founded on common preferences and desires -- things like "I don't want myself or my family to get murdered" -- and is constructed in ways that objectively create a world in which those preferences are widely realized. (3) Regardless of whether you understand HOW morality not grounded in a belief in a god can work, the bottom line is that it does. So stop echoing the cliched, bigoted implication that atheists can't be moral simply because you don't understand how that's possible. You not understanding how it works doesn't give you veto power.

FemiAjani:


I suppose we could talk about Christianity in the abstract. Or, at least, we can talk about this or that abstract version of Christianity, since the Bible is essentially a Rorschach test and Christians won't agree on what form of the religion the Bible is presenting in the abstract. But why bother? My focus is on (for example) actual Christians storming a nation's Capital and working to destroy democracy, or on actual Christians working for ways to turn everyone (like me) who doesn't look like them into second-class citizens, or on actual Christians doing some good stuff on the subject of poverty. Admittedly this last example interests me less, because I'm going to focus on the person pointing the gun at me rather than on the person who isn't. Hypothetical, abstract Christians don't rate my attention at all. I prioritize actual threats over imaginary ones. If instead you want to present some idea of True Christians vs False Christians to No-True-Scotsman your way out of having to deal with less pleasant Christians being part of the religion, then you would communicate this much more clearly if you were to describe which version of the religion you're talking about and name it something more specific than just "Christianity".

You are focusing on one type of Christian in one place while disregarding other Christians in other places. It's like claiming Christianity is that practised in Nigeria where a gay person can not be a pastor, while ignoring say UK Christianity where the pastor's can be gay, or claiming Christianity is a tool of slavemasters while ignoring how it teaches to avoid being a slave in the first place.

There are Christians in the Republican Party who disagree with those who "stormed a nation's Capital". "Christians working for ways to turn everyone (like me) who doesn't look like them into second-class citizens" have inflated ideas about themselves. No one with a brain would like to believe manna comes from heaven, not even those who want you to be stupid like they are. Christians are taught to love their neighbours, and there's no guarantee their neighbour would look like them. And there are lots of non-Christians also, and "actual Christians doing some good stuff on the subject of poverty".

I am not presenting "some idea of True Christians vs False Christians", FemiAjani. I am more concerned about an understanding of the Christian book as opposed to what some claim is written in it, and even where it seems the god is evil, one can learn from it not to be like that instance of that God.

An example is where God is said to have looked down on Babylon and decided to "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" because "the whole earth had one language and the same words" and "Come together to build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth".

That's like claiming if we all on here decide to accomplish something despite our differences God would scatter us abroad from there over the face of all the earth. Show me that God and I will personally take its ignorant evil head head to the bottom of a river and bash it against a rock, because people who don't "Come together" can not build rockets to Mars, and would shout NEPA because they have not come together to say "Let there be Light".

FemiAjani:


I believe I sufficiently addressed your questions in my previous post. You strike me as a bit rude and impatient, and you seem to have trouble understanding my answer. If you are interested, let's try this again - please pay close attention: (1) Theistic morality is even more subjective, because objectivity is about everyone being able to look at something (god, the supernatural, the divine, etc) and agree on what they see, and that's not what happens when people base morality on belief in gods. For example, if religious morality were objective (from a supreme being, as you put it), then the Episcopalians and NIFB would agree on the subject of same-sex marriage. (2) Secular morality, meaning morality arrived at independent of our beliefs about a god, can be much more objective. It's often founded on common preferences and desires -- things like "I don't want myself or my family to get murdered" -- and is constructed in ways that objectively create a world in which those preferences are widely realized. (3) Regardless of whether you understand HOW morality not grounded in a belief in a god can work, the bottom line is that it does. So stop echoing the cliched, bigoted implication that atheists can't be moral simply because you don't understand how that's possible. You not understanding how it works doesn't give you veto power.

The first thing you should know is that the use of weapons to force people to comply with standards set by people shows that the so called morals is WEAK already.

If we call something "MORAL" we should all be moved to submit without the threat of weapons from law enforcement agents.

So instead of arguing about the existence of God try to focus on the weakness of morals that man can agree on without God!

budaatum:


Sow me where Christianity teaches "that if you don't accept Jesus and believe he's the son of a god you're going to burn in everlasting hell" please. I must have missed that.

Have you ever read your old book? The entire reason for a Jesus figure pivots around sin.
If you don't accept that Jedus died for you sins you're in for big trouble in the afterlife.
However, you may be a cafeteria Christian. You pick and choose all the nicey-nice stuff out of the New Testament and ignore all the crappy stuff.

chryssanthe:


Have you ever read your old book? The entire reason for a Jesus figure pivots around sin.
If you don't accept that Jedus died for you sins you're in for big trouble in the afterlife.
However, you may be a cafeteria Christian. You pick and choose all the nicey-nice stuff out of the New Testament and ignore all the crappy stuff.

I am not a Christian at all and Jesus did not die for my sins. Some idiots, not happy that Jesus did not save them here on earth from their sins, crucified him and then lied to themselves and anyone gullible enough to believe it, that their God sent him to be sacrificed.

Jesus would have been more valuable if they had learnt from him how to resist the temptation of sin instead of killing him because of their disappointment that he did not give them their daily bread.

MaxInDHouse:


MORALITY has to do with cohabitation so in the absence of cohabitation whatever you do is morally right since it's you and you alone nobody is offended as you choose to live the way you like.
So morality is expected to solve the problem resulting from misunderstanding if we agreed on the same standard we can solve any problem that may arise from cohabitation!



NO!
If my morality doesn't come from a SUPREME BEING then i can't impose it on my neighbour which takes us back to the starting point, since two wrongs can't make a right then we can't agree meaning there is no morality!


NO WAY!

Each human is unique on his/her own so in the absence of a SUPREME BEING there can never be peaceful coexistence, we will always need weapons and task forces to impose what we call morality on our fellowman!

I'm not quite in agreement with you in saying that we need the same moral source, but I'll play along with that for a little bit. Let's say we'd need some god-imposed moral standard, rather than one we collectively construct, in order for peaceful coexistence to be possible. You see the Bible as that standard of morality. (Or Jesus is that source or something similar. At least, you seem to be working in that direction.) Now let's say your neighbor agrees that there needs to be a common standard for morality, but they see the Koran as the right standard. The two of you are trying to look at the same subject -- God and God's moral dictates -- but seeing very different things. That's not something that's objective. What right would he have to impose Sharia law on you, or what right would you have to impose Christian law on him? How would you two coexist in the framework of theistic morality without weapons and task forces? I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not an atheism problem. Everyone being an atheist wouldn't prevent us from implementing workable solutions to it, and everyone not being a theist wouldn't make the problem go away. If anything, basing morality on theism seems to have a worse track record in addressing the problem without violence.

What I'm proposing as an alternative is that we can base our morals and mores on something innate to humanity, something which we all share and which we can actually agree is there. Things like our shared desires for survival, comfort, and individual agency. The common source that we'd return to is the human condition and the needs and preferences which arise from it. This is something we can do without first settling whether a God exists, which god it is, which translations of which texts correctly convey that God's moral precepts, and what the correct way of interpreting those texts is. Since agreeing on those God questions is something that history shows humanity DOESN'T DO WELL, we shouldn't hinge our hopes of coexistence on making that agreement happen. At the very least, we should implement a pragmatic, working framework for coexistence on the off chance that everyone agreeing on God-imposed morality doesn't magically happen by the end of the week. And since we already (kind of) have that framework, we should maintain it to get by, rather than reject it out of pique simply because it doesn't involve a belief in a God.

Here's the key point. There's a difference between a common moral standard and a common moral source. A common moral standard would be us agreeing on "don't kill people", perhaps with some debate about edge cases like accidents, self-defense, and what qualifies as a person. A common moral source might be the idea that moral standards come from the Christian God as understood by... well, take your pick. Put them together and you'd have "Don't kill people, because God says not to kill people." But which is more important to coexistence? Agreeing on the standard, or agreeing on the source? If I can agree with the NIFB on the standard that we shouldn't kill people without agreeing on the source, then we'd go on not killing each other even if we don't agree on the details of why we shouldn't kill each other. That sounds great. Coexisting requires more than not killing each other, but it's a good start. But suppose you and someone in the extreme Christian right white-supremacist sphere agree on a moral source (the Christian God) but not the same standard. They think mass murder to spark a race war is the moral thing to do, and you don't. Is that a good recipe for coexistence? No. What we need is a common standard, or at least a rough consensus on that standard in order to get by. If we have that, then agreeing on the source of that standard isn't actually important.

budaatum:


You are focusing on one type of Christian in one place while disregarding other Christians in other places. It's like claiming Christianity is that practised in Nigeria where a gay person can not be a pastor, while ignoring say UK Christianity where the pastor's can be gay, or claiming Christianity is a tool of slavemasters while ignoring how it teaches to avoid being a slave in the first place.

There are Christians in the Republican Party who disagree with those who "stormed a nation's Capital". "Christians working for ways to turn everyone (like me) who doesn't look like them into second-class citizens" have inflated ideas about themselves. No one with a brain would like to believe manna comes from heaven, not even those who want you to be stupid like they are. Christians are taught to love their neighbours, and there's no guarantee their neighbour would look like them. And there are lots of non-Christians also, and "actual Christians doing some good stuff on the subject of poverty".

I am not presenting "some idea of True Christians vs False Christians", FemiAjani. I am more concerned about an understanding of the Christian book as opposed to what some claim is written in it, and even where it seems the god is evil, one can learn from it not to be like that instance of that God.

An example is where God is said to have looked down on Babylon and decided to "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" because "the whole earth had one language and the same words" and "Come together to build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth".

That's like claiming if we all on here decide to accomplish something despite our differences God would scatter us abroad from there over the face of all the earth. Show me that God and I will personally take its ignorant evil head head to the bottom of a river and bash it against a rock, because people who don't "Come together" can not build rockets to Mars, and would shout NEPA because they have not come together to say "Let there be Light".

I'm focusing more on the type of Christian that's most a threat to me and people I care about, yes. Threats are like that. They concentrate the mind wonderfully. Am I saying all Christians are like that? Of course not. I've explicitly said they aren't, and went so far as to provide the example of Christians helping with regards to poverty, on my own, to indicate that I understood that point. I'm also well aware that some Republicans, like Liz Cheney, disagree with the Jan 6 crowd, though I can't help noting that those voices of disagreement keep getting shown the door. And you don't have to tell me that the Christian nationalists trying to turn me into a second-class citizen have inflated ideas about themselves. I was already very, very, very, very, very aware of that from my own experience. The point I'm trying to make here is that the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" are... contested, to say the least, and I'm not going to accept your view that THIS or THAT attitude is Christian while the opposite is not. Multiple people and multiple agendas are laying claim to them, and I see no basis for recognizing any one of those claims over all the others. For every voice I hear that says Christianity is about loving your neighbors, it seems I see actions indicating that Christianity is about hating your queer neighbors and your non-Christian neighbors, and the actions tend to speak louder than the words. So if you want to say that those actions are not truly Christian in nature... well, maybe so and maybe not, but all you're accomplishing by saying so is staking yet another claim to the contested terms, and that further muddies the question of what is or isn't Christianity rather than clarifies it. At the end of the day the question of what Christianity really is, in the abstract, is a distraction from the very real problem of how a sizable portion of Christians are acting on Christianity in practice.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there actually is a clear, objective definition of Christianity to be read or inferred from reading the Bible. That would be great! If you want to prove that to me, let's apply a simple test. Some fact is objective if people can look at it and generally agree on the fact, right? You and I might both look at a color and agree that it's red (something that's objective) but disagree on whether it's pretty (which is subjective). So if you believe that it truly IS a source of an objective moral standard, you should be able take the Bible to the more problematic corners of Christendom, show them the objective facts contained within it proving that their morality is objectively wrong, and since it's an objective fact they'll be able to see it once it's pointed out to them. Right? (And don't say you don't have the time to do it. If you've got the time to debate atheists on an internet forum, you've got time to clean up your own house and deal with the people who are hurting others. Assuming that you're a Christian.) Once you've got Christians on the same page, or even mostly on the same page, about what this moral standard is, then I'll be willing to talk about Christian morality as if it's a well-defined, coherent concept. That shouldn't be such a hard thing to accomplish if theistic moral standards are actually objective. I won't be holding my breath. Until and unless that consensus among Christians emerges, don't expect other people to know which VERSION of Christian morality you're endorsing without first specifying it, and don't expect everyone else to agree with you that this is THE version of morality derived from the Bible when other Christians are clearly deriving very different morals from it.

FemiAjani:

I'm not quite in agreement with you in saying that we need the same moral source, but I'll play along with that for a little bit. Let's say we'd need some god-imposed moral standard, rather than one we collectively construct, in order for peaceful coexistence to be possible. You see the Bible as that standard of morality. (Or Jesus is that source or something similar. At least, you seem to be working in that direction.) Now let's say your neighbor agrees that there needs to be a common standard for morality, but they see the Koran as the right standard. The two of you are trying to look at the same subject -- God and God's moral dictates -- but seeing very different things. That's not something that's objective. What right would he have to impose Sharia law on you, or what right would you have to impose Christian law on him? How would you two coexist in the framework of theistic morality without weapons and task forces? I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying it's not an atheism problem. Everyone being an atheist wouldn't prevent us from implementing workable solutions to it, and everyone not being a theist wouldn't make the problem go away. If anything, basing morality on theism seems to have a worse track record in addressing the problem without violence.

What I'm proposing as an alternative is that we can base our morals and mores on something innate to humanity, something which we all share and which we can actually agree is there. Things like our shared desires for survival, comfort, and individual agency. The common source that we'd return to is the human condition and the needs and preferences which arise from it. This is something we can do without first settling whether a God exists, which god it is, which translations of which texts correctly convey that God's moral precepts, and what the correct way of interpreting those texts is. Since agreeing on those God questions is something that history shows humanity DOESN'T DO WELL, we shouldn't hinge our hopes of coexistence on making that agreement happen. At the very least, we should implement a pragmatic, working framework for coexistence on the off chance that everyone agreeing on God-imposed morality doesn't magically happen by the end of the week. And since we already (kind of) have that framework, we should maintain it to get by, rather than reject it out of pique simply because it doesn't involve a belief in a God.

Here's the key point. There's a difference between a common moral standard and a common moral source. A common moral standard would be us agreeing on "don't kill people", perhaps with some debate about edge cases like accidents, self-defense, and what qualifies as a person. A common moral source might be the idea that moral standards come from the Christian God as understood by... well, take your pick. Put them together and you'd have "Don't kill people, because God says not to kill people." But which is more important to coexistence? Agreeing on the standard, or agreeing on the source? If I can agree with the NIFB on the standard that we shouldn't kill people without agreeing on the source, then we'd go on not killing each other even if we don't agree on the details of why we shouldn't kill each other. That sounds great. Coexisting requires more than not killing each other, but it's a good start. But suppose you and someone in the extreme Christian right white-supremacist sphere agree on a moral source (the Christian God) but not the same standard. They think mass murder to spark a race war is the moral thing to do, and you don't. Is that a good recipe for coexistence? No. What we need is a common standard, or at least a rough consensus on that standard in order to get by. If we have that, then agreeing on the source of that standard isn't actually important.

What exactly is the question you want to ask?

Please go straight to your question and allow me to answer!

FemiAjani:

The point I'm trying to make here is that the terms "Christian" and "Christianity" are... contested, to say the least, and I'm not going to accept your view that THIS or THAT attitude is Christian while the opposite is not.

You must not accept my view and I am not asking you to. We are contesting the terms "Christian" and "Christianity", and according to my Qur'an, God created us with our diversity so we may learn from one another, which I very much appreciate.

FemiAjani:

For every voice I hear that says Christianity is about loving your neighbors, it seems I see actions indicating that Christianity is about hating your queer neighbors and your non-Christian neighbors, and the actions tend to speak louder than the words.

I think you mean you listen more to actions than words, which would be rather odd since Christianity is based on a book with words, and those you see might not have read it or they might have misunderstood what they read.

You would not base doctoring on the basis of bad doctors, so why base Christianity on bad Christians?

FemiAjani:

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there actually is a clear, objective definition of Christianity to be read or inferred from reading the Bible. That would be great! If you want to prove that to me, let's apply a simple test. Some fact is objective if people can look at it and generally agree on the fact, right? You and I might both look at a color and agree that it's red (something that's objective) but disagree on whether it's pretty (which is subjective). So if you believe that it truly IS a source of an objective moral standard, .....

Sigh. First I'm accused of claiming the Bible is subjective though I hadn't but went on to somewhat do. Now here is you asking me to prove the Bible is the "source of an objective moral standard" though I never said it was but just might now.

No Femi, I can not "show them the objective facts contained within it proving that their morality is objectively wrong". Most would not understand how or why (think homosexuality and Nigerians). I do try though.

It is immoral for a God who created humans in its image to rule over the earth and the sea etc, to then place said humans naked in a poxy little garden and tell them not to eat the fruits of knowledge for fear they would die if they dared, when we read their eyes opened when they did eat, and they made themselves clothes and became self employed and went on to live another 800 years during which we read they populated the earth and then died.

How dare buda tell anyone to worship a serpent instead of a lying God, is what most ask. But I will persevere until my last breath because it is important to me that people realise they do not have to be descendants of stupid enslaved Adam, when descendant of use her senses Eve is preferable (in my opinion of course), and descendant of humans created in Gods image (the vice versa is more true, by the way), is much better.

Ref: https://www.nairaland.com/6795272/reeves-pass

FemiAjani:

What I'm proposing as an alternative is that we can base our morals and mores on something innate to humanity, something which we all share and which we can actually agree is there. Things like our shared desires for survival, comfort, and individual agency. The common source that we'd return to is the human condition and the needs and preferences which arise from it.

Humans do not share conditions, unfortunately, and the Bible is an attempt at pointing out what should be innate to humanity in the form of survival on earth so conditions can be shared.

Prior to the Bible's creation and worldwide propagation and acceptance, every hamlet had their own human conditions (and religion), and never quite knew the conditions in the neighbouring hamlet. But bringing hamlets together under one umbrella of reading one Bible created an opportunity to share conditions.

Same as what we do here really. We share conditions (knowledge of the Bible), and learn from one another. You try discussing some philosophy book and see how you'd be avoided because many might not have read it.

FemiAjani:

This is something we can do without first settling whether a God exists, which god it is, which translations of which texts correctly convey that God's moral precepts, and what the correct way of interpreting those texts is.

Sorry Femi, but you will find this is something we cannot do, since many's reason for existence is gods. Besides, you are never going to share conditions with a person who lives for the afterlife, I don't think.

Someday though. If UK can abandon whether gods exist or not, so can we, in the year 2300 perhaps at the rate we are going. Though with people like you around, perhaps sooner like in 2030. Insha Allah, as is said.

@Budaatum
Do you live in Nigeria?

MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

Probably because most people are empathetic. Just because morality is subjective doesn't imply that morality is developed separately by each and every individual human on their own, as if they have no contact with any other human being. Subjective points may still be a result of communal agreement and practice.

Topics like altruism, the social contract, and the group interactions of both humans and animals might help you see why your questions seem, at best, uninformed. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, it seems to require human judgement and agreement.

MaxInDHouse:


Why you do atheists often confuse yourselves?

If you don't have the answer just say so instead of giving a lengthy epistle without the answers!

Take the time to read FemiAjani's posts. They answer your questions well. So well that you seem unable to reply.

Near1:

Take the time to read FemiAjani's posts. They answer your questions well. So well that you seem unable to reply.

I don't read lengthy posts so can you give a brief summary of what he typed in just two to three sentences?
Thanks in advance!

budaatum:

You must not accept my view and I am not asking you to. We are contesting the terms "Christian" and "Christianity", and according to my Qur'an, God created us with our diversity so we may learn from one another, which I very much appreciate.


I think you mean you listen more to actions than words, which would be rather odd since Christianity is based on a book with words, and those you see might not have read it or they might have misunderstood what they read.

You would not base doctoring on the basis of bad doctors, so why base Christianity on bad Christians?

That's not exactly what I'm doing, and it's also a bad analogy. I'll tackle why it's a bad analogy first: Doctoring has a specific goal -- to see to the health and well-being of the patients, especially through the treatment of ailments and injuries. That goal in turn provides a means for objectively testing what is and isn't good doctoring: patient outcomes. Doctors who, all things being equal, tend towards good results for their patients are good doctors, and those who trend towards bad patients are bad doctors. When two doctors point accusing fingers at each other and accuse their counterparts of being a bad doctor while insisting they're a good doctor, I, who barely know the difference between mitosis and dialysis, can still look figure out which one's most likely right based on how their patients do. The medical community, in turn, can also arrive at the idea of what a good doctor will or won't do based on objective analysis of patient outcomes. This is critically different from what we see in Christianity. On the one hand, let's say we have an NIFB preacher expressing a desire to see the government round up and execute all gay people and identifies chapter and verse requiring the execution of gay people in the Old Testament, and also quotes Jesus saying that not one jot or tittle of the old law has passed away. On the other hand, let's have a Catholic who's pro-life (meaning ACTUALLY pro-life) and opposes the death penalty, who herself can cite passages chapter and verse about why we shouldn't be executing people - even if she, too, thinks that being gay is a horrific sin and gay people should be excommunicated. On the third hand, we've got an Anglican who says we should accept all into our communities, even sinners, and since we're commanded not to judge we shouldn't be asking whether or not they're sinners anyway, much less condemning them, and he too can quote chapter and verse. (I know that the metaphor in which we have three hands is absurd, but so is the idea of the Bible providing objective morality.) All three point at the others and say they're wrong on the subject of morality, they're reading the text wrong and are mistaken, I have the right answer. Unlike with the doctors, I have no objective way to decide which of them (if any) to believe. The Christian community thus has no objective, shared standard for determining which is the correct way of interpreting the text, and so can't arrive at a shared, objective standard of who is a good Christian or a bad Christian.

Am I basing my view of Christianity on the "bad" Christians? (So far as that term means anything without an objective yard stick for who is a bad Christian and who isn't?) Not entirely. They're part of Christianity, but they're not the whole of Christianity. (Don't ask me if they're a majority -- I don't have solid numbers on that either way, and don't know how someone could even get those numbers. Conducting surveys asking people to label themselves as good or bad Christians probably isn't going to get good data.) But they are getting extra focus from me for two very good reasons. First is what I previously pointed out: they're a threat, and it's human nature to pay disproportionate attention to threats. Second -- and this is why they're particularly relevant in this discussion -- they provide a pointed counterexample. The example of the "bad" Christians proves that having that shared source of morals to return to as an objective standard doesn't work. Am I willing to focus for a bit on other versions of Christian morality, including yours? Sure! But first you have to actually tell me which version you're talking about. Despite my prodding, you still haven't spelled it out. Simply calling it Christian doesn't distinguish it from the morality that the "bad" Christians call Christian morality, nor does saying that you're basing it on the Bible when they're quoting chapter and verse from the Bible as basis for their morality. As an aside, I disagree with your notion that Christianity is based on a book of words. Christianity existed for hundreds of years before the Bible was ever canonized. If it didn't need the book to be Christianity then, it doesn't need the book to be Christianity now. The Bible is important in Christianity, but clearly it's not necessary. @MaxInDHouse, nevermind what I said earlier. And no... you do NOT have any answers.