Religion is good because it gives the believer an objective and absolute standard of morality

[Vivacia]

(This idea was introduced in another thread, but it felt like an unfair tangent for that thread to be taking in my humble opinion, but one I'd be interested in discussing).

Firstly, I absolutely disagree with the statement.

Secondly, I feel as an atheist I have an objective morality, if not an absolute one.

We are essentially asked to love others and honour our parents head. The hate in the scripture you have quoted, you have taken out of context. (Which I suspect you know) It means putting God, who stands for good, first. So if your parents were asking something that is bad of you, you could 'hate' them in this instance (momentarily) and refuse.

Head, the point of the Isaac story is exactly that God did NOT want Abraham to sacrifice his son. You have to see this in the context of the time ... other cultures were sacrificing their children to appease their gods, but this tells that this God is different. THIS is the purpose of the story. Same with the Creation story. The reason why God creates the sun on the third day, is because the writer wanted to put the Sun worshipers in their place. His God trumps all the other Gods.

In general, you have to read the Bible in its context. The literal interpretation that fundamental Christians and (some) atheists tend to prefer, doesn't work if you really want to understand it. The Bible should make you think, it's not a history or science book.

quantify good and evil

You know you said earlier that you wouldn't do something that felt wrong no matter who was telling you to do it, even god, well that's me too*. How do you feel qualified to not do what god asks?

Milgram would beg to differ, his experiments show how easily we can be coerced into over-riding our norms and values

head you can be as susceptible to coercion as anyone else. Compared to me, it is just the authority [figure/s] that differs.

...gods in everything but name...

In general, you have to read the Bible in its context. The literal interpretation that fundamental Christians and (some) atheists tend to prefer, doesn't work if you really want to understand it. The Bible should make you think, it's not a history or science book.

if it should be read in context, how could it provide an objective basis for morality? Doesn't that just mean it's a 2000 year old book, which pertains to life 2000 years ago?

If you read the Bible keep you can find relevance to our lives today, even though you have to place events in their Historical context, well I can. Otherwise I would not read it, would not be able to relate or comprehend at all. It would be like staring a random letters on a page...

Cap that applies to any book. Many books have relevance to our lives today even though they were written at some other time. Even I would say that there are parts of the bible that worthy of reading and understanding, but I would say that about many books.

But that's not the Christian claim. According to Christians the bible is more than just a relevant book. It/god/whatever provides an objective basis for morality.

like I said, it seems the verses been careful handling when it seems wrong, the fluffy ones don't need this special treatment, unless you can think of a nice verse that actually means something horrible or even just neutral?

So to show people how much he hated something he pretended to want it? I hate child abuse, would it seem logical to pretend i love it to prove i hate it? i reckon it screwed Isaac up a bit, how would you're son react if you started to.prepare an alter to sacrifice him? And then said later. 'Ooops my bad, god didn't want me to kill you, in fact he hates it' how could he trust god after that? couldn't he just talk to Abraham, like people do. and surely god knew how Abraham wild react. so Abraham was willing to kill Isaac and that is seen as great and you have said you wouldn't which is great.

I’d like to go back to the original OP – religion gives believers a moral standard, if I can interrupt the discussion of scripture for a moment!

I’m interested in whether people feel it is possible for an atheist to be just as moral in principle as a believer in God. Of course, as an atheist I would like to think it is.

However, an awful lot of people round the world think it is not possible to be moral without a belief in God. For example, in Pakistan, there is pretty much unanimous agreement that is the case. (A mere 1% of people there believe you can be moral without believing in God. The figure seems incredibly low and makes me wonder if there is a fear of voicing an opinion that challenges orthodox dogma.) In the UK around 80% of people believe it is possible to be moral without a belief in God. This is high compared to most other countries.

www.pewglobal.org/2014/03/13/worldwide-many-see-belief-in-god-as-essential-to-morality/

If you are a theist in the UK, do you belong to the 20% who think that being moral requires a belief in God? Or would you soften your stance a little? So, it’s possible for an atheist to be moral but an atheist is intrinsically limited and could not aspire to the same level of morality as a believer. Or do you think that an atheist actually could be just as moral as a believer in God?

If you are an atheist, how do you respond to the fact that 1 in 5 of the population – if you are in the UK – think you can’t be moral?

Personally, I feel a little crushed that a sizeable minority would see me as incapable of being a moral person. I know I don’t always get it right but I think I do try at least! I think that humans – as complex social animals – mostly do the right thing unless circumstances are unstable and resources limited, in which case more selfish behaviour takes over.

And looking around me, I would have to say that I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between theists and atheists as regards morality.

head maybe asking Abraham to be required to sacrifice isaacwas necessary so the horror and futility of child sacrifice was acknowledged - it might have been in danger of becoming a more widespread practice and might have been normalised, by a significant increasing amount of people, as a necessary evil. In this account God shows Himself as different to these other gods, people sacrificed their children to.

Out I think fully practicing Christian Faith encourages people to continually examine and reasses their own morality and motivations. So they should improve, become more Christ like, which I believe is good. An atheist might, or might not, do this self examination and reassessment. However I also believe we all come from different moral starting points. So there are some areas where an individual atheist, naturally, might behave in a more moral fashion than a Christian. Whether they both improve as much, or at the same rate, depends on the success of the moral examination and reassessment I talked about. However, because I believe Christ is perfect, the good I talk about is like Him. So a recognition of the same good, as is in Christ, would be necessary for me to view someone as behaving perfectly morally.

And out I look for good in everyone. I've not met anyone who I couldn't acknowledge any good in.

So overall, I believe atheists can be morally good.

keep an objective basis for morality can be present but we are contextual creatures, as we are corporal, subjective in our own understanding. The Bible has to be appreciated holistically to be fully appreciated and there are layers and layers of meaning. This is more than a lifetimes work.

I doesn't bother me much, i reckon it's mainly older believers who remember a time when it was 'normal' to.go to church.

I don't believe just sitting in church makes a person moral either, head!As if! wouldn't that be easy? A few people could be enticed in with free cakes or something and Boom! They're morally perfect?

There was never any intention to actually sacrifice Isaac, though. It's abundantly clear in other parts of the OT that God abhors child sacrifice. This was a test of faith. Abraham believed completely Isaac wouldn't be sacrificed (he said to his men 'we shall come down after worshipping God', for eg) - or that he would be resurrected. God's promise to Abraham about his descendants was through Isaac. To Abraham, this was a test of obedience. We may only be able to see it as something abhorrent to even ask someone, but like capsium says, by doing this God was also highlighting the huge gap between God and the worship of other gods trough child sacrifice. It was also a prophetic narrative pointing to Jesus' sacrifice - many elements were the same, there's an interesting study to be made.

The abhorrence we feel at such a text is reflected in the abhorrence we may feel at the text quoted above about hating our family. Faith in God is a high calling - we are asked to put God first. Abraham was prepared to show that he did this, whatever it meant - he knew God well enough to know that it would be to the good, and was blessed for it. I don't think we should 'hate' people - it's not a good translation really, it's more in the sense of putting God first over everyone else. And people over the ages have found that by putting God first, in some mysterious way this has meant they are honouring those they love in an even more profound way - I have found this in my own life. It does not mean I love them less in any way, but that by loving God first and foremost they are even more fully loved and honoured through that. I think this is what Abraham (and Isaac) knew well and acted upon.

Good posts capsium - in fact really enjoying all of this thread, the stuff about empathy, altruism etc is really interesting and great that we can have this conversation in a measured and pleasant way. :)

Thanks, thegreatest and cheers!

I certainly don't think I am more 'moral' than people without faith. I also look at Jesus for a perfect example of morality - he's the only one I can point to as having perfect goodness. Incidents we find difficult to read - the Canaanite woman etc, all have contextual meanings (the old hermeneutics needing to be employed there again) and do not take away from his reflection of a perfect God.

I strive and aspire to that, but won't get there in this life. ;) Lots of atheists have a high sense of morality and lots are better than me. I cannot place myself as better because of my faith, only more aware of my own failings in the light of what better means!

Thanks, Caps, Head and MHD for your responses. MHD, I was also thinking that this thread has had a gentler feel to it than some others. I have appreciated not feeling 'frazzled yet at the same time unable to walk away from the computer' - as has been the case for some threads!

I feel the same Out :)

Easter chocs all round.

Yeah, s'great not to get too frazzled and stressy. Discussing this stuff is good though - makes you think and things come to light. MN is great for being able to have a really good discussion. I find people in RL often seem to be a bit busy or don't have such staying power as a thread, with multiple posters, which you can dip in and out of.

keepitsimple0 ... I agree. I mentioned up-thread that the argument is that the EXISTENCE of God provides an objective standard, not the BELIEF in one.