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.

Going off tangent somewhat....was talking about good and evil with dd, and she just pointed me to this passage in the Big Friendly Giant...it is not the Bible nor some philosophical writing I know, but it reflects a child's understanding of morality....I was surprised that it made enough of an impression on her for her to locate it in the book....

“Giants isn't eating each other either, the BFG said. Nor is giants killing each other. Giants is not very lovely, but they is not killing each other. Nor is crockadowndillies killing other crockadowndillies. Nor is pussy-cats killing pussy-cats.

'They kill mice,' Sophie said.

'Ah, but they is not killing their own kind,' the BFG said. 'Human beans is the only animals that is killing their own kind.'

'Don't poisonous snakes kill each other?' Sophie asked. She was searching desperately for another creature that behaved as badly as the human.

'Even poisnowse snakes is never killing each other,' the BFG said. 'Nor is the most fearsome creatures like tigers and rhinostossterisses. None of them is ever killing their own kind. Has you ever thought about that?'

Sophie kept silent.

'I is not understanding human beans at all,' the BFG said.' You is a human bean and you is saying it is grizzling and horrigust for giants to be eating human beans. Right or left?'

'Right,' Sophie said.

'But human beans is squishing each other all the time,' the BFG said. 'They is shootling guns and going up in
aerioplanes to drop their bombs on each other's heads every week. Human beans is always killing other human beans.'

He was right. Of course he was right and Sophie knew it. She was beginning to wonder whether humans were actually any better than giants. 'Even so,' she said, defending her own race, I' think it's rotten that those foul giants should go off every night to eat humans. Humans have never done them any harm.'

'That is what the little piggy-wig is saying every day,' the BFG answered. 'He is saying, "I has never done any harm to the human bean so why should he be eating me?'"

'Oh dear,' Sophie said.

'The human beans is making rules to suit themselves,' the BFG went on. 'But the rules they is making do not suit the little piggy-wiggies. Am I right or left?'

'Right,' Sophie said.

'Giants is also making rules. Their rules is not suiting the human beans. Everybody is making his own rules to suit himself.”
? Roald Dahl, The BFG

I was aware out I was just saying we don't even have evidence of a God that cares, we're much better off avoiding superstition and acknowledging that we are steering our own ship. That said, your re-working of that extract isn't that different to how apologetics rewrite the uncomfortable passages. Are you sure you're not an apologist

Head, I apologise with alacrity but I don't think I'm an apologist!

I see Salvation as being at one with God. If you don't accept Him or what He stands for, His nature, how could you be at one with Him?

it's a bit more than that though, right? accepting him gets an nice everlasting lovely life. not accepting him gets you sent to hell.

TalkingintheDark

I just wanted to acknowledge your longer post up-thread. I always think it is a shame that threads move on so quickly - thoughtful contributions, which probably took some time to type in, can often pass by with little comment!

You argued your case well and I agree with what you had to say. It’s good to keep the internal moral compass working and not to rely unquestioningly on either the state or the church – or any other external authority - to provide moral guidance.

I was the one who posted earlier on about the plight of gay people in Ghana and the attitude of the Church there – thank you so much for following the link I gave. As you say, this example certainly illustrates the point you were making.

A lot of people living in the third world would disagree with you though. Many people living in the most dire of circumstances have the most vibrant and living faith, and would say God meets them in their desperation in unimaginable ways.

As for healing, I've thought on this long and hard, suffering myself with a chronic degenerative disease. I've been on the end of the 'you don't have enough faith' thing which I vehemently oppose - from a scriptural POV as much as an objection from humanity. I don't understand why God doesn't always heal. I know God sometimes does. I know God often doesn't. But I find an incredible encounter with God in the midst of the pain, so much hope even where there looks to be none, a relationship that changes my perspective and changes me to the better towards others. I'm not healed in body but experience something so whole deep within which forgives and cleanses and encourages and affirms.

It's so hard to put into words, really. It's not something I can prove in quantifiable terms, only in subjective ways, and I realise this isn't enough. I get that. But it's there in me, and is so many millions of others experience through the ages, which I also know proves nothing in objective terms.

I can only keep on attempting to describe my faith, and reiterating my search for more and more depth of knowledge about it and questioning of it, and that results of such a search only continue to strengthen it for me.

Sorry, was framing that reply for a post much further back as had not realised there was another page

Thank you for your post, mad, you put it so much better than me.

I know faith is meaningful and important but that God can connect with us, and bless us, even when we are in doubt. Words certainly aren't enough. Especially my own. I was afraid that if I continued to post, my posts would continue to be misconstrued, which potentially can do more harm than good, if it propagates some of the hateful beliefs that were being put forward.

But I find an incredible encounter with God in the midst of the pain, so much hope even where there looks to be none, a relationship that changes my perspective and changes me to the better towards others. I'm not healed in body but experience something so whole deep within which forgives and cleanses and encourages and affirms.

rationalising. there is no doubt that people who have faith rationalise god giving their 1 year old some horrible disease, which they later die painfully from. ok. But that doesn't explain why god does this. if he can heal, but doesn't, you may not understand why, but the rest of us would simply call that evil. we never say any of this about some evil person, only god.

I'd rather seek good than evil, look for good rather than evil, see good rather than evil and speak good rather than evil.

Whew, this thread has gone a long way today. Happy Easter/Eostre/Spring chocolatey thing to all!

Now, religion is good because it makes a lot of people feel good about their lives, that hypothesis I wouldn't argue with.

Yet there can not be evidence for a miracle because it involves the supernatural.
Why not? If a miracle is the supernatural having physical effects in the real world, those physical effects can be observed and measured. Only difficulty I can think is defining the difference between a real supernatural effect and a natural effect. It reminds me of a Tim Minchin line - the name for an alternative medicine that has been proved to work is ... "medicine". Perhaps the name for a supernatural effect that actually exists is ... "natural".

If "spiritual healing" affects physical conditions (including mental health conditions) then it is not just "spiritual" healing, it is actual physical intervention in the workings of the world. I'm struggling to understand what constraints Jesus may have been operating under that sometimes allowed him to do this only with the victim's "faith", sometimes with another person's "faith" and sometimes just get on and do it.

As for consent, the mother clearly consented to treatment when she asked for her daughter to be healed in the first place.

I liked outwith's deity better.

cat Physical effects can be observed, but in the case of 'spontaneous' (miraculous) events, not the cause.

Placebo and indeed Nocebo effects have also been observed.

The 'constraints' Jesus was working under is interesting. And something that would take much study, to have just an idea of, and then there is still mystery and uncertainty.

Jesus in the Bible, was also shown to help people in their doubts and unbelief. He lets Thomas put his hands inside His wounds. Thomas was not proud in His doubts though, he was still seeking Jesus.

Faith and belief is shown as being important though. Jesus was shown to encourage the exercising of faith, in His interactions with people. This is why I think He questioned the Canaanite woman, to bring out and encourage the faith she already possessed but previously went unacknowledged. This showed a non Jew, someone who did not practice the Jewish faith, was able to exercise great faith to the Jews.

Outwith's deity is portrayed as acting within a modern context. After Jesus, Gentiles were brought into Covenant relationship with (the Abrahamic) God by Grace and faith (not birth or observance of OT law, like the Jews). Whilst Jesus was physically, bodily, here on earth this New Covenant was only beginning to be established, according to my understanding.

The problem with outs version is, palatable though it sounds to us in our 21st century western mindset; that if it were what was written, it would've been proved long ago as an interpolation by someone much further along the line in desperation to stop the words, because it sounds what it is, a false 21st c apologetic.

I agree with head that some Christians produce similar in their haste to show the bible is OK really. But they do themselves and the bible an injustice. The bible deserves honouring in staying true to its text and discovering all we can about it with the tools at hand. If we do not face the text full on we dishonour it and dishonour those we are defending it to in naivete.

I like that version in my own sense of morality, of course, but it's not what would have been said in that context in that time. Despite this, I don't think Out is far out in discovering the real heart of Jesus there

Apologies if this is nonsensical, typing on phone...

x posts caps

Yep.

I may well be rationalising, keepitsimple. I see this. But it's a rationale borne od many years of experience and wrestling with suffering and the questions therein - of theodicy. Why does God let it happen? Why did God let me grow up ill and get more ill? I do not frame the question in terms of God causing such, for I do not think this is the case, as in the case of the blind man which caps posted earlier.

I cannot give a sufficient answer, I can only continue to attest to the hope and the experience of more than I could ask or imagine in knowing God. If that's rationalising, so be it, I'd prefer to question my faith than blindly accept without thinking it all through with rigour and consistency.

I cannot give a sufficient answer

I know that you can't give a sufficient answer (the motivations of an unseen, untouched, undetectable being are hard to determine), what surprises me is that Christians do not press the matter until a sufficient answer is given. I would demand an answer, as I would of anyone who allowed mass suffering and had the power to stop it in the blink of an eye.

But why, why does an unchanging god need to be taken in context of the times? What did change between then and now? Culture. Cultural morals. But you won't allow that god's moral framework changed in line with culture will you?

And do let's stop quibbling about one NT incident and go back to all the slaughtering, including of innocent children, by the OT god and those he commanded. No moral ambiguity there.

cat

But why, why does an unchanging god need to be taken in context of the times? What did change between then and now? Culture. Cultural morals. But you won't allow that god's moral framework changed in line with culture will you?

I responded to this question, at length, pages back. Is it so difficult to believe someone can have the same character, nature, moral framework but respond according to the individual people's needs in their individual situation? For example, you would treat a toddler differently to a 10 year old, a person suffering from post traumatic stress disorder differently to someone who is completely well and have different expectations of them, whilst still maintaining the same moral frame work yourself. How would you deal with completely human but completely hardened warrior, who would kill at the very first opportunity and glorified war and a combative death? With great difficulty I imagine....

Christian believers cannot just discount the NT and ignore Christ. He is central to their belief!

I am sorry if this is unhelpful to those defending atheism as a stance. However if you believe God is a construct, why would you prefer this 'God' to be the brutal 'god' you are attempting to portray? This only vindicates those who believe in such a 'god' and their own brutal beliefs...

As far as I can recall the earlier conversation, you said (I paraphrase) different actions would result from the same morals in different cultures. I said how do you judge morals if not by actions. You didn't answer.

I say that morals that look different in different cultures are at best relative not absolute, and I'd strongly suggest they're subjective too.

New Testament Christ said the old testament scriptures were true, so you can't ignore the old testament without ignoring the new testament. I don't "prefer" any god construct, I am asking you how you reconcile one version of god to the other without admitting the god's moral stance has changed.

I wouldn't teach a toddler that something was good and then teach them as a teenager that it's bad. I wouldn't tell a warrior that slaughtering was good and order them off to do some, but then tell their children that it was bad.

cat

How do you judge? By heart felt intentions. I believe God judges people's hearts. This is why people judging each other is problematic.

I don't ignore the OT but you cannot ignore the NT either. I know Christ referred to the God of the OT and He is the same God as in Christ and the NT. I reconcile the God of the OT through Christ.

Christ brought redemption. This is what changed. In the OT, where there was no relationship between a warrior and God, the warrior would not be listening to whatever God told Him.

^ (I was talking about the hardened warrior being like one that was not in Covenant with God in my earlier example.)

you though. Many people living in the most dire of circumstances have the most vibrant and living faith, and would say God meets them in their desperation in unimaginable ways.

So we can tell the charities that are working to help them that they needn't bother? I just read that 40% of pregnant women in Swaziland have HIV. 100 million children are underweight in the developing world, Doctors in Sudan estimate that up to 30 percent of victims of FGM die following complications, usually infection. Would you chose to swap with a family in sub Saharan desert? Humans tend to make the best of difficult circumstances, but the yawning discrepancy between here and there suggests, shows even, that if there is a god, he is not concerned about us, or fairness.

As another poster pointed out, we see how God has updated and revised the moral code he wants us to follow over time, but unless he gives us a third testament we are stuck using the morality from 2000 years ago (although most christians have the sense to overlay their 21st century values on it)

head Do you see, that by vehemently insisting that 'if there is a god, he is not concerned about us, or fairness' and attempting to portray the Christian God as being nothing but 'brutal', you could be seen as vindicating the brutal uncaring beliefs, of some people that use Chrsitianity as an excuse, for brutal and uncaring actions?