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.

But if you are absolutely determined that Christianity has no worth then you have to work much harder to say why you teach the morals that you teach your children.

I believe that we all largely use the same reasoning why we teach our child the rules we do such as 'You feel upset when people bite you so don't bite people', 'you feel sad when people steal your sweets so don't steal their sweets' and 'You would feel sad if someone killed someone you loved so don't kill people'. It's not difficult at all. The bit that is easier for me as opposed to a Christian is that I don't have the difficulty that the offensive bits in the bible pose for a believer.

For instance the author and source of their morals ordering people to kill a man by throwing rocks at his head because he picked up sticks on the wrong day. I don't need to justify that using the system I do. How would you explain that morally to a child? How do you explain that god has changed? Or that he didn't say that but the people alive then were more barbaric and thought that was what god wanted without undermining the whole validity of scripture? If you say it is context then you say morals are very relative and that god is influenced by society.

I understand that kids learn through repetition but I also think that most parents would struggle to evidence that their children were not deliberately naughty sometimes. Why would a child choose to deliberately make his/her parents cross if all his/her actions were stuff they had learnt from their parents. Do parents teach their children to be naughty?

ten commandments

Some I agree with using the simple system of logical reasoning I detailed above but the first 4 only concern god's fragile ego. What a waste of an opportunity to shape mankind's values, nothing about child abuse or slavery or physical abuse. How do you suppose the Israelites got as far as mount Sinai without knowing that killing and stealing were generally not a great idea if you want to live in peace with those around you? Did they have no idea before that? That guy who was stoned for picking up sticks, that happened in the next chapter of exodus, would you ever think that killing someone for picking up sticks a good and moral action?

naughty

The evidence is that children start to develop internalised moral codes at about 4 and even then it takes up to 18 years of age to be considered established. Before then they just do not have the concept of right and wrong in a way an adult does. They don't know they are being naughty because they haven't really conceptualised good and bad yet in a way you have.

Would you think the 10 commandments were great if one of them was 'kill people by throwing stones at their head if they pick up sticks at the weekend' because that's what god ordered soon after he gave the 10 commandments. Same guy. You're the one with the difficulty in explaining your system.

I think it can be arrogant to believe that you know what another person is thinking. More likely that you are projecting your own thoughts onto another.

Isn't there something about a rod being useful in raising children?

the guy who was stoned,lived in a tribe who had strict Sabbath rules. He knew that if he flouted them he was likely to be stoned. For some reason he chose to take that risk. Theologians note that there are different 'dispensations' in the Bible which involve different sets of rules for living and apply to different groups of people ie Jews and/or gentiles. I don't have a problem with that at all and I don't have to do any gymnastics with my brain however much that may annoy atheists.
Please don't waste your time feeling sorry for me headinhands as I really am very happy and contented with my life.

I haven't heard that theory before vbd. How do you know which parts of the bible are relevant and which parts are irrelevant?

Headinhands is I think using the argument from empathy which is a fairly recent move in ethics. Personally I don't think it does all of the job but as it is Holy Week and I'm busy here is an article that goes into some of the background. What is interesting in terms of this thread is that sympathy and later empathy start to be used in ethics from David Hume onwards and he is one of the first atheist philosophers so he knew that he could not use the resources of the Christian tradition.

www.iep.utm.edu/emp-symp/

Did Christianity not use the resources of beliefs that had come before it?

So up until god gave the 10 commandments how did people determine what was a good/bad action? How do you determine the morality of an action where the bible doesn't say anything? if you say gods spirit then why didn't god always use that and how come believers hearing the same voice come to different conclusions?

vbd Are you saying it would now be immoral for people to throw stones at people's heads for collecting sticks. Or would it be moral to do it just because god told you?

I know nothing about Hune/Hume. Can you give me an example of where you yourself do not use the empathy model and that your actions are determined by different reasoning.

When getting into a debate i can only go on what the other person says when making assertions, if assert something that one feels is made on a false assumption then I welcome being corrected, that is, after all, what we are here for. If I can't illustrate or used no reasoning to make an assumption then that would be fallacious on my part.

whether as a Christian you believe in different dispensations or you believe just divide the Bible into the old and new covenant,it is clear that after Christ had lived on earth,things were different. Sacrifices to God were no longer required and in Romans 6 it says 'Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God's grace.'
Jesus challenges people to think about what the laws are actually there for. When the crowd are about to stone the woman who committed adultery he says okay, let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and everyone leaves knowing that none of them is actually any better.
To get back to the original OP, I personally would use the Bible to inform my understanding of right and wrong regards how I live my life as a Christian, but the Bible is also clear that that does not expect us to judge non-Christians as that is for God to do,not us. I do not think the Bible gives black and white answers, just guidance, and that is why it is important that we study it, in its entirety, in context, to understand its relevance to us today.
What to an atheist is a great bit of the Bible with which to try and trip up a Christian, to me adds extra weight to the authenticity of the Bible. If a bunch of crazy guys had sat down to try and create a fake holy book with which to mislead a third of the worlds population, you would think they might have thought to remove some of those difficult bits that make God seem bad. You think they might have tied together those 4 gospels better so there were no verses that made people question why the details were different...it would not have been that hard really. It's those bits that make me sure that it was not all made up as an elaborate ruse to fool the world, but rather a collection of God inspired writings from a very diverse bunch of people.

Would you empathise with a married woman who was having an affair with another womans husband and was distraught that this man was refusing to leave his wife to be with her. If not, and if you felt her actions had been wrong,who dictates those morals? Some people do not consider it to be wrong. They would say that if you had such strong feeling for each other,then the action must be right. As a Christian, I would feel able to say to a fellow Christian that that behaviour was against Biblical teaching, but on what grounds would a non-Christian make that judgement.

I lost the train of the argument there, but I'm fairly confident the answer is in stoning to death all of the women involved.

I think you can develop a morality based on empathy for others. Or as it says in the good book "Love your neighbour as yourself"

It doesn't have to be terribly complicated to be both robust and good

Juggling I agree. I’m probably guilty of overthinking a lot of things in my life – but as far as morality goes, I’m all for keeping it simple. Empathy is a very powerful and natural characteristic of humans living in human society – and out of that comes a consideration for the well-being of others. There’s no need to complicate matters further.

If I had a friend who was in that situation and solicited my opinion I would sympathise with her pain but also attempt to get her to see the lack of wisdom in trying to establish a monogamous romantic relationship with someone who is already involved with someone. You might ask why does it matter and how have I judged it to show poor wisdom? It's to do with the pain caused, the duration and level of that pain to the involved parties. Pretty much how I am making my other moral judgments.

Life is rarely about black and white rights and wrongs, many times it's a case by case system. With regards to the situation you detailed, how satisfying would it be if you knew your husband wasn't having sex with another person so as to avoid some form of punishment from a third party? I do not own my husband, although we are married he is free to leave me, or have sex with anyone he chooses to. Will I be sad if he did, you betcha, but I don't like the thought of him being faithful out of a desire to avoid punishment.

Another point is that it doesn't make much difference if they are married in terms of the above scenario. Marriage is about legal and fiscal protection, I hope he will continue to want to be with me, but I can't demand it.

Would it seem moral for me to throw rocks at her head?

Thanks Outwith

I thought I might have killed off the thread for a while there with my scintillatingly simple "can't argue with that" conclusion

Nothing wrong with simplicity Juggling. It's a beautiful thing!

let he who is without sin cast the first stone

I'd be impressed if he'd said 'why the hell are you about to throw rocks at someone's head for what she did with her sexual organs with another consenting adult'. That logic would be morally superior. If my husband had sex with another adult I would be gutted, but I would NEVER think that either of them should be physically assaulted let alone killed. There are laws about that sort of revenge behaviour.

vbd why do you think people are no longer stoned for committing adultery? are you glad they aren't? Do you think they still should be?,If not why not?

I say to DD we don't behead (or stone for that matter) people anymore, well not in civilised countries anyway....but she knows about ISIS etc.

does not expect us to judge non-christians

So you wouldn't call the police if you saw a non-christian breaking a law? Personally I am judging all the time, judging as in thinking about someone's actions, mainly my own to be honest. If an action makes me feel uncomfortable I want to understand why and to check my reasoning. I can't always assume my reaction is valid, a lot of actions are within the grey case by case domain I referred to earlier.