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.

Yeah, you want a snap shot of Old Testament morality, take a butchers at ISIS.

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.'

Ooookay, so god used to be in favour of throwing stones at people and all that old testament nastiness, but then he decided to forgive us our sins .

they might have thought to remove some of those difficult bits

You said you don't find them difficult though. But seriously, the fact that there are so many moral problems with the bible is evidence for it's validity! Do you extend the same logic to the other 13 religious texts?

I want a god that doesn't change, that is morally superior to me, that is clearly beyond me and surpassing me. I don't want a god that behaved like the people of the old testament during the old testament and now behaves like someone in the uk in 2015. i can't worship a god that used to do things that disgust me. to be fair he srill disgusts me by watching individuals suffering when he has the means to intervene.

I don't understand Head, do you believe in a hateful god, or do you think there is no god at all?

Or are you seeking a god?

I just want to understand how I believed it, i like hearing christians justify it because it helps me make sense of my history, and I LOVE a good argument, sticking to the rules of logical discourse of course.

I would never push a point in real life unless I knew that person wanted to engage, it's never happened as every day life doesn't seem to produce those opportunities, on here I don't have the potential for annoying people because posters won't respond if they don't want to, and I have no way of badgering them.

Would it matter what position the questioner is coming from? Either a question is valid or not, it doesn't matter who asks it, or at least it shouldn't.

Do the posters here justify it as you would have done or are you still looking for someone who is the way you used to be?

Yes I do think it matters what position the questioner is coming from. "I am asking you these questions because I want to understand why you worship a scumbag god?" is different to "I am asking you these questions because I want to understand why you believe in a god?" While I think that it needn't be previously stated what position the questions come from I think it slightly dishonest to switch from one to the other in the context of the same discussion IYSWIM.

That is if you are asking questions in order to gain understanding or knowledge in the first place.

I hope my posts don't sound stern. If they do I apologise Head. I have been told that my posts can come across as cold (or something similar).

I'm not sure the idea of something gradually being corrupted is workable for me because of the sheer weight of evidence showing that we learn from the interactions around us how to be part of a society.

That's interesting Head, because the idea of children being gradually corrupted through interactions with society does work for me, as they learn good things AND bad things from society, but the moral compass (or conscience equivalent), telling them HOW to tell the good from the bad (and that it is good to be good) is, I think, what I'm saying is more nature than nurture iyswim.

But it is a fascinating topic, I love programmes about the morality within the animal kingdom too, can't watch the killing stuff so much though.

That's interesting too. So what's the received wisdom on that? Because I don't believe the concept of morality applies to the animal kingdom, mainly driven by survival instinct. I don't believe animals are capable of being intently evil, nor altruistic, in the way humans can be.

Haven't read all posts, but i want to say that the title of this thread is misleading. The argument is that God's existence provides the basis for absolute morality. It's not the belief in God that provides them!

I read some of the atheists' comments here. As usual, they display a rather superficial knowledge of the Bible and history. I suggest they read up on both ... a book like Atheist Delusions by Bentley-Hart is a good start.

Haven't read all posts...

Well, thanks for trying.

Ok....so only God (if you believe in the existence of one) can judge absolutely what is right and wrong, and it seems only God knows what that set of absolute moral code is.....and if you don't believe in god or the existence of one, you still have a strong sense of right and wrong. But why would there be conscious awareness within humans that morality, absolute or relative or in whatever form, exists at all ? ...(trying to think while multitasking)....

mainly driven by survival instinct

do you think human morality could have the same motivation?

No, because I don't see how intentional evil and altruism fit into survival instinct.

superficial knowledge

Like not knowing that the gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark etc and were written by people that never met Jesus? Like being unaware of many of the yucky passages. Oh sorry that was Christians on here and elsewhere on MN. Quite a few of the atheists are ex Christians too btw like myself.

On second thoughts maybe it can on a higher indirect level...e.g. That's maybe what's driving racism and hate crimes and conflict.

But in cases of random murders and acts of depravity...I can't see it there.

So still no.

Well said headinhands - and I expect that Bongo hasn't read many of the things that I have that have helped me get to my own unique place on my life (and faith) journey either. Some of us have pretty much been through it all and out the other side!

The thing about intrinsic morality is interesting. I think we all have something of that inside us, to whatever degree, because we are created in God's image, therefore good is part of who we are and who we are meant to be, and the crap there to whatever degree because of nature/nurture/rebellion or whatever else. I would never say you have to believe in God to have the higher moral ground, just to be made by God. There is so much intrinsic good in people which is difficult to explain as simply an evolutionary survival process; the drive to protect the weak and vulnerable among us would be harder to explain in that framework, though I'm well aware not impossible and like headinhands am fascinated by altruism and morality displayed in the animal Kingdom.

Headinhands I think a good proportion of Christians on here are well informed about biblical writers and content, yet like vdb said do not feel they have to perform mental gymnastics or cognitive dissonance to keep believing while keeping questioning and exploring.

That's why it's always so vital to use the tools of biblical interpretation - exegesis, hermeneutics - to look closely at passages such as the one vivacia refers to above about sparing the rod, spoiling the child - that's when we come to understand that the rod does not mean a stick to beat a child but a gentle guiding discipline to help the child - as we all do here - not a physical tool of abuse at all.

Altruism fits into survival instinct because if you do something for someone else they are more likely to do something for you some other time when you need it? It's also an expression of empathy and being able to tune into other's feelings has wider general benefits.

Intentional evil is a harder one because something's obviously gone wrong there, but it probably stems from the basic survival instinct of putting yourself first - and in the case of evil sod everyone else.

What about the drive to protect the vulnerable who cannot possibly reciprocate in any way and never will be able to do so? Although I know this one is not always upheld by certain governments

I think basically we want to look after the vulnerable because we have empathy for all MHD. And if we form caring communities those communities will look after us and our family too?