Hitchens' challenge
Offline Hi!
I just read this topic: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/9262 and
Hambydammit's question reminded me of a challenge Christopher Hitchens often offers to theists in debate: "Name one moral statement or action made by a theist, that couldn't have been made by a nonbeliever"
This addresses something, that always annoys me about theist, xtians in particular: They claim to be the moral authority and that without the bible and a godbelief there could be no moral behavior.
Theists argue, that there are so many good things done for religious reasons. No doubt, that's correct. But to think, that the necessary morality comes from the scriptures etc. isn't. Actually, the opposite is correct, I think: the basic morals of religions, e.g. some of the ten commandments, reflect the natural rules of behavior that have existed _before_ a certain religion developed and that are innate to social animals like we are and can be explained in the evolutional context
So i'd really like to see, what your suggestions to Hitchens' challenge are ^^
"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993
And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Atheists have the potential to be moral because they are made in God's image, though they deny this. The only morality anyone has at all, comes from God. Left on his own, man is rotten to the core.Prove this please.
Well hammy, I haven't seen this proof from him yet, and it's been days. Do you think it is not forthcoming? hehe
- Login to post comments
Offline Yo Hammby, sorry this took so long. I'm initially inclined to claim the transcendental as God's presence, but would obviously be open to working on that a bit. As for empirical demonstration, why? Can you demonstrate it's false? This ties in directly with the bit about the secular's emergence. I can point to the emergence of the secular realm, which was my reference with Scotus and Aquinas, obviously Hobbes as well. I would not be so bold as to claim morality emerged with these men, or Christianity. Instead, I'm in line with Christian Smith (a sociologist and not a Christian, I think) that humans are fundamentally moral believing animals, with morals being imposed biologically, culturally and by rational investigation. For the post-modern turn, I would have thought that would be up your alley. The utter unknowability of the other is Derridean, with a lot of others following after. For an interesting control of it, Nietszche obviously, and his neo's. I'm still reading in this field, so not claiming total understanding.
As for claiming your ignorance, I think we had a misunderstanding. Knowing you dislike of the Bible and theology, your necessarily unable to engage in true Christian dialogue, which centers around a Christocentric and Biblical ontological view. And my authors don't ignore science, they like it. They challenge the conception of an unbiased view and a world cut off from the creator. Also the assumption of self-intereseted persons and ontological violence. Such things as this.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hambydammit's question reminded me of a challenge Christopher Hitchens often offers to theists in debate: "Name one moral statement or action made by a theist, that couldn't have been made by a nonbeliever"
I actually have a kind of answer to this.
I think that a person's faith can put them in the mindset where they are more likely to act morally. Not that there can't be atheistic mindsets of a similar sort, just that the theistic ones are currently more common. I think that's why Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies are gaining popularity. They promote a mindset that appears to have the the 'spiritual outlook' that can promote morality and wellbeing without the encumbersome dogmas.
To further explain what I mean, you know how you treat someone is likely to be more affected by your mood rather than your reasoning. If you are angry you'll lash out wheras if you're feeling relaxed and open then you'll be nice - in neither case is a rational decision involved. When you're wrapped up in your own plans you might be appathetic of other people but when you're feeling open you are more caring and more social.
The effect religion has on one's morality is the mood it puts you in.
I think that faith has a beneficial effect on many people.
It puts them in the right 'mood', gives them the right 'outlook' on the world to make them act morally naturally, just by acting on how they feel.
Obviously, atheists are capable of such outlooks, but we don't tend to have organised philosophies, support communities and all the other tools to support such mindsets so we are yet to produce ones as the theists currently have. All in good time though.
Like I say, this is why Buddhism is so popular as it appears to currently be the best one at combining the best of both worlds.
- Login to post comments
Offline They claim to be the moral authority and that without the bible and a godbelief there could be no moral behavior.
My apologies if this has already been brought up but I only skimmed through the thread.
My thoughts on this are that if the bible is the source for morality then it necessarily informs all moral decisions.
The bible condones many reprehensible actions such as killing people for working on the Sabbath day.
If any theists claim that such an act is immoral then they are denying the bible as the source of morality because one cannot morally judge that which provides their morality in the first place. It would be something like using a metre stick to measure itself and claiming that it clearly is not a metre.
To [Logical Positivists], speaking of God is like saying that the typewriter is the bluish-green sound of the square root of minus one.
This quote is full of win.
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheists have the potential to be moral because they are made in God's image, though they deny this. The only morality anyone has at all, comes from God. Left on his own, man is rotten to the core.
This statement is redundant and shows that one does not have to be a Christian to be moral.
1. If God made us in his image (It is the other way around, we made God in our image, but this is besides the point) then everyone is capable of being moral regardless of religious creed.
2. If this is not true then God did not give everyone morality and has only given Christians morality, which I can prove wrong here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Buddhism
Note the time of the creation of Buddhism.
And here:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Charity/id/74566
Charity is a moral act and Buddhists have been practicing a charity of goods (money, food, clothing, etc) thousands of years before jesus was claimed to have lived.
To further my proof: Study up on buddhism.
Also, you agree with morality being subject to culture and surroundings. Good for you.
Left on his own, man is rotten to the core.
- Login to post comments
The person is sick or dying, and you're going to pray for them? I'd start with getting them help.
...and you then go on to deny that atheists can be moral by saying they can't do it from within their beliefs. Well done, there.
Please define "moral" and "morality" in your above paragraph, becuase "I have yet to see a moral atheist" makes you sound either ignorant or dishonest; I really can't think of a third option.
You have my contragulations: this is the first time I have been stunned into stillness on this board. That was either a masterful troll, or one of the most shocking things I've ever seen someone utter in person.
Here's a quick quiz. You can even take it open book, if you want.
1) Pontius Pilate was Jewish.
__ TRUE
__ FALSE
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.