Atheism and morality vs. Christianity and morality

[Confused]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

[ThatGirlAgain]

Is it moral to wear mixed fabrics?

Is it moral to engage in homosexual acts?

Is it moral to stone those who engage in homosexual acts?

Notice, even the Christian god seems to have changed his mind on some of those, if Christians are to be believed. Even God has his subjective opinion.

The prohibition on wearing mixed fabrics is from Deuteronomy 22:11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. This is part of the 613 mitzvot. These were intended for Jews and are still followed to the extent possible in the Orthodox communities. In the Jewish view, these laws are distinguishing marks of being Jewish and are not to be followed by non-Jews for religious reasons. However, practical or charitable reasons are perfectly acceptable, e.g., not eating pork for health reasons or tithing to charity because it helps people.

According to Judaism, gentiles are only required to follow the Seven Laws of Noah to be considered righteous. The various sexual prohibitions listed in Leviticus, including the ban on male homosexual acts, are part of the 613 mitzvot. The Noahide Laws prohibit sexual immorality and, according to the linked interpretation at least, this also includes all the various Levitical prohibitions. (Scroll down to Part II # 4).

One could therefore argue that non-Jews wearing mixed fabrics is not a problem but that homosexuality is. Note that Jesus saying that the Law remains in full force is not an issue since the full Law only ever applied to Jews.

As far as stoning gays, I do not find that anywhere. The only crimes for which stoning was prescribed as far as I can tell were: blasphemy, idolatry and working on the Sabbath. (Ref)

[cholland]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

[cholland]

Is it moral to wear mixed fabrics?

Is it moral to engage in homosexual acts?

Is it moral to stone those who engage in homosexual acts?

Can you answer your own questions other than "in my own, personal opinion..."?

[Autodidact]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

I don't think that morals probably do exist outside of a person or people's heads. I think they're ideas, which exist in minds, which are emergent properties of brains, which are inside people's heads.

They certainly don't have to exist outside of human thought in order to exist.

[Autodidact]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

[cholland]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

I don't think that morals probably do exist outside of a person or people's heads. I think they're ideas, which exist in minds, which are emergent properties of brains, which are inside people's heads.

They certainly don't have to exist outside of human thought in order to exist.

If morals do not exist outside of each person's head, then they are completely subjective as Joey believes. Meaning we cannot condemn anything from child molestation to the Holocaust since it was right in their mind.

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as? And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

[Filthy Tugboat]

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

The Christian worldview does permit and expressly believe in many immaterial concepts. Christians on the whole have many differing opinions about what is right and what is wrong. So I suppose, on this we agree.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals."

Yes, of course they can. You don't have to adhere to absolute morality to say that, "there are morals" or even "this is right"/"this is wrong".

That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

I've already explained this, immaterial concepts exist in the minds of people. They can be discussed, written about, explained and misinterpreted.

I don't think that morals probably do exist outside of a person or people's heads. I think they're ideas, which exist in minds, which are emergent properties of brains, which are inside people's heads.

They certainly don't have to exist outside of human thought in order to exist.

If morals do not exist outside of each person's head, then they are completely subjective as Joey believes.

Not necessarily, you have to look at the origins of certain moral principles and the reasons for why they are accepted/implemented in society. These reasons often force society to accept certain moral principles as they generally hold benefit for that society.

Meaning we cannot condemn anything from child molestation to the Holocaust since it was right in their mind.

Why does someone considering these things right mean others can't condemn them for their actions? People condemn others all of the time based on their own opinions of right/wrong.

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as? And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

I discussed this in my initial post on this thread, if you would like to respond to that, i would be most appreciative as I do not particularly want to repeat myself.

[Goat]

I see you are attempting to graph on to my points meanings that are not in evidence. Yes, you are confused.

That points are rather clear though.

Do you seek to breath?


Given the vast amount of variations between societies, and even within societies, and the fact consensus about what is moral changes in societies over time, what is YOUR explanation?

You do realize that I was confused because of you, right? Nevertheless, your point about how societies and morals change is beyond the point.

My point way back in page one is: Christianity can say "There are morals. There is right. There is wrong." Because they allow for immaterial concepts to exist.

Now, can a secular atheist say the same? I have yet to hear an answer that makes sense beyond "atheists can have morals." That's not my question. I agree atheists can have morals, but can they say they exist outside of a person's head? If so, how? Given a secular worldview, how does an immaterial concept exist?

Yet.... the only difference between 'Christian morals' and secular morals is the claim that Christians have that they got it from God. Their concept of what is moral changed over time..

Immaterial concepts are the product of HUMAN imagination , intelligence and need. IMO, that includes the idea of God.

Now, when it comes to Christian Morals.. will you agree that those morals changed?

[Autodidact]

If morals do not exist outside of each person's head, then they are completely subjective as Joey believes. [/quote] I don't think so. Laws are abstract ideas that exist in our collective head, but they are not subjective. The story of Little Red Riding Hood exists in our collective heads, but it is not primarily subjective. Many things exist in our heads without being subjective.

Meaning we cannot condemn anything from child molestation to the Holocaust since it was right in their mind.

The fact that there are different opinions about something does not mean they are equally correct.

Well, ideas exist, they're immaterial concepts. They're abstractions of things we can perceive with our senses.

Things such as?

Justice, compassion, beauty, humor, religion...

And I'm still wondering how. For a secular atheist, how does an immaterial abstract concept exist in a material world?

Because brains are material, and brains do/have ideas. No brains, no ideas.

I notice you ignored my point that if a Christian has "objective morals" they include genocide, infanticide and slavery being good, but two men getting married being bad. Objective morals that are evil are not very helpful, don't you agree?

I have an objective basis for my own morality. It's grounded in reality.

[Autodidact]

Yet.... the only difference between 'Christian morals' and secular morals is the claim that Christians have that they got it from God.

I think there are some other differences as well. Christian morals are either evil, if they are Biblical, or secular and hypocritical, if they are not.

Their concept of what is moral changed over time..

Thank goodness. Otherwise we'd still have witch burning, slaughter of Jews, and suppression of science.