Morality without God?

[Bradski]

Another example of a belief to which you do not subscribe without evidence? Your “faith” statements provide interesting insights into your belief system.

I believe that the church classes oral sex as sodomy as well, so well over half of all men and women participate. psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/10/06/11-surprising-facts-about-americas-sexual-behaviors/

Do you accept that as being credible?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t have any. I said that ‘most people refer to Jonah and psalm 16 (and 22?) in this respect’. Feel free to Google resurrection prophesies and you’ll get plenty of examples of people suggesting it. Personally I think it’s bunk. Jonah being spewed by a whale after 3 days foretells the resurrection? Gimme a break…

But…it is beyond doubt that the gospel writers thought that the resurrection did in fact fulfil prophesies - see the quotes earlier.

So were the gospel writers gullible enough to believe these so-called prophesies? Or were they bending the truth a little to embellish the story to give it more credibility?

I think for my response I will quote Dr. William Lane Craig:

Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place. The problem many people, even some scholars, have is not being able to put themselves in the shoes of a first century Jew confronted with Jesus’ crucifixion—they tend to look at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of 2,000 years of Christian theology, and so the idea of his rising from the dead seems natural to them, when in fact it is an anachronism.

Read more: reasonablefaith.org/old-testament-prophecies-of-jesus-resurrection#ixzz2Onfn4ygY

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

You two need to talk…

Not really.

When the world universally agrees on a principle, you can be sure there is something to it.

When only a bare majority agree on a principle, there is a debate.

Premeditated murder is universally abhorred.

Slavery was never universally abhorred, though it should have been.

 

[Bradski]

I think for my response I will quote Dr. William Lane Craig:

So he thinks there were no credible prophesies. Yet they were mentioned by the gospel writers who obviously thought there were. So why do you think Paul said: ‘that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’.

Sounds like embellishment.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

I believe that the church classes oral sex as sodomy as well, so well over half of all men and women participate. psychcentral.com/blog/archive…ual-behaviors/

Yes, and well over half of all men and women lie and cheat and abuse each other in one way or another. We are all prone to evil … even the atheists!

The difference between a Christian and an atheist is that the Christian admits he is a sinner.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Bradski

I believe that the church classes oral sex as sodomy as well, so well over half of all men and women participate. psychcentral.com/blog/archive…ual-behaviors/

Yes, and well over half of all men and women lie and cheat and abuse each other in one way or another. We are all prone to evil … even the atheists!

The difference between a Christian and an atheist is that the Christian admits he is a sinner.

Evil is a religious construct. So it would not apply to atheists. And atheist can’t sin as that to is a religious construct. It would appear that only religious people can sin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april

Evil is a religious construct.

Not necessarily. Even Bertrand Russell believed Hitler was evil.

And atheist can’t sin as that to is a religious construct.

If there is a God, which the atheist can never be certain of, then he too can sin.

It would appear that only religious people can sin.

But it would appear that only religious people can be forgiven their sins.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Evil is a religious construct. So it would not apply to atheists. And atheist can’t sin as that to is a religious construct. It would appear that only religious people can sin.

Evil does not apply to atheists? So atheists can do evil with impunity? Is that your position?

So there is no morality without God, then?

 

[Bradski]

When the world universally agrees on a principle, you can be sure there is something to it.

Then take it up with Dave, because he wants to know:

How can the majority define what is true?

From the dawn of human history there has been a universal consensus that sodomy is unnatural.

I believe that the church classes oral sex as sodomy as well, so well over half of all men and women participate. psychcentral.com/blog/archive…ual-behaviors/

Yes, and well over half…etc

Whether you class it as immoral or not or wrong in some way or comparable to adultery doesn’t interest me. I think it’s safe to agree now that you were wrong. There never was and certainly isn’t now a universal consensus that sodomy is unnatural. It’s just a different way of having sex. Lots of us do it.

And it should be obvious that if it’s a majority of Americans, then it would be a majority of Christians in America as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Bradski,

You may have missed this:

My suspicion is that you don’t understand what the “sign of Jonah” really means so you don’t get how significant it really is in the prophetic sense. Please specifically detail what you think the sign of Jonah really refers to? Its real significance might surprise you.

 

[aprilfloyd]

Evil does not apply to atheists? So atheists can do evil with impunity? Is that your position?

So there is no morality without God, then?

How does one ‘do evil’ ? I would not know how to do ‘evil’ - In our legal system we even dropped the word ‘evil’ from the *mens rea * of crimes as it served no meaningful purpose.

Don’t know what you mean by there is no Morality without God?

 

[aprilfloyd]

Then take it up with Dave, because he wants to know:

Whether you class it as immoral or not or wrong in some way or comparable to adultery doesn’t interest me. I think it’s safe to agree now that you were wrong. There never was and certainly isn’t now a universal consensus that sodomy is unnatural. It’s just a different way of having sex. Lots of us do it.

And it should be obvious that if it’s a majority of Americans, then it would be a majority of Christians in America as well.

 

[JamesATyler]

How does one ‘do evil’ ? I would not know how to do ‘evil’ - In our legal system we even dropped the word ‘evil’ from the *mens rea * of crimes as it served no meaningful purpose.

Don’t know what you mean by there is no Morality without God?

If two guys drug and rape a woman. I call it evil. It’s profoundly immoral. What do you call it?

 

[SonSearcher]

If two guys drug and rape a woman. I call it evil. It’s profoundly immoral. What do you call it?

Go one further… If two atheists drug and rape a woman. Everyone calls it evil… regardless of the perpetrators personal “religious” view. It is profoundly immoral and inherently sinful. What does Senora Floyd call it?

 

[aprilfloyd]

If two guys drug and rape a woman. I call it evil. It’s profoundly immoral. What do you call it?

I call it two guys drug and rape a woman. I would hope they get caught and sent to prison and the woman, is helped in every way possible. I agree it is immoral behaviour.

The word evil seems to be used by religious people to somehow blame ‘something else’ for abhorrent acts. Instead of blaming the perpetrators.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, You may have missed this:

About Jonah? Sorry, I didn’t think it was relevant. And I also have a mild objection to being asked questions in a manner that reminds me of being in school. Which is pertinent I guess as what I know about ol’ Jonah I learned in Sunday School. I think I mentally filed it at the time with other stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah. There was colouring in at some point if I remember.

If you think it has any relevance to the resurrection I’d be interested to know. If you think it has none, do you know to what Paul might have been referring when he mentioned scriptural prophesy?

If two guys drug and rape a woman. I call it evil. It’s profoundly immoral. What do you call it?

Why two guys?

 

[JamesATyler]

I call it two guys drug and rape a woman. I would hope they get caught and sent to prison and the woman, is helped in every way possible. I agree it is immoral behaviour.

The word evil seems to be used by religious people to somehow blame ‘something else’ for abhorrent acts. Instead of blaming the perpetrators.

You can use the word as meaning supernatural too. You are an atheist so I understand if you don’t believe in that aspect of the word. When I look at a person, I see more than a brain. I think that person is a spirit. I don’t believe that the brain is “everything that you are”. So, if I call a person evil then I am speaking in a supernatural way about that person as well. If I am talking about an act then I am talking about immorality.

I can understand why you wouldn’t call a person evil. It wouldn’t make any sense. You are dealing with a brain. I think that dealing with what I call an “evil” person, your approach would be more medical or reformative.

 

[JamesATyler]

Why two guys?

Recent new story. I was listening to the radio on the way to work and there was a story about two football players who raped a 16 year old girl.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You can use the word as meaning supernatural too. You are an atheist so I understand if you don’t believe in that aspect of the word. When I look at a person, I see more than a brain. I think that person is a spirit. I don’t believe that the brain is “everything that you are”. So, if I call a person evil then I am speaking in a supernatural way about that person as well. If I am talking about an act then I am talking about immorality.

I can understand why you wouldn’t call a person evil. It wouldn’t make any sense. You are dealing with a brain. I think that dealing with what I call an “evil” person, your approach would be more medical or reformative.

I here what you say James, but all I got is my body and brain - nothing supernatural going on here.

 

[JamesATyler]

I have come to believe that there are people in the world who have normal and healthy brains. Biologically they are ok, but they enjoy hurting people. It brings them joy. When causing pain brings a person enjoyment or satisfaction, that’s when I start to call a person evil.