Why Would Any Logical Person Be An Atheist?

Same as everyone who is religious: you choose to accept certain things as being moral or immoral. You base your choices on the belief that god's decrees dictate morality, and your opinion on the interpretation of those decrees. We base our choices on other sources, but make no mistake: EVERY single human being chooses for themselves what their morality is, and they CAN change those views, whether they are religious or not.

 

But again... if that's the case then why does it matter if one claims the moral highground? Morality means nothing because it can be changed at any time. One day rape can be moral and the next it could be immoral. Being moral really means nothing... right?

If that's true then it's a far inferior idea than righteousness... especially righteousness as described by Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

I am sorry to hear that you think that. Im an atheist, and it certainly is not true of me.

 

Being moral means everything at a given time in a given society. Morality doesn't change on a dime. It takes a great deal of time and sometimes a concerted effort, but it reflects the will of the people.
I already addressed the idea of inferiority. Both ideas have shortcomings. Righteousness is out of the control of the moral understanding of the individual. It is externally determined and can not adapt to new data that is determined to have value by the individual. They must either abandon their allegiance to this external dictum or abandon the new data. A choice is forced. Morality can adapt to changes that a society determines has value.
The superiority could only be determined if the external force defining righteousness could be proved to be inerrant.
So to you, righteousness is superior. That would not be universally accepted.

 

So your argument is that a system or ideal that inherently would allow for the following actions to be considered moral is no more inferior than an ideal that would not allow for such behavior (such as the doctrines of Christ)?

Rape, murder, torture, adultery, genocide, performing medical experiments on children, lying, sex slaves, stealing, human trafficking, sexual abuse of a 2 year old, etc etc...

Please... by all means justify an ideal that allows those behaviors to be categorized as moral. Not only justify that ideal of "morality" alone, but by all means provide me an argument as to how that is superior in any way to a system that would not allow that, such as righteousness.

And this idea that you keep espousing that it will allow you to change with new information... provide me how we would change from a moral position from what Jesus Christ taught and why we would need to do so... more importantly... show me how being able to make those minor adjustments even remotely justifies those behaviors listed prior to be considered moral.

 

You're letting your emotion get away with you and creating a strawman you can handle.
I would consider a moral code that allowed those things inferior to most anything. That is because the moral code I follow is that of the culture I am part of, and it finds these things reprehensible.
I thought we had actually started an adult conversation.
There are Christians on this forum trying to defend lying. There are cultures that have endorsed genocide, including the Hebrews of Joshua. These are parts of their moral code. Do I agree with them? No, but what does my moral code have to do with the discussion?
It was once a moral imperative to pay the church for absolution. It was considered righteous. It was righteous for women to be silent in church. It was unrighteousness for Galileo to say the earth was not the center of the universe.
Why so bristly?
You are making a very silly argument that isn't addressing my post at all.

 

Nonsense. Nothing about atheism requires this kind of inhumanity. Nor does christianity. But bad people have done bad things throughout history, regardless of religious or non religious loyalty.

Get off it.

 

I'm not asking you to defend that moral code... I'm asking you to defend the atheist position of morality not being inferior to the Christian position of righteousness. The atheists can only rely upon morality, a system which inherently allows for and even justifies all of those abhorrent acts I just listed. Whereas Christianity relies upon a system of righteousness that would never allow for such things.

Therefore, I argue that the system of righteousness is far superior than that of morality and furthermore that you can claim no more of a moral high-ground than Hitler and his Third Reich. And if that is true, then what good is your morality?

But you see you're basing your objection on the fact that people have different interpretation of scripture. But that's not the point. The point is that Jesus had a specific doctrine that he brought forth with a specific meaning. Whether some people interpret that meaning correctly or not doesn't change the fact that Jesus had a specific meaning for his teachings and it is not up to interpretation. His teachings were not subjective.

So if Jesus tells you that you can't bear false witness and a person is bearing false witness while claiming to be a Christian... by definition he can't be Christian (unless he's repentant and doesn't do it again but for this conversations sake...). The same goes for murder or genocide or any of those things. Long story short, just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean they are. You have to judge them by their fruit.

 

Righteousness depends on the inerrant nature of the scriptures. If they are not accurate, what good is your righteousness? The teachings on sexuality could be a cultural norm of the time and have nothing to do with God. Possible. Christ may never have said he was the son of God. Possible. Your righteousness is totally dependent on believing the scriptures are an accurate representation of what he really believed.
Do you think you learned something important when you read the story about Jesus stopping a stoning by saying the one without sin should cast the first stone? Would it surprise you to find out that the oldest complete manuscripts of the bible don't include this story? These would be the ones closest in age to the original autographs. The most widely used study bible in academic seminaries, the Harper Collins, has notes on the subject. The Oxford Study Bible does not include the story because it can't be authenticated. So what are the "true" words of Jesus that are not adulterated? Do you know? How?
You also talk about "correct" interpretation, as though you can claim some kind of authority over that. You want to say that you can't be a Christian if you sin "for this conversations[sic] sake", meaning that the truth is really more nuanced but you don't want to weaken your argument so you gloss over it.
Pride is at the root of those sins you claim no Christian, real ones that is, could possibly do.
What is at the root of thinking your beliefs to be infallible?

 

Your post seems extremely ignorant. While each atheist may find his/her own way to an understanding of morality, that doesn't necessarily mean it is "derive[d] simply from themselves." For instance, I personally believe morality is objective and is a property of social interactions. Meanwhile, Christian morality is subject to the whims of a being that has no reliable evidence to indicate it exists. Even the evidence that Christian's cite shows it to be a temperamental creature who could decide that the slaughter of children is wrong today but okay tomorrow. Please spare us all the righteous indignation over the morality of atheists.

 

While in essence I am on your side, in theImmortal's defense he only ascribes to the teachings of Jesus and is not trying to defend OT atrocities.

 

He's still claiming to get his morality from the god of the Bible. I think my point still stands unless he's going to come back and disavow the entire OT.

 

He has.
He claims allegiance only to the words of Jesus.

 

Oh, okay. My mistake.