Why Are Atheists Moral

Or that it was written well after the fact by people who didn't witness it firsthand, but assumed it to be truth. Admittedly, the original viewers are still either lying, right, or wrong, but with how much stories can change over the course of decades and centuries, especially when they are exposed to the preconceptions and myths of the age and mixed with them, I find it hard to see how anyone can put too much confidence in the veracity of the Bible. You have people writing it whose knowledge of the universe is dwarfed by our own, yet we're ready to call it infallible?

In any case, that's rather tangential to my original points about the article posted on the last page, and shakya added to it well.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Interesting and good perspectives willRules...

Thanks, I just thought I'd throw something in there a large number of people on these forums are atheists and I'm a born again Christian. I feel a little intimidated by some very ardent arguments, so I'd thought I'd throw something in here to compliment my outlook 😛

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Moral Law attempts to establish objective truth, when he himself contradicts this by identifying (correctly) that nothing is either just or unjust except what is based by our own perceptions and biases.

And the conversion point is more than a little suspect. He's able to identify that all experience is subjective, and therefore what he sees as an unjust universe is really just his interpretation of it, not an objective truth. But he he claims that "his sense of what is just makes perfect sense" as though this validates his earlier theory of an extrinsic Moral Law. By what standard does he judge its "rightness?" How is this revelation equivalent to a belief in a deity? Both require large leaps of logic, and one has to wonder if his atheism was really more of an agnostic sense of a creator but not a particular religion....because if this nearly a priori philosophical argument for a deity is enough to sway him all the way to a prescribed earthly religion, his convictions could not have been terribly strong.

His musings on duality are more Eastern than Christian, so he almost doesn't even sound like an atheist turning Christian. In any case, I've heard better defenses of objective moral truth here on the forums, though none have convinced me.

That's an interesting point regarding C.S Lewis' conversion. He goes into a lot more detail in his book, Mere Christianity on that matter, especially relating to his attitudes to moral relativism....

If you're interested, here it is......

http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm

Originally posted by willRules
Thanks, I just thought I'd throw something in there a large number of people on these forums are atheists and I'm a born again Christian. I feel a little intimidated by some very interesting arguments, so I'd thought I'd throw something in here to compliment my outlook 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok. I will give you another example.

A person says they saw a UFO.

A. They are lying.
B. They saw a flying saucer from outer space.

There is also the possibility that they saw something they could not understand.

Well, that doesn't work well...because a UFO is an unidentified flying object. It really is one of three options.

1. They are lying.
2. It is extraterrestrial.
3. It is simply a flying object that they could not identify.

Personally, I have seen several of option 3...doesn't mean it is extraterrestrial.

My question was REALLY about your specific example of Jesus Christ. What IS the third option in that example?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a third option that is always missed; they could have been wrong (mistaken).

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. It is simply a flying object that they could not identify.

Personally, I have seen several of option 3

Originally posted by Quark_666
were you drunk?

Can you get drunk from root beer?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, that doesn't work well...because a UFO is an unidentified flying object. It really is one of three options.

1. They are lying.
2. It is extraterrestrial.
3. It is simply a flying object that they could not identify.

Personally, I have seen several of option 3...doesn't mean it is extraterrestrial.

My question was REALLY about your specific example of Jesus Christ. What IS the third option in that example?

It really doesn't matter. My point was there is rarely just 2 options.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It really doesn't matter. My point was there is rarely just 2 options.

Oh...I was wondering if you had insight on something else regarding that because it sounded interesting, really.

Originally posted by willRules
That's an interesting point regarding C.S Lewis' conversion. He goes into a lot more detail in his book, Mere Christianity on that matter, especially relating to his attitudes to moral relativism....

If you're interested, here it is......

http://www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm

Heh. Didn't realize it was Lewis. I've read some of his philosophical stuff, but it was always a bit too preachy for my tastes, as most apologetics (for any religion) tend to be.

Maybe I'll look into some more at some point, because it wouldn't hurt to see what he wrote in many cases....I've heard most of the arguments for theism that exist, but I have a couple friends that swear by his stuff, so it'll be good for discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Can you get drunk from root beer?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I think I've met some Mormons who can. 😘

LOL....

That reminds me of the Adam Sandler skit from "They're all gonna laugh at you."...they guy thought he was high and drunk....but he wasn't.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh...I was wondering if you had insight on something else regarding that because it sounded interesting, really.

I do have a personal opinion about that. I will PM you later.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do have a personal opinion about that. I will PM you later.

I'm all "ears". I will not make fun of you if it turns out to be something like Xanthu....I'm Mormon so I have no room to talk. 😉

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heh. Didn't realize it was Lewis. I've read some of his philosophical stuff, but it was always a bit too preachy for my tastes, as most apologetics (for any religion) tend to be.

Maybe I'll look into some more at some point, because it wouldn't hurt to see what he wrote in many cases....I've heard most of the arguments for theism that exist, but I have a couple friends that swear by his stuff, so it'll be good for discussion.

Coolio, your friends have good taste in apologetic writers. Considering he used to be an atheist himself, he is a reasonably respectful and methodical writer to various beliefs and attitudes, even if he can be a tad preachy ✅

Originally posted by willRules
Coolio, your friends have good taste in apologetic writers. Considering he used to be an atheist himself, he is a reasonably respectful and methodical writer to various beliefs and attitudes, even if he can be a tad preachy ✅

Well, he's just a well-known Christian apologist, and while eloquent I can't say I agree with him (at least what little I've read and what you posted). Theistic arguments follow familiar conventions regardless of who is doing the writing, but he at least set the standard for modern apologists.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, he's just a well-known Christian apologist, and while eloquent I can't say I agree with him (at least what little I've read and what you posted). Theistic arguments follow familiar conventions regardless of who is doing the writing, but he at least set the standard for modern apologists.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Even as an atheist, you've gotta read C.S. Lewis...just to be informed about the Christianity argument, if for no other reason.

Thing is, the same arguments are elsewhere in different forms. And he's far from having a stranglehold on the "Christian Argument." I was Christian for most of life as well, so I'm pretty well-versed on the theology of it all. Like I said, I've heard pretty much all the theistic arguments, just like I've seen variations on the Moral Law excerpt he posted. If I get around it, I'm sure he'd be more entertaining than most of the apologists I worked through in order to become versed with both sides of the theism argument. But it's not necessarily high on my priority list...just something I may get around to when my reading list dwindles a bit.

Because with some topics, I reach a point where I realize I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of it...not complete, mind you, but enough that no one author or idea is going to revolutionize my thinking, mainly because I've heard most of it but even if I haven't because it will be one point among hundreds of others that preceded it. And I certainly don't read Christian apologetics for pleasure (I break my reading into, roughly speaking, "pleasure" and "cognitive improvement" ...sometimes they overlap. Sometimes they don't) so if I don't feel like it's worth the investment for the increase in knowledge, it gets pushed back on my mental catalogue.

And Narnia's just heavy-handed Christian allegorical schlock. Allegory's fine, but it shouldn't beat the reader over the head with it. I realize that isn't his philosophy, but it kinda turned me off from him as a writer.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Thing is, the same arguments are elsewhere in different forms. And he's far from having a stranglehold on the "Christian Argument." I was Christian for most of life as well, so I'm pretty well-versed on the theology of it all. Like I said, I've heard pretty much all the theistic arguments, just like I've seen variations on the Moral Law excerpt he posted. If I get around it, I'm sure he'd be more entertaining than most of the apologists I worked through in order to become versed with both sides of the theism argument. But it's not necessarily high on my priority list...just something I may get around to when my reading list dwindles a bit.

Because with some topics, I reach a point where I realize I have a fairly comprehensive knowledge of it...not complete, mind you, but enough that no one author or idea is going to revolutionize my thinking, mainly because I've heard most of it but even if I haven't because it will be one point among hundreds of others that preceded it. And I certainly don't read Christian apologetics for pleasure (I break my reading into, roughly speaking, "pleasure" and "cognitive improvement" ...sometimes they overlap. Sometimes they don't) so if I don't feel like it's worth the investment for the increase in knowledge, it gets bumped by on my mental catalogue.

And Narnia's just heavy-handed Christian allegorical schlock. Allegory's fine, but it shouldn't beat the reader over the head with it. I realize that isn't his philosophy, but it kinda turned me off from him as a writer.

And Narnia isn't what made C.S. Lewis famous, ya know.