Moral beliefs

[Vaccine]

You're right, that does warrants it's own thread. It was in response to this:

If you want to believe in God that's fine, but when people of faith say that they know what is best for other people because they know the will of God, I feel that warrants some proof.

For someone who was requiring "proof" from us, I noticed he only had anecdotal evidence to offer. I didn't address it in my first reply but I thought it was a bit condescending to equate theology with mythology, nobody equated neuroscience with voodoo. Quoting that paper wasn't to condemn neuroscience, it was to highlight the need for empirical proof in this matter. Love isn't something that can be empirically proven though. We can all agree love is good and beneficial, but I don't think the scientific method can tell us that, it requires human interpretation.

 

[ObjMoVa]

The mythology of today was the theology of yesterday. When the masses prayed to Zeus and Athena, they didn't think they were praying to mythical beings, they fully believed they were praying to their Gods.

The example I was trying to make works equally well with the modern religions. Christianity, Islam, and Hindu all claim to be perfect systems laid out by god, with inherent moral values in them. Needless to say the moral values in these systems are not compatible. That is, if the Bible is the perfect word of God then the Koran cannot possibly be, because the two make mutually exclusive claims. So as a person, If I am going to take my moral guidelines from the Bible, I have to be 100% sure that I've made the right choice. I have to be 100% certain that these are in fact the tenets that the one true God has decided upon.

When so much of the world is so certain that their ancient book is the right one, I just can't feel that confident in one over another.

I think the science of morality, based on the objective scale of human well-being, is a lot less risky.

 

[Eugene]

When so much of the world is so certain that their ancient book is the right one, I just can't feel that confident in one over another. I think the science of morality, based on the objective scale of human well-being, is a lot less risky.

And you will undoubtedly never will become confident with that value system. Of the world there are none righteous; no, not one, and that includes the immoral, the moral, and the religious. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

You want proof and that which may be known of God is shown unto you, and the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

We are further told that unless you believe on God, and are born of Him that you cannot see or even understand His kingdom. Gee, that isn’t fair is it? Well, with what God gave Abraham, he believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness. From that moment God saw only the righteousness of Christ in Abraham. Did Abraham always do that which was right in your eyes? Probably not, but it is Christ who has been given all judgment.

You may desire to end up worshiping a tree; it certainly has probably led a less destructive life than me, but then until I was at the end of me and reached to God for help I didn't have peace. We are saved by grace, not of works so that we could boast, and that grace through faith which all men have been partakers of.

 

[ObjMoVa]

Well having a system of moral values doesn't require worship of anything, so the tree won't be an issue for me.

And I think you are telling me to look around me for proof of God, and that if I don't believe that I can't see or understand him. Which one is it?

 

[Eugene]

Well having a system of moral values doesn't require worship of anything, so the tree won't be an issue for me.

And I think you are telling me to look around me for proof of God, and that if I don't believe that I can't see or understand him. Which one is it?

Not quite saying you should prove one because that would depend on your value system. You're the one that said "If I am going to take my moral guidelines from the Bible, I have to be 100% sure that I've made the right choice. I have to be 100% certain that these are in fact the tenets that the one true God has decided upon." You seem to be saying you haven't chosen which god you would choose, and there are multitudes in all manner of forms. Since moral values are not the basis of becoming born of the God of the bible, maybe you're looking in the wrong place? Now it is said in our bible that we (Christians) can know one another by our fruit, but I as an unbeliever personally never was impressed by Christians and their morality; I even seen some of them get mad when someone hit them. My my .... oh the humanity.

 

[Vaccine]

The mythology of today is the theology of yesterday

Mythology, religion, worship, and theology all have different meanings. Redefining words is just a shortcut.
Worship is showing respect or praying to a god or gods.
Religions is an organized set of beliefs or ceremonies associated with a particular god or gods.
Theology is the rational study of the divine.
The question of whether there is a God should not be lumped with the question of whether that God can be known or has made himself known.

If you said today's mythology is yesterday's religion, then yes I would agree.

Many religions have been shown to be false, the Judeo-Christian religion has withstood the test of time and scrutiny for thousands of years.

s When so much of the world is so certain that their ancient book is the right one, I just can't feel that confident in one over another.

I dont think other religions have more than just a handful of ancient texts, by contrast there are roughly 5000 individual manuscripts of the OT and 20000 individual manuscripts of the NT. I would agree with this statement:
When so much of the world is so certain that their ancient book worldview is the right one, I just can't feel that confident in one over another.
Atheism is a worldview.

I think the science of morality, based on the objective scale of human well-being, is a lot less risky.

We can't put "well-being" in a test tube to empirically prove it is such. We can say hugs are good in general, but are they objectively good? Imagine a teenage girl being hugged by some creepy stranger. It would cause anxiety and stress for her. Therefore hugs are subjectively good. The question of objective morality is for philosophy. I agree science can offer support to one view or another, but alone is inadequate.
I think this goes far beyond well-being:
12 “In everything, therefore,treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Matt 7:12

 

[ObjMoVa]

Imagine a teenage girl being hugged by some creepy stranger. It would cause anxiety and stress for her.

This act would clearly move toward the 'worst imaginable suffering for everyone'. Therefore the act of the creepy man hugging the girl is objectively wrong. A mother hugs her young child and the two feel happy and blissful, this moves us away from the 'worst imaginable suffering for everyone' therefore an objectively good act.

 

[Vaccine]

This act would clearly move toward the 'worst imaginable suffering for everyone'. Therefore the act of the creepy man hugging the girl is objectively wrong. A mother hugs her young child and the two feel happy and blissful, this moves us away from the 'worst imaginable suffering for everyone' therefore an objectively good act.

Good point. I agree well being can make a descent anchor but how would you go about imposing that view on someone else? I don't mean that in a pointed accusatory tone, just asking as one person to another. Christians are faced with that issue and I'm just curious how atheists would handle it.

 

[The Gospels]

this is Gods creation, so his way.... but without god.. who knows what life would be like..