Anyone who reads "the bible" (specifically the NT writings)  can see that many 'christians' tended towards what can be called 'evil' practices.  No suprise to me.  For some reason I understand this well enough.. and I still cling to my faith.

This turned out to one interesting thread.

"Atheism per se just does not prescribe good or bad behavior."

Exactly.  :)  That makes my argument.

Not if your argument implies that atheists lack moral restrictions on their behavior.  I think that the question ultimately comes down to the source of morality.  For Christians, morality is defined by a spiritual authority.  For atheists, it has more earthly origins.  In fact, I would argue that God gets his moral principles from humanity, not vice versa.

"Atheists, if they are honest, make no bones about it.  Christians do."

But you can't be a homicidal maniac or a racist and actually be a Christian.  That's the point.

And you've just proved my point.  You want to make bones about it. You seem to be winding up for a No True Scotsman fallacy here. 

In theory you could be a Christian repenting of such behaviors and attitudes, and that's different.

No, it isn't.  One can still be a homicidal maniac and a racist, even while accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior.  "Forgive me, Jesus, but I must commit one more axe murder."

In Christianity there is a standard.  Yes, there are intelligent people who have differed about aspects of that standard, but as I said, the standard can only be strained so far before it is simply no longer within the standard.  There is no such limit with atheism.  Thus, there is nothing to keep atheism from becoming anything the individual atheist wants to be.  You are basically admitting this and yet it is my point.

If that were your only point, it would be a non sequitur.  There is nothing to keep a Cubs fan from becoming anything the individual Cubs fan wants to be, either.  There is nothing that stands in the way of a Cubs fan from committing murder.  What kind of conclusion are we supposed to draw from that?  That an obsession with the Cubs leads to moral depravity?  You simply cannot get past the obvious fact that atheism defines a belief about gods.  It does not define beliefs about good and bad behavior.  Most atheists seem to prefer humanism, which does prescribe moral behavior, but not all atheists are humanists.  Atheism is just not a religion.  Deal with it.

"And, still, the majority of racists and homicidal maniacs out there tend to believe in God."

Gotta caveat it.  They may say that they believe in God- but by their actions they can show otherwise.  You don't agree that a person can say one thing but act another?

You've never met anyone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?  Homicidal maniacs are, if nothing else, obsessive people.  That doesn't mean that they feel no remorse and fail to struggle against their obsession. 

Which do you think really informs us about a person's beliefs- their actions or their words?  Besides, a belief in a generic God is meaningless.  Do the majority of racists and homicidal maniacs bother to take the time to believe in God as Christians understand him?  We are not talking about mere theism here.

Not being a homicidal maniac, I cannot speak with confidence, but the accounts that I've read suggest some of them have very strong beliefs in God and were regular church attenders.  Ted Bundy was a well-respected Young Republican, and the Lafferty brothers described in Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven were devout believers in the Mormon fundamentalist God.  They felt that God was directing their actions by making them type out messages from him on a typewriter.

"Because, in the end, religion does not do very much to restrain bad behavior."

And this shows how despite your protestations, you still fail to appreciate the point.  I do not in the slightest believe that we ought to be religious because it restrains bad behavior...

We weren't talking about whether or not people ought to be religious.  We were talking about your belief that religion causes people to behave better than if they had no religion.  There is no evidence to support such a belief.

But you can't even recognize 'bad behavior' without implying some standard by which to recognize 'bad behavior.'  There may be various and contradictory sources and standards within the religions for that, but atheism brings absolutely nothing.

You are getting confused again.  I agree absolutely that one cannot recognize 'bad behavior' without implying some standard by which to recognize 'bad behavior'.  I disagree that that standard must come from a deity--some kind of spiritual authority.  That is a completely separate issue from whether God or gods exist.  Atheism is only the belief that they do not exist.  Your religion conflates belief in God with morality, so you cannot separate the two issues.

Thus, we should not be surprised when communities filled to the brim with atheists acting out their atheism speak thusly:

Quote

"I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one's actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others.

"And you've just proved my point.  You want to make bones about it. You seem to be winding up for a No True Scotsman fallacy here."

Aha, no, I'm afraid not.  See, while it may be true that you personally find 'Christian' to be a wishy washy term that can apply to anyone, there is a historical understanding of the term, and I am well within it.   And you are not.  That's not so bad, there are a lot who wish to claim the title who don't belong as well.   Its either that or I will return to my claim that I am a Christian atheist.  A theist that does not believe in God?  A contradiction in terms!  Cry me a river.  Everyone gets to play the "I win my arguments by changing the definitions of longstanding terms" game. 

My response:  Aha, no, I'm afraid not.  See, while it may be true that you personally find 'Scotsman' to be a wishy washy term that can apply to anyone, there is a historical understanding of the term, and I am well within it.   And you are not.  That's not so bad, there are a lot who wish to claim the title who don't belong as well.   Its either that or I will return to my claim that I am a Scottish Eskimo.  A Scottsman that does not believe in sugar on his porridge?  A contradiction in terms!  Cry me a river.  Everyone gets to play the "I win my arguments by changing the definitions of longstanding terms" game. 

Sorry, friend, but you are spinning a No True Scotsman fallacy and saying that you are not.

"No, it isn't.  One can still be a homicidal maniac and a racist, even while accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior."

Yes it is different.  If you repent of such deeds, that is different.  If you continue in them you prove by your actions that you do not believe.  Behold, James 2:14ff

No, thank you.  Christians mostly don't even read their Bible or take it seriously.  Those who dote on it (and become as expert as some of my atheist friends) tend to emphasize what they like and de-emphasize what they don't like.  The art of quote-mining did not start with the internet.  The Bible can be used to defend or attack almost any imaginable form of behavior if you just spin your quotes properly.  For example, American Christians have used it to both justify and condemn slavery.  Nowadays, it is rarely used to justify slavery, but there are still a fair number of hatemongers who use the Bible to oppose racial integration and interracial relationships.  During my childhood years in the 1950s, the conservative Bible thumpers were bashing integrationists with it all over the place, and the integrationists were bashing them right back with the very same Bible.

"If that were your only point, it would be a non sequitur."

Not at all.  Your example is unfortunate.  A Cubs fan, by the definition of a 'Cubs fan' would be one that roots for the Cubs.  In your world, a Cubs fan gets to act inconsistently with being a Cubs fan- denigrating the Cubs and mocking them and peeing in the cups of actual Cubs fans- while still being a Cubs fan.  Being a Cubs fan introduces some standard of measurement of the term, boundaries that help identify when the term ceases to have meaning.

Boy, that one just sailed right over your head.  My point was not about how one defines a "Cubs fan".  The point was that there is no moral code associated with being a cubs fan, but we still don't see being a Cubs fan as something that naturally leads to moral depravity (unless one is really attached to an alternative ball club maybe ).  Atheism does not lead to moral depravity.  It doesn't tell us anything at all about morality.  Nor, for that matter, does theism.  It is a specific theist creed that takes a stand on morality, but we don't necessarily blame all of theism for the doctrinal decisions of one particular batch of theists.  The problem is that theists overwhelmingly tend to confuse morality with belief in God.  Originally, it was thought that only belief in God would scare inherently flawed humans into doing the right thing.  In modern times, the position is more nuanced, but it is still there.  Humans can't behave morally unless they believe that some overwhelming force will make them pay for their misdeeds in the end.

But that is not the real answer to the question.  There are clearly hierarchies involved here.  Speaking of a 'Cubs fan' is clearly limited in its scope.  You can be a Cubs fan and be an atheist or a theist.  In theory (apart from your use of logic) an atheist cannot also be a theist and vice versa and the two terms are not merely mutually contradictory, but represent together terms at the highest hierarchies- statements concerning all of reality.

And, as I pointed out, one can be a theist and a cannibal.  There is nothing inherent in the belief in gods that requires us to believe that they direct morality or are even interested in it.  Can one be a Christian and a cannibal?  I have no doubt of it.  One just needs a Bible and some very fancy footwork on the doctrinal interpretation of it.  Personally, I'd start with the Eucharist.  Lead off with my strong suit. 

"Most atheists seem to prefer humanism, which does prescribe moral behavior, but not all atheists are humanists.  Atheism is just not a religion.  Deal with it."

That would depend on your definition.  I'm certainly not in the mood to let you think you can get away with defining both atheism and Christianity.  That's quite a bit of hubris there.

No, you reserve that role for yourself.    You'll nitpick the definition of a true "Christian" all day long. 

BTW, it is positive nonsense to maintain that the statement "there is a God" is a religious one but the statement "there is not a God" is not.

That depends on how you define "releigious statement", but I largely agree with you.  Theism, like atheism, lacks any doctrinal significance.  Theists are just as capable of amoral positions as atheists.  It's just that most theists happen to see their morality as depending on the existence of their particular version of God or gods.  Most atheists tend to see morality as something defined independently of authoritarian deities.

...Assuming a person of normal and healthy intelligence, do you or do you not believe that a person's actions gives us more certainty about their beliefs then their words do?

That's a little too vague for me.  It depends on the situation.  Sometimes people have conflicting beliefs, and their actions are constrained by whichever of the opposing beliefs is dominant at the moment.  Sometimes, actions still leave the motivations unknown.  Take, for example, all those people who voted for George Bush and now wish they hadn't.  What were they thinking?  What are their real political beliefs?  Have they changed?  Or has their opinion of Bush changed?  You can't tell just by looking at their past behavior.

This is all so cute watching you bend to such lengths to allow a homicidal maniac to properly call himself a Christian.  You know, we have a homicidal maniac that can call himself a Christian, but he repented.  He goes by "Son of Sam."  Note, he repented.

So what?  He was never a Christian to begin with, and he has signed up to it with the same fervor that so many jail inmates do after their incarceration.  What about the Green River killer, Robert Yates?  He is described as having come from "a solid, loving home with encouraging Support , a moral upbringing and Christian teaching from the time he could walk. He was an obedient child, a dedicated student, and a team player on the Oak Harbor High School football team."    He was a regular church-goer.  Nevertheless, he turned into one of Washington state's worse mass murders in history--even worse than our Young Republican Ted Bundy.   Yates Sr. testified that his son had "fallen away" from Christ, but had subsequently repented after getting caught.  Yates Jr. never fell away from Christ.  Atheists "fall away".  This guy, apparently, did not see a conflict between his religion and killing prostitutes.  Now he has recommitted to his Seventh Day Adventist faith and, apparently, sees the conflict.  After having been caught.  What a surprise. 

"We weren't talking about whether or not people ought to be religious.  We were talking about your belief that religion causes people to behave better than if they had no religion.  There is no evidence to support such a belief."

You're doing it again.  No, we are NOT talking about 'my belief that religion causes people to behave better than if they had no religion.'

Hmmm.  That was carefully worded.  Are you denying that you hold that belief or that that was a topic of conversation?  Your reply, as it so often is, was an ambiguous denial.

Neither actions nor words can persuade you apparently.  Its not like you didn't quote me:

"I propose that the best explanations for why we might reject such an attitude and any behaviors that result from it are religious ones..."

Do you, or do you not, believe that Christianity (not just religion) causes people to behave better than they would if they were not Christian?  Do you, or do you not, believe that religion disposes people to behave better than those who lack any religion?  These are topics of conversation here.  You may not want to address them, but that is what I have asked you to do.  You want to ignore those questions and just pursue your agenda as if your premises had gone unchallenged.

I'm talking about explanation, not causation or prohibition.  The fact is that virtually every atheist insists that his atheism does not mean that he is immoral.  Of course it doesn't.  What we all want to know is why he cares about the question at all and why he continues to be 'moral.'  Atheists act in every way as though there is an objective moral standard but say otherwise.  Sadly, since it boils down to their own subjective preferences on which standard they'll abide by...

I have written extensively on this before, but we always come back to square one.  What you call "objective morality" is really "authoritarian morality".  It depends on the code of the particular moral authority that you subjectively recognize as THE moral authority.  Communists tend to be atheists who recognize the Party as the definer of moral authority.  Catholics tend to be Christians who recognize the Vatican as the definer (or, more likely, "interpreter") of moral authority.  Humanists tend to define morality in terms of what seems best for humanity, in general, and they often publish manifestos on the subject.  One can certainly differ over what seems best for humanity, but one can also differ over how the Vatican chooses to interpret Christian doctrine.

BTW, this is just a quibble, but many atheists don't even like to use the term "morality" because of its authoritarian connotation.  They prefer to use the term "ethics", which does not carry that connotation.  I haven't been splitting that hair in this thread, but maybe it is worth splitting it now.

Actions speak louder than words for most people.   This phenomena requires an explanation.  Atheists have yet to give one.  This is usually because, as we see in your latest posts, they think we're saying they are immoral.  We want to know WHY they are moral, HOW they pick their standard, and what is to stop them from deciding to pick a DIFFERENT one.

If you really want to know how humanists approach morality, then look up "humanist morality" with google.  One of the top selections is Paul Kurtz's Two Competing Moralities, which does an excellent job of explaining how humanists approach morality.  Do not, however, call this "atheist morality", because atheism per se has nothing to do with moral behavior.

Until you get it through your head that I am not trying to suggest that religion prevents bad behavior, you will continue to completely be out of step with the challenge I'm putting to you and precisely what I mean when I ask "What does atheism become?"

Again, there is that little ambiguous twist to the original question.  I don't believe that you think religion prevents bad behavior, and I would not put it that way.  You think that religion predisposes or influences people not to behave as poorly as those with no religion, and that assumption underlies just about everything you've said in this thread.

BTW, that quote is not from an objectivist, but Chairman Mao.  But I'm sure he wasn't a true atheist, right?

Nonsense.  Of course he was a "true atheist".  He did not believe in gods.  He was also a moral authoritarian.  He believed that the Party, not a church or religious institution, should have the final say on what constituted moral behavior.  The Party, of course, could be trusted to determine what was in the best interests of humanity.

He was one of those communists and communism is a religion.  His atheism was irrelevant.  Riiiiiiight.

You do know, don't you, that there have been Christians who adopted Communism?  In general, the Party frowns on it, but some Party organizations have been more liberal about it.  Atheism is not necessarily a prerequisite to joining the Party, but Party doctrine holds that religion foments conflicting loyalties.  In other words, the Party is in direct competition with religious institutions.

Your own brand of the No True Scotsman, the main difference being that since atheism boils down to the individual there is no way you can speak for all- pure NTS fallacy- while Christianity is a set of propositions with a definitive source that has been set down for me to receive and discover, not invent or bend as I please.

Nevertheless, Christians do bend it as they please.  There is no single Christian "doctrine", and there never will be.  Christians almost universally believe that there should be, but it should be their particular doctrine that is accepted as universal.  And, BTW, notice that I had no trouble accepting Mao into the atheist fold.  He may have committed many sins, but none against atheism or Cubs fandom. 

...there is nothing within the concept (of Atheism) to prevent it from becoming communism or worse

True, SJ - the point is that religious documents like your bible and the Koran have been interpreted to actively encourage harmful behavior by many in the past and in the present. There is nothing in Atheism that encourages or condones such behavior because, well there is nothing in Atheism except the natural world. You simply can't believe that anyone would choose to behave nicely without a fire breathing devil looking over their shoulder, which says a lot more about you than about Atheists.

Your arrogance has reached a new peak with your proclamation that there is nothing in the scriptures to encourage bad behavior - as if your interpretation is fact. Your interpretation means nothing to anyone except yourself. Others will have their own interpretations, which may include believing gay people are hell bound sinners, believing that masturbation is the work of Satan, or that stem cell research is murder. I choose to believe that gay people should be left alone to do as they please, masturbation is great fun, and that stem cell research is the key to a better life for millions. If that is immoral, God is a moron.

Your arrogance has reached a new peak with your proclamation that there is nothing in the scriptures to encourage bad behavior - as if your interpretation is fact.

?  Did you have your cornflakes today??

Your interpretation means nothing to anyone except yourself.

You definately did not have your cornflakes today.  I, and of many for sure, respect and agree with the hard works and eventual words of this forums apologist.

Stat... go and suck on a bottle.... you need something to sooth your wailing.

When SJ stated that there was nothing in the scriptures to condone bad behavior, he presented it as fact rather than what it was - opinion.

More importantly, pray tell how is it that you are able to recognize what would constitute 'bad behavior'?

It is in my nature as a relatively intelligent, relatively evolved mammal not to engage in behavior which is harmful to my species. "Bad behavior" is that which is harmful to others.

And in Britain in particular, it was explicitly Christian principles that led to the abolishment of slavery there.

Yet many used the Bible as justification for slavery as you well know. I'm sure Jesus Christ spoke against the foul practice on multiple occasions. What? He didn't? Not so much as a single word of condemnation? Hmmm, what Christian principles are you talking about, SJ?

I'm extremely interested as to why you ignore my examples of what many Christians think is "bad behavior" - where do you stand, as Christians, on homosexuality, masturbation and stem cell research?

TIME OUT. Sorry, need to discuss 8d's last post. His supernatural beliefs are merely hilarious, but his antimedical paranoia may actually be lethal.

Yep...

]What is the survival rate of chemotherapy, Stat? How about after 5 years, 2-3%

Please tell me exactly what this figure is based on, 8d.

This figure is based upon research which was conducted by three separate oncologists at Austalian universities, Stat.
(Wait for it, Aussie oncologist slamming in 3,...2,...1,...)

Unless you're one of the thousands of sub-standard hacks who rely on it to get their tenure

Please tell me precisely what you mean by this, 8d.

What I mean is this: The University of Iowa denied tenure to Gonzalez who has published dozens of times, and even  co-authored a textbook which is used by his peers. But he doesn't toe the line with the evolutionary establishment, so he's in the nine percent of those who do not recieve tenure. How do you explain that?

If you would be so kind as to do that we can discuss them further. I hazard that you are well out of your depth on this one.

The remainder of your "my granny smoked four packs a day and lived to be 98" - style arguments have no credibility and I will not dignify them further.

 

(Sigh) I'm sure you could locate it yourself if you really wanted to, but I'll find it and post it here;
 Not that it's going to impress you, but I read some stats today which indicate that when doctors go on strike, (3 instances, Israel, Bogota Colombia, and L.A.,) mortality rates actually went down . In fact, statistics show  three times more people are killed by doctors every year in the US than by handguns, and over 120,000 people are hospitalized in the UK for improper medical treatments. Let's talk about lethal, Stat.

When SJ stated that there was nothing in the scriptures to condone bad behavior, he presented it as fact rather than what it was - opinion.

I'm not sure that's what I said.  I tend to think that you're probably lying, or more generously, completely mischaracterizing something I said.  Feel free to provide the reference.  But the next point is more important anyway, which I see you quoted which makes it helpful:

Quote
More importantly, pray tell how is it that you are able to recognize what would constitute 'bad behavior'?

To which you replied,

"It is in my nature as a relatively intelligent, relatively evolved mammal not to engage in behavior which is harmful to my species. "Bad behavior" is that which is harmful to others."

Relatively being the key word?    I think this answer is very unsatisfactory.   Why should conduct harming your species be 'bad'?  I don't even know how you can say such a thing given the history of the last century.  Unless you think a new stage of human evolution has occurred in the last decade, it would seem that the species generally has no inclination against harming someone else, and if they still do have a fear of being 'bad' will find a way to justify their harm- thus the Stalinist Purges and Pol Pot's decimation of the intellectual class, which were all done under the guise of being done 'for the cause.'

You can't say that these things were 'bad' as though the entire species would agree since it is self-evident that a large swath of the same species thought they were quite good.

In fact, what we are seeing here is you providing nothing more than your own personal opinion about what is good and bad and while I might agree that 'harming another' is 'bad' I would actually have some objective basis for such a claim, while you have nothing but your own personal set of preferences.  Unless you can provide some objective basis- clearly the attitude of our species won't do, given its history- for what would constitute 'bad' behavior and even 'harmful' (a female spider eats her mate- immorality?)- I see no reason for thinking that you are in any position to evaluate the morality of the Scriptures.

"Yet many used the Bible as justification for slavery as you well know."

Yea, and they were wrong- which is my point.  The texts do not support that justification.  Which you would know if you'd ever bothered to read the Bible.  I take that back.  You'd have to read it while allowing at the same time that there are such things as bad interpretations.  This problem transcends the whole 'Bible' issue and speaks to our current generation, applying also to matters such as interpreting the Constitution, etc. 

"I'm extremely interested as to why you ignore my examples of what many Christians think is "bad behavior" - where do you stand, as Christians, on homosexuality, masturbation and stem cell research?"

I ignore them because you are not competent to comprehend my answers, even if I provided them.  Furthermore, you give these examples as though there is some objective standard of morality by which to call me on.  But I'm not going to allow you to deny that there is an objective standard and then turn around and act as though there is one.

Admit that there is an objective standard and point me to the source of that standard and perhaps we'll talk.

 

Gosh, Stath.  You're really working on this one.   I hope its worth the wait.  :)