Topic: Is Christianity inherently immoral? (Read 3548 times)

Ragnar · « **on:** July 22, 2008, 05:15:54 PM »

I had been kicking this idea around for awhile, and found the means to express it in response to what someone said on another board. Here is their post and my response:

swampc1 wrote:
Often times people get confused about the issue of corruption or such. They will see a person claiming to be a practicing Christian do something like adultery and think "see, this religion stuff is just bunk - look at all the hypocrites".
You cannot judge religion by the people who try to practice its teachings or thier shortcomings. That is backwards. Rather, you need to judge religion by its content; the christian religion teaches that the followers are "sinners" and are not perfect in any way... so to judge Christianity on shortcomings of the followers is not logical.

My response:
It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners. If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Atheists simply try to be the best person they can be without any preconceived notions. Instead of starting as a "sinner," we start at neutral. We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners." If you think about it, a practicing Christian that commits adultery is not a hypocrite. Christianity teaches him that he is a sinner, and lo and behold, he is sinning. Makes perfect sense. That's why I think Christianity is so wrong.

What do you all think?

End Bringer · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2008, 11:05:36 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar on July 22, 2008, 05:15:54 PM

I had been kicking this idea around for awhile, and found the means to express it in response to what someone said on another board. Here is their post and my response:

swampc1 wrote:
Often times people get confused about the issue of corruption or such. They will see a person claiming to be a practicing Christian do something like adultery and think "see, this religion stuff is just bunk - look at all the hypocrites".
You cannot judge religion by the people who try to practice its teachings or thier shortcomings. That is backwards. Rather, you need to judge religion by its content; the christian religion teaches that the followers are "sinners" and are not perfect in any way... so to judge Christianity on shortcomings of the followers is not logical.

My response:
It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners. If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Atheists simply try to be the best person they can be without any preconceived notions. Instead of starting as a "sinner," we start at neutral. We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners." If you think about it, a practicing Christian that commits adultery is not a hypocrite. Christianity teaches him that he is a sinner, and lo and behold, he is sinning. Makes perfect sense. That's why I think Christianity is so wrong.

What do you all think?

I think you fail for the simple fact that you avoid the main issue: Human beings.

This is an issue that has been raised before, especially by Dicoll. It can be summarily shown that people fail to live up to the standards in any and all books thus is a poor criteria for their removal of being considered as it proves too much. Truth is secularistic humanitarianism has done no better as the failure to admit the main problem is human beings has shown to inevitably lead to the conclusion of concentration camps. It's rather naive.

I utterly reject the notion that people start off as 'neutral'. This mostly comes from the self-evident fact that children have an inherent nature of misbehavior and disobedience. Indeed you will never find a parent who says: "I had to teach my kids to misbehave." Thus one can see how in your attempt to find a way to reject Christianity (and it's telling that you are looking for a reason), you may have come to a conclusion about an issue that isn't so much as a "self fullfilling prophecy" but rather is an observation on reality. And by denying this you deny reality: especially given your title of Christianity being inherently immoral, and that commiting aduletry is wrong. As such it's an inherent contradiction to admit people sin, do wrong, be immoral, etc. yet deny the obvious implications of what this means for the nature of mankind. That's inherently irrational reasoning.

In all this I think you fail for the very important reason that Christianity is all about human beings not being able to live up to a certain set of rules. It's precisely the reason that God knew we never could live up to His standard that made Him come down Himself and fullfill it for us. That's why the Bible emphasis that it isn't by 'works' but by the grace of God in which we are saved. Think about it.

Copernicus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 24, 2008, 08:25:46 AM »

Quote from: Ragnar on July 22, 2008, 05:15:54 PM

My response:
It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners. If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Excellent point. The Christian narrative preaches love and tolerance while simultaneously teaching that people are inherently fallen, a contradictory message given their obvious condemnation of bad behavior. It mixes the messages of love and loathing. So some Christians can project an arrogant, condemning attitude towards others while simultaneously preaching love and humility. I don't want to carry this criticism too far. It is easy to caricature people on the basis of the behavior of some. In general, I think Christians no better nor worse than other populations. Most people try to be well-behaved and respectful of others. We can all be hypocritical at times, and some people are obviously worse than others. But I agree with you about the inherent contradiction in Christian doctrine.

Quote

Atheists simply try to be the best person they can be without any preconceived notions. Instead of starting as a "sinner," we start at neutral. We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners." If you think about it, a practicing Christian that commits adultery is not a hypocrite. Christianity teaches him that he is a sinner, and lo and behold, he is sinning. Makes perfect sense. That's why I think Christianity is so wrong.

What do you all think?

I am wary of imputing better behavior and attitude to atheists, although it is always tempting to see one's own social associations as generally better than others. Atheism per se preaches nothing about correct behavior. One's sensibilities of goodness and badness have the same origin for everyone--upbringing and mental health. My view of Christians is that they use their God to promote their own ideals, which can be benevolent or malevolent, depending on the kind of person they turn out to be. Religious morality grounds itself in an imaginary authority, so it is easy for the mind to shape that authority in any way it is inclined. Nasty people tend to have a nasty vision of God. If anything, religion tends to augment or distort natural inclinations. It is true that atheism makes it difficult to go to extremes, since one's standard of behavior is not tied to an imaginary authority. To the extent that we atheists ground and rationalize our morality, it must be done so in terms of the reality we find ourselves in. If one behaves badly, it is a little harder to rationalize that behavior as something that a god or demon causes us to do. We alone are responsible for our behavior.

End Bringer · « **Reply #3 on:** July 24, 2008, 12:05:14 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on July 24, 2008, 08:25:46 AM

Quote from: Ragnar on July 22, 2008, 05:15:54 PM
My response:
It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners. If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Excellent point. The Christian narrative preaches love and tolerance while simultaneously teaching that people are inherently fallen, a contradictory message given their obvious condemnation of bad behavior.

Contradictory? Really? And just what would there be to 'put up with' if one didn't judge something as disagreeable?

Quote

Atheism per se preaches nothing about correct behavior.

Have to disagree. Atheism per se preaches that correct behavior is determined by the individual. Which is one of the reasons why I've come to a conclusion that 'atheism' does not exsist. I've taken your "You're an atheist too." line so often thrown out and it's inspired me to see that atheists are indeed theists in a certain sense. You do indeed believe in a god whose will determines right and wrong. And you are sure of your god's exsistence. Your god's name being Copernicus.

Quote

We alone are responsible for our behavior.

One of the few times I agree with you. What's telling is that you see this, yet som many times bad behavior is blamed on 'religion' or in your case "upbringing and mental health".

JustLiz · « **Reply #4 on:** July 24, 2008, 01:14:40 PM »

Quote

It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers

Is one of the predicted outcomes of Christianity that its followers will have less shortcomings than they had before they were a Christian? If so, do you have first hand knowledge of the level of shortcomings prior to conversion to compare it to the level of shortcomings after conversion? If not, it is not valid to judge Christianity based upon something that it does not promise to do.

Quote

We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners."

We believe all people are loved. Their behavior does not alter that fact. A sinner is simply someone who sins just like a driver is someone who drives. Sinner is just a label to describe the behavior. It is NOT the person's identity. This is a minor distinction with major implications.

Edited to add: I don't know that I like my wording in "all people are loved." It does not adequately explain it. We believe all people have worth and are valuable.

Quote

If one behaves badly, it is a little harder to rationalize that behavior as something that a god or demon causes us to do. We alone are responsible for our behavior.

Agree completely. While - Scripturally - the devil does lie to us, it is OUR CHOICE whether we listen or not. When someone has to give an account at the end, "the devil made me do it" will not be an acceptable answer. Those who fall back on that are simply trying to justify their own bad choices.

I know both atheists and Christians. Some of each camp tend to blame others for their behavior. The Christians blame the devil - the atheists blame their mothers, fathers, childhood abuse, spouses, children, and bosses. Personal accountability is something someone may or may not learn depending upon how much they want to stop getting bruised from the same situations and how willing they are to learn from their choices.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM »

"It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners."

As Liz said, on this particular point you can only judge Christianity on this point if Christianity says that it will make people not sinners. Your real objection actually lies elsewhere. I'll get to it below.

"If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

What if you tell people that they can't fly because they ain't got wings because they're human? If they fail and say well, I guess I can't fly, I'm human after all, is it still a self-fulfilling prophecy? Do you have a method in hand to discern between that which is 'self-fulfilling prophecies' and 'accurate portrayals of reality?' For if in fact people really are 'sinners' and it has nothing to do with it being drilled into them but rather the actual state of affairs, then they ought to be commended with coming to grips with reality. :) Moreover, it is a reality that isn't exactly flattering, is it?

"Atheists simply try to be the best person they can be without any preconceived notions."

And here we begin to get to the real heart of your objection. Your basic problem with the 'people are sinners' statement is not that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy but rather that you think it is an abstraction that one can arbitrarily choose to begin from, like some people can decide if they like to begin with the notion that people suck but you could just as easily choose to to think that people are 'neutral.' But this is not really how Christianity presents the matter.

If we shy away from the term 'sinner' for a minute and use the doctrine in question, 'original sin' we find that theologians and Christians throughout the centuries have not generally thought of it as an abstraction, but rather something rooted in reality. GK Chesterton comes to mind. Another example is Barth, who began as a highly liberal theologian (read: original sin is passe) but after the world wars realized that people really were bad. Another example is Reinhold Niebuhr who went so far as to say that 'original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith.'

So, Christians would insist that you don't get to start wherever you like. You have to start with reality as it presents itself to you. If the universe had a beginning and that makes you uncomfortable because it smacks of creation, tough. You don't get to just say "well, maybe it existed before" because you've got no evidence for that. It's just an escape. Similarly, we ask what is the real nature of the human being?

On the empirical evidence, humans are not 'neutral.' Say whatever else you want, but let's not deny reality.

"We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners.""

Hopefully now you see that the Christian faith really starts from reality. Still, I'd like to comment on this. Your comment here presumes that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'bad.' Where did you come to this knowledge? How do you know what is good? How do you know that self-fulfilling prophecies are bad? Your whole abhorrence to Christianity on this point seems to actually admit one of Christianity's central claims: morality is objective. What point is there in talking about 'good or bad' if it isn't? And on what grounds, if it isn't, can you possible declare that 'Christianity is so wrong' for it's views on 'sinners'?

I would also challenge you about something else. Given whatever standard that you think is 'good' how do you find yourself faring? I mean, even according to your own standard how are you doing? Do you ever do anything that you yourself feel is 'bad'? Have you ever made a promise but then failed to keep it? Have you ever said something hurtful and immediately regretted it? Etc. If so, you are a 'sinner.'

Who accuses you if there is no one to accuse you? What I mean is, for example, if you say something hurtful and know you shouldn't have done that, what is it that alerts you to the fact that you've done something to regret? Are you accusing yourself? Why not simply stop accusing yourself? Why not hurt the feelings of the people you love willy nilly because you know that you only answer to yourself, and your own moral views are your own creation? Save yourself the guilt and just declare yourself innocent of all charges!

But if you can't, I'd wonder who it is that calls you to account for your failure to abide even your own moral standards.

Ragnar · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2008, 12:20:59 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

"It is perfectly logical to judge Christianity on the shortcomings of its followers, because as you just said, Christianity itself teaches its followers that they have shortcomings and that they are sinners."

As Liz said, on this particular point you can only judge Christianity on this point if Christianity says that it will make people not sinners. Your real objection actually lies elsewhere. I'll get to it below.

My real objection is that one of the premises of Christianity is that all people are sinners. Define sinner any way you like, it's not a premise I agree with.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

"If you drill something into someone long enough they start to believe it themselves, and then when they fail they just say, well, I guess I really am a sinner. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

What if you tell people that they can't fly because they ain't got wings because they're human? If they fail and say well, I guess I can't fly, I'm human after all, is it still a self-fulfilling prophecy? Do you have a method in hand to discern between that which is 'self-fulfilling prophecies' and 'accurate portrayals of reality?' For if in fact people really are 'sinners' and it has nothing to do with it being drilled into them but rather the actual state of affairs, then they ought to be commended with coming to grips with reality. :) Moreover, it is a reality that isn't exactly flattering, is it?

To you use your analogy, the Christian is told he can't fly and accepts it. The atheist investigates this so-called "reality" and invents the airplane

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

"Atheists simply try to be the best person they can be without any preconceived notions."

And here we begin to get to the real heart of your objection. Your basic problem with the 'people are sinners' statement is not that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy but rather that you think it is an abstraction that one can arbitrarily choose to begin from, like some people can decide if they like to begin with the notion that people suck but you could just as easily choose to to think that people are 'neutral.' But this is not really how Christianity presents the matter.

If we shy away from the term 'sinner' for a minute and use the doctrine in question, 'original sin' we find that theologians and Christians throughout the centuries have not generally thought of it as an abstraction, but rather something rooted in reality. GK Chesterton comes to mind. Another example is Barth, who began as a highly liberal theologian (read: original sin is passe) but after the world wars realized that people really were bad. Another example is Reinhold Niebuhr who went so far as to say that 'original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith.'

So, Christians would insist that you don't get to start wherever you like. You have to start with reality as it presents itself to you. If the universe had a beginning and that makes you uncomfortable because it smacks of creation, tough. You don't get to just say "well, maybe it existed before" because you've got no evidence for that. It's just an escape. Similarly, we ask what is the real nature of the human being?

On the empirical evidence, humans are not 'neutral.' Say whatever else you want, but let's not deny reality.

"We believe people are good or bad based on their individual choices and actions, rather than starting from the point that "all people are sinners.""

Hopefully now you see that the Christian faith really starts from reality. Still, I'd like to comment on this. Your comment here presumes that there is such a thing as 'good' and 'bad.' Where did you come to this knowledge? How do you know what is good? How do you know that self-fulfilling prophecies are bad? Your whole abhorrence to Christianity on this point seems to actually admit one of Christianity's central claims: morality is objective. What point is there in talking about 'good or bad' if it isn't? And on what grounds, if it isn't, can you possible declare that 'Christianity is so wrong' for it's views on 'sinners'?

Christianity does not hold that morality is objective at all. Christianity holds that morality comes from a supernatural being. The will of a supernatural being, real or imagined, is not an objective morality. It is a morality based on the whim of a supernatural being. An objective morality is based on reality, not someone else's whim. Objective morality is based on that which sustains one's life, and by extension, happiness. I will admit that this is something of an assumption, but you are free to assume that that which leads to death is moral, and that which sustains life is immoral. If you assume that, however, one would imagine that you wouldn't be alive for very long. If you do live long, then you are something of a hypocrite if you maintain that achieving death is moral.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

I would also challenge you about something else. Given whatever standard that you think is 'good' how do you find yourself faring? I mean, even according to your own standard how are you doing?

Doing okay, thanks. I finally have a decent job, so I should reach my goal of being self-sufficient in about a year. Letting my parents support me does clash with my philosophy, but since I believe it will lead to my long-term happiness I accept it.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

Do you ever do anything that you yourself feel is 'bad'? Have you ever made a promise but then failed to keep it?

No.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

Have you ever said something hurtful and immediately regretted it?

Only when it has negative consequences for myself. I try not to say anything gratuitously hurtful, but I am completely honest whenever possible, even if that honesty may hurt someone else's feelings.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

If so, you are a 'sinner.'

Maybe, but I had a choice. I never said I always make the right choice, just that there is always a choice to make. I was not born a "sinner."

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

Who accuses you if there is no one to accuse you? What I mean is, for example, if you say something hurtful and know you shouldn't have done that, what is it that alerts you to the fact that you've done something to regret?

I only know I have said something hurtful if the person I have hurt tells me so. If I lose my temper because of something someone said or did and I curse at them, I might apologize for cursing because it serves no objective purpose, but I will also explain to them why what they did was wrong.

Quote from: sntjohnny on July 24, 2008, 09:19:03 PM

Are you accusing yourself? Why not simply stop accusing yourself? Why not hurt the feelings of the people you love willy nilly because you know that you only answer to yourself, and your own moral views are your own creation? Save yourself the guilt and just declare yourself innocent of all charges!

This is where objective reality comes in. If you hurt other people it will be a detriment to your long-term happiness, because they will likely hurt you in return.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2008, 05:38:13 PM »

"My real objection is that one of the premises of Christianity is that all people are sinners. Define sinner any way you like, it's not a premise I agree with."

But it isn't a premise, at least not strictly speaking.

Quote

To you use your analogy, the Christian is told he can't fly and accepts it. The atheist investigates this so-called "reality" and invents the airplane

The only problem with this is that the rest of your post undermines this. I am keeping in mind that you were at one time an Objectivist and presuming you still are, so correct me if I'm wrong about that. But going on that assumption, a comment like this undermines your argument:

Quote

I never said I always make the right choice, just that there is always a choice to make.

Christians say exactly the same thing. Why don't you always make the right choice? And why should you feel bad or out of joint if you didn't? And don't tell me you don't care otherwise you wouldn't have included the caveat that you never make the right choice. You clearly wanted to preserve yourself from the accusation that you think yourself perfect. Are you perfect, Ragnar? If not, what is the opposite? 'Corrupted' perhaps?

Let's take some other examples.

"but I am completely honest whenever possible, even if that honesty may hurt someone else's feelings."

Why are you completely honest whenever possible? Who cares? Who made honesty a virtue? It is, of course, but how did you come to know it is a virtue, even if it may be hurtful to someone?

Also, with that statement in mind and the objectivist framework, how can you possibly say, "If you hurt other people it will be a detriment to your long-term happiness, because they will likely hurt you in return."

So why be honest then? Wouldn't it be better to not hurt someone, no matter what the cost, out of fear that they might 'hurt you in return'? So by this statement here we are led to believe that honesty might be a bad idea, especially if it 'hurts someone's feelings', cuz they might hurt you in turn. But you just spoke as though it were good to be honest even to the point of hurting someone's feelings!

You are right that the atheist response to the 'premise' that people can't fly is to 'invent the airplane' but as airplanes still crash and people still get hurt (and die) and people still lie and we agree that lying is not good but honesty is, etc, etc, does such a contraption really escape the problem?

In my mind, saying that 'atheists invented the airplane' in response to the demonstrably evident fact that people are 'bad' is only a patch job. The Christian worldview says that 'people can't fly' too, but don't believe that man-made solutions like 'airplanes' are much good, since people still go splat when they hit the ground. Keeping the analogy, Christians also have a proposal for how people might yet 'fly' (ie, be sinless) but argue that the operation must be performed by God.

I say that just to set the record straight that atheists don't occupy any kind of high ground by 'inventing the airplane' as though Christianity had no answer to the human condition. Christianity does have an answer you just don't like it.

JustLiz · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2008, 11:46:36 AM »

Quote

My real objection is that one of the premises of Christianity is that all people are sinners. Define sinner any way you like, it's not a premise I agree with.

And herein lies the real problem. It would appear that you just take offense to the word "sinner" for whatever reason. "Sinner" is nothing more than the Scriptural way to define someone who doesn't always make the right choice (as you admit to doing.) But, let's be very clear here. You just admitted that you reject "sinner" because it is offensive to you and Christian, not because it may or may not be an accurate reflection of reality. How can you make an informed decision of whether you agree with the premise or not when you don't even care what the premise means? I believe that is called prejudice. So, let's stop hiding this behind any lofty notions of logic or anything thing like that. Your own words betray you.

Copernicus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2008, 01:51:07 PM »

Quote from: JustLiz on July 28, 2008, 11:46:36 AM

Quote
My real objection is that one of the premises of Christianity is that all people are sinners. Define sinner any way you like, it's not a premise I agree with.
And herein lies the real problem. It would appear that you just take offense to the word "sinner" for whatever reason. "Sinner" is nothing more than the Scriptural way to define someone who doesn't always make the right choice (as you admit to doing.) But, let's be very clear here. You just admitted that you reject "sinner" because it is offensive to you and Christian, not because it may or may not be an accurate reflection of reality. How can you make an informed decision of whether you agree with the premise or not when you don't even care what the premise means? I believe that is called prejudice. So, let's stop hiding this behind any lofty notions of logic or anything thing like that. Your own words betray you.

Actually, I believe that Ragnar merely claimed to disagree with the idea that all people are sinners. He did not claim to be offended by it. Myself, I find this aspect of Christianity a bit scary. It can too easily be used to justify hatred and violence towards people on the grounds that they have sinned against God. Some Christians do use the idea to justify the concept of hell--that God is somehow justified in sending people to eternal torment.

JustLiz · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2008, 03:00:34 PM »

I stand corrected and apologize for putting words in Ragnar's mouth. I did assume he was offended when perhaps he wasn't.

It doesn't change the fact that he came right out and said he objects to the premise of Christianity that all people are sinners - and that the definition of sinner is not a factor in his rejection of this premise.

How can he intelligently object to the premise when he doesn't even know what the premise is because he is not concerned with the meaning of key words used in the premise?

His disregard for the importance of the meaning of the word demonstrates that his rejection of the premise is not based upon its merit, but some other criteria. This still demostrates very sloppy logic and prejudice.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

End Bringer · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2008, 03:41:11 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on July 28, 2008, 01:51:07 PM

Actually, I believe that Ragnar merely claimed to disagree with the idea that all people are sinners. He did not claim to be offended by it. Myself, I find this aspect of Christianity a bit scary. It can too easily be used to justify hatred and violence towards people on the grounds that they have sinned against God. Some Christians do use the idea to justify the concept of hell--that God is somehow justified in sending people to eternal torment.

Sure it can. But that's not logically consistent with Christianity as it states that if all people are sinners then the one's doing the condemning fall into the same catagory of condemnation.

Of course your objection is another form of you proving too much, as one can say under atheism one can justify hatred and violence towards people on the grounds that they are merely different or an inconvenience. Worse yet under atheism there is nothing to say hating and causing violence towards people is wrong, while at least Christianity does explicitly state hate and prejudice to be wrong.

Ragnar · « **Reply #12 on:** July 28, 2008, 08:47:14 PM »

Quote from: JustLiz on July 28, 2008, 03:00:34 PM

I stand corrected and apologize for putting words in Ragnar's mouth. I did assume he was offended when perhaps he wasn't.

It doesn't change the fact that he came right out and said he objects to the premise of Christianity that all people are sinners - and that the definition of sinner is not a factor in his rejection of this premise.

How can he intelligently object to the premise when he doesn't even know what the premise is because he is not concerned with the meaning of key words used in the premise?

His disregard for the importance of the meaning of the word demonstrates that his rejection of the premise is not based upon its merit, but some other criteria. This still demostrates very sloppy logic and prejudice.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER

Let me get this out of the way, first. What I was rejecting was not the term itself, but that all people are given this label BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN! The label is unimportant. All people are nothing until they say or do something to warrant a label.

Ragnar · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2008, 09:01:53 PM »

"The only problem with this is that the rest of your post undermines this. I am keeping in mind that you were at one time an Objectivist and presuming you still are..."

I am.

"Christians say exactly the same thing. Why don't you always make the right choice?"

There are many reasons, it depends on the circumstances. It could be I don't have all the information, it could be someone is lying to me, it could be I have been misinformed. I never intentionally make the wrong decision, but decisions must be made, and sometimes the wrong one is made. In science it's known as "trial and error."

""but I am completely honest whenever possible, even if that honesty may hurt someone else's feelings."

Why are you completely honest whenever possible? Who cares? Who made honesty a virtue? It is, of course, but how did you come to know it is a virtue, even if it may be hurtful to someone?"

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Note the phrase "whenever possible." I did not include it by mistake. I hold honesty as a virtue for the same reason I hold anything as a virtue, reality demands it. In the long term, honesty usually gets better results than lying.

<snip> yadda yadda yadda, something about a contraption.

To continue with this tortured framework, at least the atheist contraption works with reality as we know it. The Christian solution is to give up on this life altogether and posit a better one after we crash and burn, so why bother trying to fly at all? No thanks, that's a pretty dim view of life and I want no part of it.

"Christianity does have an answer you just don't like it."

I think that's the first thing you said in this thread that I agree with.

End Bringer · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2008, 10:38:55 PM »

Quote from: Ragnar on July 28, 2008, 08:47:14 PM

Let me get this out of the way, first. What I was rejecting was not the term itself, but that all people are given this label BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN! The label is unimportant. All people are nothing until they say or do something to warrant a label.

Which is the point. They will inherently always do something to warrant such a label.

Quote

To continue with this tortured framework, at least the atheist contraption works with reality as we know it. The Christian solution is to give up on this life altogether and posit a better one after we crash and burn, so why bother trying to fly at all? No thanks, that's a pretty dim view of life and I want no part of it.

I can see this is an arguement from ignorance, as the entire basis of Christianity is that it's grounded in reality. It's a reality that people are inherently sinful/fallen/not-perfect. And that the solution provided for by Christs really did happen. You find this view dim, but one can find your view childishly avoiding the main problem.

Edit: Ayn Rand was an idiot (I just had to say this).

JustLiz · « **Reply #15 on:** July 29, 2008, 08:31:15 AM »

Quote

Let me get this out of the way, first. What I was rejecting was not the term itself, but that all people are given this label BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN! The label is unimportant. All people are nothing until they say or do something to warrant a label.

Thank you for that clarification. So, to ensure that I am understanding your position correctly...you object to the Christian premise that all people are born less than perfect, cannot be perfect and at some point in their life will act out this less than perfection.

Quote

The Christian solution is to give up on this life altogether and posit a better one after we crash and burn, so why bother trying to fly at all? No thanks, that's a pretty dim view of life and I want no part of it.

Wow. I can understand why you would find Christianity absurd if that is what you believe the Christian solution is. That makes Christianity nothing more than an excuse to stick ones sinful head in the sand and wait to die. Yuck. I would want no part of that either.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2008, 04:28:23 PM »

EB-

Ayn Rand wasn't wholly an idiot. I really like her little book "Anthem." Her major failure is the same one as Ragner's here and is illustrated in that book. She insisted on the value of the human being but this value was completely arbitrary. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted to act as though there were objective morals but then deny that there really were any.

So, on to it.

Liz is right in rejecting your characterization, Rag. If she doesn't want any part of it (and I assure you that I don't, either) one wonders who it is that actually holds this position you're denouncing. If Christianity is something else altogether what are you going to do, then?

"I hold honesty as a virtue for the same reason I hold anything as a virtue, reality demands it. In the long term, honesty usually gets better results than lying."

But why should reality demand it? We aren't talking like the law of gravity per your airplane example. (Although it is a perfectly valid question as to wonder where even the laws of nature come from). You cannot defy the laws of gravity. If you put a rocket ship into space you are not defying the laws of gravity or nature. You are manipulating them so as to achieve an aim. But honesty is an abstraction and there is nothing that compels anyone to be honest except their conscience.

Your hemming and hawing about siding with honesty as the circumstances warrant are only weak attempts to evade the obvious point: you believe, like most every other civilized person, that honesty is objectively good and when something other than honesty is employed it requires rationalization. Honesty never requires rationalization. The only thing you can ever say is 'Honesty is the best policy' and it is irreducible beyond that. Your admitting that you try to be honest belies your entire argument. You, like Rand, act as though there is an objective moral code but then deny it with your mouth.

You deny it with your mouth because to accept that there is an objective moral code has implications that make you uncomfortable. Honestly, Ragnar, isn't that the honest truth?

Now, your analysis that you get 'better results' is an attempt to run to pragmatics (presumably on evolutionary grounds) but it again assumes the very thing you're running from. Just what makes something 'better'? This presumes some sort of standard of what would be good or bad, better or worse. If by 'better' you simply mean regarding your own self-survival then your entire objection to original sin can be dismissed as the petty whinings of a self-interested individual. It is only because you think there is something really bad about characterizing people as bad before they've done anything to warrant it, and that you think fair minded people would agree, that you raise the point at all.

But if I were you I would really wonder why it is that I continue to act as though I should be honest and virtuous when, unlike the laws of gravity, I could choose not to be. It would seem by your own presentation to be the case that you believe that honesty should be pursued but even you can't manage to pull it off. You make 'mistakes.' Why not remove any basis for guilt at all and reject honesty as a virtue at all?

Then go all the way and admit that your rejection of original sin rests on purely subjective grounds and as such amounts to a mere difference in tastes. You like your tacos mild. I like them spicy.

"To continue with this tortured framework, at least the atheist contraption works with reality as we know it."

No, it really doesn't. This is the true irony of your Randian roots. Atheism came out of the 1800s filled with bravado about what they would accomplish. Science would be their guide. Because they rejected such silly, ancient notions like 'original sin' they created systems with no checks and balances. Rand came out of that seeing the need for checks and balances, but this is borrowed capital from the Christian world view.

The whole point of claiming the high ground of 'working' with 'reality as we know it' is to have the most accurate account of reality. Tell the truth, Ragnar: you would prefer to live in a society with checks and balances, right? Why? It isn't like people are 'sinners,' right? Would you submit to a state run by atheists utilizing the best science available without checks and balances?

Why or why not?

Ragnar · « **Reply #17 on:** August 16, 2008, 11:22:51 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on August 14, 2008, 04:28:23 PM

Would you submit to a state run by atheists utilizing the best science available without checks and balances?

Why or why not?

As opposed to what, presidents fighting holy wars? What do you mean by "without checks and balances?" The government of the U.S. has checks and balances built in (or had them before the passing of the Patriot Act), so an atheist president would by definition be a state run by an atheist WITH checks and balances.

Ragnar · « **Reply #18 on:** August 16, 2008, 11:32:57 PM »

"But why should reality demand it? We aren't talking like the law of gravity per your airplane example. (Although it is a perfectly valid question as to wonder where even the laws of nature come from). You cannot defy the laws of gravity. If you put a rocket ship into space you are not defying the laws of gravity or nature. You are manipulating them so as to achieve an aim. But honesty is an abstraction and there is nothing that compels anyone to be honest except their conscience."

Not true at all. When I say "reality demands it," I mean exactly that. For example, if you are selling a product and lie about its quality, how many repeat customers do you think you'll get? How long do you think your business will last if you cut corners and are not honest with your customers? Reality does not just mean nature or physical laws. Reality encompasses other people and economics as well. It is simply not possible to succeed in any area of life if you lie consistently. Conscience has nothing to do with it. Name me one career con man or criminal who has not ended up in prison or dead.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2008, 02:22:05 PM »

"As opposed to what, presidents fighting holy wars? What do you mean by "without checks and balances?" The government of the U.S. has checks and balances built in (or had them before the passing of the Patriot Act), so an atheist president would by definition be a state run by an atheist WITH checks and balances."

Ha! Love the attempt to move the divert attention. Let's try it again:

Would you submit to a state run by atheists utilizing the best science available without checks and balances?

Your answer suggests that there would 'by definition' be checks and balances. That wasn't my question. My question is whether your would want a government without any checks and balances at all so long as it was run by an atheist? By checks and balances of course you know exactly what I mean- that anything that the atheist wanted to do could be carried out without question to whatever degree said atheist wanted. Why not? After all, atheists are the only ones in the human race not suffering from a 'god' delusion and they of all people comprehend the value of science and are prepared to employ it consistently. What do you have to be afraid of?

So, simply put, my friend: would you want a government run by atheists with no checks on their behavior and attitudes? Why not? It isn't like they are sinners or anything.

"Not true at all. When I say "reality demands it," I mean exactly that."

Then you mean something completely nonsensical. As in,

"For example, if you are selling a product and lie about its quality, how many repeat customers do you think you'll get?"

But you still could lie. There ain't nothing you can do about gravity, though. You can't wake up in the morning and say "today I will not obey the law of gravity" and thereafter float to the bathroom. You could say "Today I will lie about such and such" and you could do it. So there is something about the nature of reality concerning 'honesty' that is different than other aspects of reality which are unassailable.

"Reality does not just mean nature or physical laws."

I am a Christian. Certainly I do not believe that reality means only nature or physical laws. You are an atheist. You cannot mean by reality more than nature of physical laws and still be an atheist.

"Reality encompasses other people and economics as well."

And people and economics are part of nature and ultimately boil down to physical laws, no?

"It is simply not possible to succeed in any area of life if you lie consistently."

This returns us to the two-fold inconsistency of your argument. On the first hand, you continue to try to offer honesty on merely pragmatic grounds as though it were 'reality' while soft-pedaling the fact that no one, not even you, can be honest 100% of the time. Nevermind the consequences of lying consistently. The question is whether or not you can be honest consistently. It is 'reality' as you say, yet you cannot do it.

On the other hand, by 'succeed in any area of life' you presume some measure of 'success' which is transcendental. You assume that I will agree with you on what 'success' is but on atheistic terms 'success' is purely arbitrary, or at best, construable only in evolutionary terms. And if you go that way you're going to find your argument threatened as there is plenty of evolutionary research on the benefit of lying.

Let's say you saw the man in front of you drop a wad of $100 bills. When the man is gone, you amble over and pick it up. We'll say it was $100,000. You know without a doubt that no one saw the previous man drop the money and you know without a doubt that it cannot be traced. Let us agree for the sake of this scenario that you know without a doubt that there can be no negative consequences to keeping the money. Now someone comes up. This person didn't see the previous man but he did see you pick up the money. He says "Is that your money? If not, you can't keep it."

Only a lie separates you from the $100,000. You are not worried about the guy returning to claim the money (the reasons are irrelevant) and you know that this guy cannot test your statement. Do you lie? If you do, in this case do you think it would be wrong to do so? If you don't lie but rather tell the truth does this not disprove your entire worldview? For you would have no pragmatic reasons to worry about consequences and since there is no absolute right or wrong you would have only your conscience to guide you, and there are no higher powers to answer to, either. So what compels you to be honest except that you know that honesty, somehow, is right?

I predict that you would not keep this money and that you think it would be wrong to do so. Am I wrong?

Author Topic: Is Christianity inherently immoral? (Read 3548 times)