Atheists: How do you reconcile your views with your lifestyle choices?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

Did you forget to respond to the verse which talks about beating your serfs, or whatever you want to call them? As long as the didn't die after one or two days, you were ok. BTW, which is it, one or two days? Next, I suppose that being the property of some is ok? That's what these people were, property. That would be ok today, in your opinion?

EDIT: Now I see that you're saying that this isn't god's law, but man's. So I assume that Moses wasn't being directed by god at this moment? How do you know he was ever directed by a god?
edit on 28-11-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
reply to post by Lionhearte
 

Did you forget to respond to the verse which talks about beating your serfs, or whatever you want to call them? As long as the didn't die after one or two days, you were ok. BTW, which is it, one or two days? Next, I suppose that being the property of some is ok? That's what these people were, property. That would be ok today, in your opinion?
Actually, I did overlook it.

First off, whenever it speaks of a 'rod', it's for punishment, just as with children; as opposed to a sword, or any such destroying weapon, which would imply it was for the intent of murdering them.

As for the punishing of the masters, it was said to deter them from using severity and cruelty towards their servants. The reason it says a day or two (that is, from the time he was punished to the time of his continuance), is because it can be presumed that they died from some other cause.


Now I see that you're saying that this isn't god's law, but man's. So I assume that Moses wasn't being directed by god at this moment? How do you know he was ever directed by a god?

No, I never said that. I said Slavery was not a God-ordained system.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
First off, whenever it speaks of a 'rod', it's for punishment, just as with children; as opposed to a sword, or any such destroying weapon, which would imply it was for the intent of murdering them.
Why would a serf need someone to punish them with a rod? Or is it because he's a slave, and he is property? Rod, whip, it's all the same. These people were beaten.


Originally posted by Lionhearte
As for the punishing of the masters, it was said to deter them from using severity and cruelty towards their servants. The reason it says a day or two (that is, from the time he was punished to the time of his continuance), is because it can be presumed that they died from some other cause.
Yes, just to make sure it wasn't the beating that did it....
You are here trying to defend these acts....



Originally posted by Lionhearte
No, I never said that. I said Slavery was not a God-ordained system.

Semantics?

Was it god-ordained when Moses led the Israelites into other lands to kill everyone, including children and babies, but keep the virgins for themselves?
edit on 28-11-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
Why would a serf need someone to punish them with a rod? Or is it because he's a slave, and he is property?
Would a child be considered a slave, if you punished them? No. And, although they were slaves, the definition of that word has changed, because they weren't like what was practiced in recent centuries, and it certainly wasn't similar to a white man whipping a black slave because he didn't plow the fields fast enough.

If you're so intent on trying to prove the Bible 'allegedly' condones the act of buying a person who has no more value than a piece of land, and is forced to clean your homes/plow your fields and live off of 2 crumbs of bread and a spoonful of water a day for 80 years, and that it gives you free reign to whip them whenever you feel like it, you're going to be wrong.


Yes, just to make sure it wasn't the beating that did it....

All penal laws should be construed as favorably as possible to the accused.



Semantics?

Was it god-ordained when Moses led the Israelites into other lands to kill everyone, including children and babies, but keep the virgins for themselves?

No, you're misunderstanding. [bSlavery was not a God-ordained system. It was the invention of fallen men. It is permitted, just as lying, stealing, murdering, etc are allowed. Again, in most cases, the "slaves" were people who sold themselves because they could not afford any other option. They were well compensated. Hint; in today's world, these are called servants. That's why the wording has changed, because when you think slave, you think of the early history of America.

As for the story in Numbers, the Midianites (from Moab) were involved in seducing Israel into going after false gods. Because the Israelites fell into idolatry this way, God told Moses to order the deaths of all who had bowed to the false gods in that land. (Num 25:1-5)

It was later, when Moses met the returning Israeli army, he was angry because he saw the Midianite survivors.

The Midianite women were directly culpable in Israel’s sin at Baal of Peor. All the women except the virgins were then sentenced to death along with all the boys. This insured the extermination of the Midianites and thus prevented them from ever again seducing Israel to sin. The virgins were spared because they obviously had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
Would a child be considered a slave, if you punished them? No.
A child is part of my family. A child can have all the benefits I can have. I didn't buy my child. My child didn't sell himself/herself to me. I would die for my child. Now, show me where god told them not to have slaves.


Originally posted by Lionhearte
If you're so intent on trying to prove the Bible 'allegedly' condones the act of buying a person who has no more value than a piece of land, and is forced to clean your homes/plow your fields and live off of 2 crumbs of bread and a spoonful of water a day for 80 years, and that it gives you free reign to whip them whenever you feel like it, you're going to be wrong.
Show me where african american slaves had to live like that. If that were the case, they wouldn't have had the energy to work.


Originally posted by Lionhearte
No, you're misunderstanding. [bSlavery was not a God-ordained system. It was the invention of fallen men. It is permitted, just as lying, stealing, murdering, etc are allowed.
God told them not to steal, lie, murder, etc. Show me where he told them to quit having slaves.



Originally posted by Lionhearte
Again, in most cases, the "slaves" were people who sold themselves because they could not afford any other option. They were well compensated. Hint; in today's world, these are called servants. That's why the wording has changed, because when you think slave, you think of the early history of America.
Note: In most cases. Yes, it happened, but not in all cases.


Originally posted by Lionhearte
All the women except the virgins were then sentenced to death along with all the boys. The virgins were spared because they obviously had no role in the Baal of Peor incident nor could they by themselves perpetuate the Midianite peoples.
Somehow you forgot to mention the baby boys being slaughtered. Did the baby boys have a role in the Baal of Peor incident? How would baby boys perpetuate Midianite peoples when they would now be raised by Hebrew people?

EDIT: So basically, here's the point I'm trying to make. It doesn't matter how these people came to be slaves, servants, or whatever you'd like to call them. They were property. IMO, it is IMMORAL to own someone else as your property. Now, if you think it is ok and moral to own someone else as your property, then we have to agree to disagree. There are other ways to help people out than to make them your personal property.

Now, show me where this god says to stop owning people as your property, the same way he said to not steal, murder, lie, etc. It may be in there and I just don't know where it is. If it is, I'd like to see it. Again, owning someone else as your property, no matter how it came to be, is IMMORAL, IMO.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Interesting note about the 'evidence' causes you to chnage when the Christian faith requires just that 'faith'.

I predict you'll chnage many times in your lifetime.

However, your moral code came form somethign that gave you one. And you wonder why the world is the way it is when billions of people grow up wihtout one because God doesn't exist so I'll make my own rules. Their children, or maybe their childrens children will swing back the other way at the hypocracy and low standards they were raised in and will seek something that has stability.

It's a funny old world aye!
edit on 29-11-2011 by daggyz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I think Snowspirit is right. It's your society, your peers, your parents, your upbringing, and your community that determines what is moral and what isn't.

Take for example, Antedullivan slavery in the southern USA in the 1800's. There is nothing in the Christian bible which says slavery is wrong. If you lived in that society, you might even accept slavery as a fact. Slaves are property, and unless they do as they are told, then the 'morality of masters' says they -should- be beaten. You might come to observe that slavery is an artificial and imposed condition, and that slaves are human too,

However, it's interesting that in Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn helped his freed slave friend escape even though it went against the moral code of his community, as well as what he was taught in church. When 'N*gger Jim' escaped, the preacher reminded the congregation that as a slave, he was property, and to let him escape was 'theft'. Huckleberry thought about it. Then he thought about what 'N*gger Jim' told him. He told Huckleberry that he was the best friend that he ever had, and that he loved him, and trusted him. Huckleberry decided to help his friend Jim escape, even if it meant 'committing theft', turning his back on God and going to hell.

Morality is a philosophical problem for many Atheists, though not really a behavioural one. Atheists believe they are capable of making their own moral decisions without the 'carrot and the stick' of divine reward or punishment. I think the question of morality among Atheists is generally described as the 'Existential dilemma.' If there are no Gods, and we have free will, then essentially every human is like a small, mortal God free to choose their own path, but in a universe devoid of meaning.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I dont classify myself as an atheist but I do not follow any religion either
imo if your actions hurt others or yourself then it is wrong
also stay away from deception, greed and indifference
and that to me is being moral, not need to bring religion and society into this



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
It seems like there are two levels to morals. There is the level that seems to come from inside (from childhood I suppose), and then there is the level that seems to come from outside (from trying to follow a group). And there are many groups a person might try to follow besides religious groups. So a person who isn't part of a religious group still has plenty of other groups with morals plus his inner morals.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Logic, reason, understanding, empathy.

There is no "Atheist" answer to morality. Lacking a believe in a deity doesn't decide where your morals come from, it just means that they don't come from a deity. The above is my personal answer.

tvtropes.org...

I usually follow a similar idea to the Safe, Sane and Consensual plan.

First, a person must consent if anything negative would happen to them(don't have to consent to surprise presents or whatever, though annoyance is a negative if you do it bad.)

A person must be able to consent(Knowledgeable about the consequences, mentally able to register them and decide properly.

Generally, if all affected parties can consent to what they are doing, and do so, it's moral. Parties not affected at all, don't need to consent(Such as a gay couple not needing Westboros consent for them to be together).

However, that's morality. Dumb actions is a whole other can of worms. Such as risking addictions to heavy drugs or consenting to that damage to your body. Pointlessly risking STDs by being excessively promiscuous. Ect. Just because something can be done within the frames of morality, doesn't necessarily stop it from being a bad action.

~
Social Conditioning is really strong though. Grow up always told that sex is immoral when both sides consent but one side is doing it for cash, and you'll have a hard time shaking that feeling. Same with premarital sex or open relations. Same with eating Pork, or Shellfish, Getting Divorces, ect.

This is why a generally draw a line between sin and morality. Despite some overlaps, a sins a sin and an immoral action is an immoral action. There are no sins in my believe, so I only go by morality. A religious person should go by their beliefs in sin, but should not cease to care about morality either.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The universe naturally tends toward order over chaos, and I believe humans are the same way. We prefer order over chaos. What is considered order depends somewhat on our culture, society, community, etc.

For example, in a larger society, fornication with multiple sex partners is bad, because sexual diseases are rampant, and children are born everywhere with no nuclear family to take care of them. This is chaos, so it is frowned upon. Other societies may be ok with multiple sex partners as long as the man takes these partners as his wives, so there is a nuclear family unit. Or, in very small societies (certain African tribes), multiple sex partners may be ok because sexual diseases aren't as prevalent, and all children are taken care of by the whole community. As long as there is perceived order, all is well.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I'm an atheist, always been one. And I dont see the difference between athiest morals and christian morals.. Everyone has their own morals and theyre all different, not grouped in religions.
But that put aside.. I think we're born without morals, you can't change them or choose them, you acquire them by living life and learning from situations. So just listen to your heart and it will tell you what you really think.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Another point is this, IMO, it is immoral to require the killing of innocent creatures in order to appease you for someone else's wrong doing. I don't need a god to tell me that that is wrong. IMO, it IS wrong. Anyone who asks you to spill the blood of innocent creatures whether human or other animals, as this god did, for the sacrificial attonement of wrong doings, IS wrong. Whoever did the crime should do the time, not some innocent creature who had NOTHING to do with it.

This is like one of my children telling a lie. I know which child it was, but instead, I spank a different child in a whole different family for my child's wrong doing. Even if that other child says, "Hey, spank me instead of him," it is still wrong. My child won't learn from his mistake if I'm punishing someone else who had nothing to do with it.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Herman
 


most pronounced atheists leave religion with anger because of guilt for homosexual behavior, and that hamburgers come from cows, only eat vegetables because thats what their ancesters did as monkeys evolving from pond water and single cell comet virus dust..and stuff. feel free to fact check this. i have provided a link.He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.

He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.[1][2] By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution.[3][4] In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.[5][6]

Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science.[7] His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle established him as an eminent geologist whose observations and theories supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author.[8]

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection.[9] Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for extensive research and his geological work had priority.[10] He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories.[11] Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature.[3] In 1871, he examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[12]

In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence as a scientist, he was honoured by a major ceremonial funeral in Westminster Abbey, where he was buried close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[13] Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.[14][15]



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Duckling
 

an atheist cant obey the 10 commandments, so they have to be different.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


if a child was raised on the street stealing to survive, and cant read or write, then the morals coming from inside would be different than your morals. gods 10 commandments established 1 set of morals for everyone.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   


I was born and raised Christian


Is that enough to be Christian ?

Or you should be atheist to show that you are not brain washed ?



, but when I was around 19 I finally admitted that I didn't believe that anymore


There it is. This is because you didn't know what Jesus was really saying. You have just gave up soon. Of course giving up is the easiest thing to do.



I've always defined myself as a very objective, logical thinker. I'm generally very reasonable


Then I have a question : What is going to happen when you die ?



when finding evidence that contradicts what I believe


So where are those contradictions ? Is that in the truth of the religion - or you judged Christ by the Christians ?



Nobody seems to have any problems with drugs, prostitutes, or really anything at all.


That is what is good for atheists , some help here :


*بِسمِ اللّهِ الرَّحمنِ الرَّحیمِ* لا أُقْسِمُ بِیَوْمِ الْقِیامَةِ (1)
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MERCIFUL, THE COMPASSIONATE*NO! I SWEAR BY RESURRECTION DAY.
وَ لا أُقْسِمُ بِالنَّفْسِ اللَّوّامَةِ (2)
AND NO! I SWEAR BY THE SELF-REPROACHING SOUL. (THAT THE RESURRECTION IS TRUE AND A FACT)
أَ یَحْسَبُ الإِنْسانُ أَلَّنْ نَجْمَعَ عِظامَهُ (3)
DOES MAN THINK THAT WE WILL NOT GATHER HIS BONES TOGETHER?
بَلى قادِرِینَ عَلى أَنْ نُسَوِّیَ بَنانَهُ (4)
SURE WE CAN!WE ARE ABLE TO PUT IN ORDER EVEN (THE LINES OF THE TIP OF) HIS FINGERS.
بَلْ یُرِیدُ الإِنْسانُ لِیَفْجُرَ أَمامَهُ (5)
MAN RATHER WANTS (TO BE FREE) AND COMMIT SIN THROUGHOUT HIS LIFETIME.


 


Being a believer in a religion is just the hardest thing to do. In religions people should :

1. Control themselves about what they do every moment. (Controlling their slut and anger)
2. Fight an invisible enemy trying to tempt us. (Satan)
3. Try to discover the truth and remember their discoveries.

So , Atheists choose not to control themselves and there will be no enemy for them. It will be an easy living , but dying will not be easy.

Regards.

( the creator is much kind and merciful than anyone can imagine , he sees my sins every moment but he just gives me time to ask his forgiving )

Praise be upon him.

These are not my words.
edit on 29/11/11 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by demented
 


I couldn't have said it better. Morals and such have nothing to do with one's religion- they are mainly formed as children, when we have parents as our example. The "golden rule" is truly the one rule, that if we all were to follow it, the world would be a much better place.

I have nothing against whatever religion you choose to practice. However, it has been my experience in life, that the louder they spout their religion, the faster I run- in the opposite direction. Too many use religion to justify their actions, when they do wrong to each other. I personally have had more bad experiences with those spouting christianity loudly to all around them. I've been ripped off, attacked and even raped in the name of christianity- is it any wonder I'm no longer religious? A true christian,muslim,(or whatever religion they profess to practice) or a deeply spiritual person would never conceive of doing such to another person. Of course, this just "my" personal opinion, nothing more, and my own experiences.

Have a great day!
SK



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Herman
 


as far as I know, my morality comes from multiple sources:
partly, it's wired in the brain
party, it's been socialized, as are mores and values

the last thing one needs to develop a sound moral position is organized religion



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by Duckling
 

an atheist cant obey the 10 commandments, so they have to be different.
Say what? Many christians can't obey the 10 commandments. What's you're point?





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join