Sunday, April 09, 2006

Xianity is a contradiction to moral codes.


















In the absense of religion, society would still need some set of guidelines for us all to co-exist peacefully.

Most religions are a contradiction to our society's moral codes. Xianity, in particular, is founded on violence (argument between god and satan, god throws him into a pit and then lets him out to wreak havoc, god wreaks havoc and kills (he especially likes to kill firstborn babies instead of going after who he really has a beef with — like Pharoahs), Jesus comes and preaches that he didn’t come to bring peace, but war (Matthew 5:17 for those who want sources), this god creates himself a son and allows his “son” to be mutilated and ultimately put to death in a most violent way, and in the end, as written in the book of Revelation, there will be a great war between heaven and earth…I could provide many more violent examples but it's all in the Bible, (but most xians skirt around the bad stuff, and take the good stuff. They only want to believe the stuff that suits themselves and what will benefit them...mostly ETERNAL LIFE because they are afraid to die.)

Xianity is a religion based on violence and often used to justify violence. This god was violent BEFORE humans were supposedly created. This god of Xian mythology kills, mutilates, tortures, teases, tests, wants animal sacrifices, wants people to sacrifice their children, he wants people to disown their families for him. Every moral code we hold dear in our society is violated by this god.


Addition: Governments and the people of a society construct laws using COMMON SENSE and take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of that particular society which will ensure the health, happiness and liberty overall for each individual as well as the society as a whole.


20 comments:

Mikayla Starstuff said...

A God of war, for a society that glorifies war . . .
But harsh maybe, but I'm feeling a bit cynical at the moment.

Steve said...

True, people would be much better off without having their morality warped by religions, like Christianity.

Jason H. Bowden said...

What is this moral code that Christianity is in contradiction with? I'd like to learn more about it.

What precisely is "common sense?" Religion seems to be pretty common. Does it qualify?

What does this moral code tell us to do when the interests of the many conflict with the interests of the few?

What do we do with people who do not care about health? Or happiness? Or liberty? (They are separate questions -- one may care about liberty to be unhealthy, for example.)

Lastly, wasn't the American government founded with violence? There is a distinction between founding a system with violence and justifying it with violence, and it isn't clear modern Christians justify their religion with violence, or anything beyond testimony, faith, and religious experiences for that matter.

Stardust said...

Jason, who's side are you on? Aren't you supposed to be an atheist? This post is in response to an ongoing and heated debate on another blog about those xians who make up their own moral codes from their religion and then try to impose it on the rest of us. There are laws of the land that are constructed according to our constitution and these are the guidelines I am talking about and this is what the post is about. These people want to tell you and me how to live and what is proper according to their own religious guidelines. They are the ones claiming that their bible is a great book or moral guidelines, when in fact it is quite contradictory. They claim that they are a religion of peace and it is far from that. It is indeed a complex issue, but you sound as if you just want to let the xians run things and do things their way.

Stardust said...

These people want to tell you and me how to live and what is proper according to their own religious guidelines.

I should add, they want to disregard the laws of the land or change them, and that cannot be allowed.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Jason:
There is a distinction between founding a system with violence and justifying it with violence, and it isn't clear modern Christians justify their religion with violence, or anything beyond testimony, faith, and religious experiences for that matter.
That may be so, but I attribute that to
A. The 1st amendment, and
B. xtianity is getting more & more diluted with time.
I for one can only hope that religion becomes a slight flavoring in the stew, rather than a main ingredient. Till it vanishes altogether.
Although not in our lifetime, probably -sigh-
There is a distinction between founding a system with violence and justifying it with violence
It's still happening today. Cloaked in the guise of national identity.

Stardust said...

Lastly, wasn't the American government founded with violence? There is a distinction between founding a system with violence and justifying it with violence, and it isn't clear modern Christians justify their religion with violence, or anything beyond testimony, faith, and religious experiences for that matter.

Religious people have been in charge of the governments and hence things are done according to their thinking which has been influenced by their religious upbringing ...a reflection of violence in most cultures that worship a warlike god. Christians may no longer be burning people at the stake (thank goodness for laws against it) but they rally for war and retaliation instead of peaceful measures...I am mainly talking about Islamic and Christianity governments. Islam unfortunately remains deep in the dark ages of head chopping and bondage of women.

Stardust said...

I for one can only hope that religion becomes a slight flavoring in the stew, rather than a main ingredient.

ra - Ramen!

JustinOther said...

This country may have been founded using violence, but this was to ensure religious freedom. In other word, the right of all citizens to worship whatever they like, be it God, Baal, Allah, Zeus or Thor.

The problem is when the Christian right, which is actually a minority group, attempts to influence government policy to reflect their extremist views (gay rights, abortion, etc.).

Why should this minority, or even any majority, have the right to impose their religious views on anyone? Feel free to proselytize, just don't legislate.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Hey, this is thoughts for the openminded.

I didn't argue the Christian viewpoint; I'm merely exploring what the secular moral code, if it exists, is supposed to be.

Autism is not a moral code; any conception of ethics is going to involve forcing other people to do things they don't want to do. That Christians want to force held beliefs on others doesn't invalidate such held beliefs, for I also want to force several of my held beliefs on others through the law, and using the military. What is important is how the force is justified.

If a Christian makes an argument leading to the conclusion that the government should initiate force against thieves and frauds, the argument isn't invalidated because the person happens to be of the Christian faith. If abortion is murder, then a person has ground for arguing against it, regardless if they are Hindi, Jewish, Christian, or atheist. If creationism isn't science, then it does not belong in science classes -- and even Christians can make this case.

If you want to discuss matters with sophisticated Christians, you can go to the Philosophy of Religion forum at ephilosopher.com. 'ljtsg' argues the Christian viewpoint extremely well, along with 'Aquinas'. If we're going to get in discussions with Christians, why not do so with the best Christians we can find?

Stardust said...

Jason, I don't seek out discussions with xians...they find me and they come to troll on atheist blogs.

Tommykey said...

Jason, our Constitutional government was not founded in violence, though the 13 Colonies that formed the United States did have to wage a war for independence.

The Constitution was not created out of violence. It was the product of the leading men of the Colonies meeting in secret over a period of time. Yes, there were arguments that probably got very heated at times, but it did not turn violent.

Stardust said...

Hey, this is thoughts for the openminded.

And I take into consideration what everyone writes here. I should have put a friendly winky ;) after writing Jason, who's side are you on? Aren't you supposed to be an atheist? Sometimes you sound so much like a christian I think you may be one. ;)

The other blog where this debate is going on is another atheist blog. Xians seek us out and like to hang out with us because we are so interesting. ;)

What precisely is "common sense?" Religion seems to be pretty common. Does it qualify?

Ok, maybe common sense isn't the right terminology. It would probably be better to say our government and the people of our land construct laws which take into consideration what will be best for the peaceful function of our particular society which will ensure the health, happiness and liberty and to protect the rights of each individual according to the laws of the land.

As roya broke down into a list of how to define "good and bad" at GifS

"This is the simplest answer I could come up with.
Good acts: doing good to others, eg. charity.
Bad acts: doing harm to others, eg. killing.
Neutral ones: neither good nor bad, eg. what you wear."

She goes on to say:

"sex before marriage, gay sex or marriage and the like, do not harm others, so they cannot be seen as harmful and therefore not bad."

"Death of 6 million or even one person is act of inflicting harm to others, therefore it’s wrong/bad/immoral."

"The biggest problem that I see religion is creation, is that you need to be told what is good and bad from someone that does not even live amoung us. Morality did not exist before humans. It is a man-made instrument designed in order to allow for co-existance of human beings in communities."

"If god and religion are taken aside, there are no moral wrong doings in acts that do not involve harming others. Putting it simply, all the personal choises, such as, wearing short skirts, or being gay, can not be seen in anyway as wrong, but only as personal and private life matter, that is no ones business. What religion does is to decide for you on what you can do or not, even on the most personal matters imaginable, when it does not involve anyone else.

Religion is and has always been against liberty."

Jason H. Bowden said...

Stardust --

You argue that morality is a construct, a set of rules we make up in a purely instrumental sense. Christianity is in contradiction to this, but not in the way one might imagine. A Christian might argue that we have been given fundamental inalienable rights by our creator that, ceteris paribus, it would unjust to violate. This contradicts the constructivist viewpoint, not because the Christian viewpoint has a flawed standard (this particular one is flawed), but because the constructivist viewpoint is without a standard. Who is to stop a Hitler or a Pol Pot from constructing their own morality? The normative character of ethical judgments is left out -- by adopting a constructivist view, we're not even in a position to critique Christianity.

Secondly, examine roya's ethics of pleasure and harm. Can it be ethical to harm someone to increase the pleasure, health, and happiness of others? For example, can it be moral to torture terrorists in an effort to obtain information that may stop a nuke from destroying a city? If so, then inflicting harm would not be bad, but good in this case.

Moreover, out intuitions tell us that a neutral act can be bad. Suppose I know a murder is going to happen, but I do nothing about it. I'm not directly harming someone, but my failure to act doesn't change the chain of events that lead to another person's harm.

In addition, there can be immoral acts that do not involve the harm of others. For example, property destruction, theft, fraud, cheating on exams, et cetera.

Lastly, personal choices that don't harm others can be immoral. Suppose everyone in society agreed to erase our cultural heritage and destroy everything in our Museums to start fresh for the worker's revolution. Wouldn't our lives and our traditions become impovershed by such behavior, even if everyone was completely happy about it?

So your challenge is to take these intuitional fragments and assemble them into principles, a moral code as the thread initially presupposed. Otherwise any critique of Christianity ethically will remain unprincipled and essentially ad hoc.

JustinOther said...

That Christians want to force held beliefs on others doesn't invalidate such held beliefs, for I also want to force several of my held beliefs on others through the law, and using the military. What is important is how the force is justified.

Agreed...However, there are quite a few things that the Christian right (a minority of the population, by the way) wants to enforce that are against the opinion of the majority. For example, most Americans believe that abortion should be an option, if only in limited circumstances. The Christian right wants it forbidden outright. Another esxample is stem cell research. Same thing applies. The majority of Americans approve of it, but the Christian right says no way.


The point is that a small group should not have the ability to push their values on the majority who disapprove of them.

I, too, hold certain values that I would like to see followed by my fellow citizens, but if the majority disagree, I can understand that. I still want the right, however, to live by my morals as long as it does no harm to others.

I don't think there is one strict moral code for all people, as situations vary widely and at different times across the globe. But I do think there are a set of norms (some of which are set out in the bible) from which we can base our decisions, to use as a guide of sorts.

Stardust said...

Fundamentalist christians on the other hand want to make up which morals to use based totally on their bible and force on everyone. There is much in the bible that this god does that is absolutely immoral and what christians choose to ignore. They think they have the monopoly on morals. The reason I wrote this is because the argument at the other atheist blog xians were saying that atheists have no basis for their morals, and some said that atheists have no morals at all...morals come from gawd.

Stardust said...

Jason, You have put forth many counter questions. How do humans decide on what is moral? How do you decide what is moral?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Jason:
A Christian might argue that we have been given fundamental inalienable rights by our creator that, ceteris paribus, it would unjust to violate.
Am I sensing some allegory here?
Secondly, examine roya's ethics of pleasure and harm. Can it be ethical to harm someone to increase the pleasure, health, and happiness of others? For example, can it be moral to torture terrorists in an effort to obtain information that may stop a nuke from destroying a city? If so, then inflicting harm would not be bad, but good in this case.
This is where the 'Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.
But you'd best be DEAD certain you have the right guy. Otherwise, you turn the wrong guy into the right guy.
Moreover, out intuitions tell us that a neutral act can be bad. Suppose I know a murder is going to happen, but I do nothing about it. I'm not directly harming someone, but my failure to act doesn't change the chain of events that lead to another person's harm.
For which you go to jail. Inaction in itself is a form of action.
In addition, there can be immoral acts that do not involve the harm of others. For example, property destruction, theft, fraud, cheating on exams, et cetera.
Okay, now you're blowing smoke. Each of those actions DO harm someone, indirectly or otherwise. Property destruction has to be repaired & taken out of someone's pocket, theft is a form of harm (identity theft especially), fraud makes insurance rates shoot up (not to mention new laws to prevent it, which makes life far harder for the rest of us), cheating on exams directly impacts the grade curve.
Come up w/better examples.
Lastly, personal choices that don't harm others can be immoral. Suppose everyone in society agreed to erase our cultural heritage and destroy everything in our Museums to start fresh for the worker's revolution. Wouldn't our lives and our traditions become impovershed by such behavior, even if everyone was completely happy about it?
Man oh man. More smoke, sorry. Guessing you're drawing on Mao's cultural revolution. Wiping out a culture's heritage IS harming someone.
Santiago's oft-repeated aphorism springs to mind.

Here, I'll give you the moral code:
Ahimsa.
Do no harm.
Words to live by.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Ra --

Due to time constraints, I can't make a thorough reply until this weekend. So I'll simply point out that "do no harm" will not work as a moral code for anyone who is not a member of an ascetic religion.

We like to think it is moral or at least permissible to do harm in a variety of cases. For example, self-defense. Secondly, law enforcement. Third, just war. Fourth, harming others in sports like boxing or American football. Fifth, harming yourself by drinking too much at party.

So we're still left without any principles. Myself, I'm not sure we need principles to be ethical, though those that do should read people like Mill and Kant and go from there.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Jason:
Those are better examples.
However:
For example, self-defense.
Hey, 'do no harm' doesn't mean baring one's throat to the knife.
Secondly, law enforcement.
Because others don't practice it.
Third, just war.
Do you mean just war, or a just war?
Fourth, harming others in sports like boxing or American football.
Well, there's a tacit agreement someone's going to get hurt. If no 1's going to get in the ring, or on the field, they can't just go out & start wailing on bystanders, can they? Matusack & Tyson notwithstanding.
Fifth, harming yourself by drinking too much at party.
I meant others. What you do to yourself is your own business.

I think you're confusing 'ahimsa' w/complete passivist pacifism.