DiscussMormonism.com

So, CARM came up on the boards and I spend quite a bit of time there now (I'm sure ya'll miss me when I completely make the transition;) and enjoy the conversations about atheists.

This is a snippet from the CARM website that pretty much sum up a lot of the theist views on atheists:

The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self serving.

Yes, I know that evolution is not random -- arrggh.... :)

I do wonder if the benefit of heaven means that all actions from theists are essentially self-serving? So, if an atheist chooses ethics to safely navigate in their culture this is self serving -- well, of course it is! Yet, ethics are not only for the one acting ethically, it's only where this comes into play in a SOCIAL context where ethics are needed -- so, in this sense ethics are not contained in the scope of merely the person acting ethically -- for their actions impact society, and as such must determine ethically how to navigate with OTHERS. Theists may choose these SAME actions, but they have the added benefit of moral codes outlined on top of societal limitations on actions and a big bonzaroo of harps and angels waiting for them if they walk the straight and narrow.

Safe to say we're all self serving?

I changed the title of the thread... didn't want to exclude anyone. :)

We're all self serving, well unless someones a nun or something like that. But I'm guessing that most of those folks at CARM think as little of Catholics as they do of Mormons or atheists.

I read quite a bit on the atheism (need to post more but the threaded view is a bit daunting) and the CARMites treat the atheists like crap. Those atheists are much more even tempered than the "Enlightened" Christian mob.

Well, isn't it amazing that the atheists act less like a mob than the theists? Wonder if that's 'cause there's NO DOGMA that all atheists prescribe to? :)

I read, often, that I'm just a big bad sinner that doesn't give a crap about anything I do or what is going on in the world. Maybe if I read that enough and change my life I'll start living up to the expectations...

I despise the threaded view. Oh, well.

Moniker wrote:Yet, ethics are not only for the one acting ethically, it's only where this comes into play in a SOCIAL context where ethics are needed -- so, in this sense ethics are not contained in the scope of merely the person acting ethically -- for their actions impact society, and as such must determine ethically how to navigate with OTHERS.

I agree that ethics do not make sense if someone is alone. I think the difference between atheists and Christians is that Christians believe that we are never alone. Thus we are always part of a social context even when we are supposedly alone in that our actions in some sense impact Another at the very leas in either pleasing or displeasing God who we owe our existence to and hence owe Him everything.

I could be wrong about what they think though.

Moniker wrote:Well, isn't it amazing that the atheists act less like a mob than the theists? Wonder if that's 'cause there's NO DOGMA that all atheists prescribe to? :)

Yeah, it's like herding cats according to Dawkins.

[joking]I'm not sure anarchists are any more comforting that a mob[/joking] ;)

asbestosman wrote:

Moniker wrote:Well, isn't it amazing that the atheists act less like a mob than the theists? Wonder if that's 'cause there's NO DOGMA that all atheists prescribe to? :)

Yeah, it's like herding cats according to Dawkins.

[joking]I'm not sure anarchists are any more comforting that a mob[/joking] ;)

You smart ass! ;P

Moniker wrote:Well, isn't it amazing that the atheists act less like a mob than the theists? Wonder if that's 'cause there's NO DOGMA that all atheists prescribe to? :)

I read, often, that I'm just a big bad sinner that doesn't give a crap about anything I do or what is going on in the world. Maybe if I read that enough and change my life I'll start living up to the expectations...

The problem is that the Christians don't have anything to offer except a big PROMISE (heaven) they can't for certain come through on.

The moral system is outdated and splits up humanity against itself (homos are bad, anyone who doesn't believe as we do aren't necessarily bad, but they aren't as good as us). Church is boring. The Bible is a hodgepodge of fables with a little common sense (Don't kill and don't steal~~~DUH!) to hold it all together. Tithing is a guilt trip. Yada yada yada.

I despise the threaded view. Oh, well.

True that.

asbestosman wrote:

Moniker wrote:Yet, ethics are not only for the one acting ethically, it's only where this comes into play in a SOCIAL context where ethics are needed -- so, in this sense ethics are not contained in the scope of merely the person acting ethically -- for their actions impact society, and as such must determine ethically how to navigate with OTHERS.

I agree that ethics do not make sense if someone is alone. I think the difference between atheists and Christians is that Christians believe that we are never alone. Thus we are always part of a social context even when we are supposedly alone in that our actions in some sense impact Another at the very leas in either pleasing or displeasing God who we owe our existence to and hence owe Him everything.

I could be wrong about what they think though.

I think that's a good point. :)

So, for a theist, all actions are attempting to please God -- this would appear to be selfless. Yet, it's not if they're doing it for their own salvation.

Well, I think ethics are still in play even when we're alone... I mean, we don't steal if no one is looking and still say we're ethical. Did I miss your point? :)

Moniker wrote:I think that's a good point. :)

So, for a theist, all actions are attempting to please God -- this would appear to be selfless. Yet, it's not if they're doing it for their own salvation.

Well, I think ethics are still in play even when we're alone... I mean, we don't steal if no one is looking and still say we're ethical. Did I miss your point? :)

I think you got it, but just to clarify when I spoke of being alone I meant "the last person on earth" kind of alone. In such cases it makes no sense to talk about stealing because nobody else is there to own anything.

You're right though, morality still applies when nobody is looking. Even when nobody else is around (or looking), one is still a part of society.

Right, 'cause it'd all be mine, mine, mine if I was the last person alive. I'd probably start talking to mannequins...