All atheists have to define morality is subjective opinion.
Says who? Not believing in a God or group of gods in no way implies you have no morals. Many atheists recognise that harming others is emotionally traumatising, as such they do not condone immoral behaviour for the simple fact that it's "not nice". You don't need a god to have morals (and vice versa, I might add).
You missed the point. Without some kind of authority to refer to, there is no right and wrong i.e. there is nothing but opinion to determine what is right and wrong, and opinions vary from person to person. I didn't say atheists have no morals. Everyone has morals, but when there is no authority to refer too, those morals are totally subjective.
I don't see anything wrong with either situation. To each his (or her) own.
That is exactly what I meant - it's "each there own" - there are no ultimate guidelines. That to me is the weakness of atheism which makes me hedge my bets on the existence of a God (faith is faith. I don't know there is a God, I just believe).
There are lots of reasons why orgies etc can be harmful to those involved in it. But, unfortunately, people mostly learn by their own mistakes.
Atheism is not the same thing as Anarchy..
I agree.
The only people I've ever heard say "Atheists have no concept of right or wrong" are specifically non-Atheists. Atheism, itself, does not reject order. The only true definition behind atheism is not believing in a god(s).
I didn't say atheists have no sense of right and wrong. What I said was that atheists have differing ideas about what is right and wrong, and ultimately there is no one to say who is right.
Christianity is divided into two major halves, the "Western" Roman Catholic church and the "Eastern" Orthodox church. Neither is right or wrong, they are merely separate branches of a single belief, just as Mahayana Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism are two schools of one religion (though technically Buddhism is a philosophy). Having said that, one half of the Christian faith, the Orthodox church, has far less focus on "scriptures" than its counterpart. Orthodox priests place very little focus on the bible, for example. Maybe that's why their priests can marry (thereby preventing psychological abnormalities which the Roman Catholic church has accomplished in spades, namely: paedophilia). Having said that, scriptures are only obsessively regarded by ONE HALF of the Christian faith. The other half practise a more productive approach by placing emphasis on spirituality rather than over-analysing words written millennia ago.
I'm not interested in an argument. Asking for respect for your views begins in trying to respect the views of others. The Bible has a lot to teach us about how to treat others, even though it was written so long ago. The works of Shakespeare are no less valuable by the passing of the years.
I'm not a Catholic and don't believe priestly celibacy is either necessary or desirable, but I have Catholic friends and I respect their position on this.
Not if you are practicing protected sex.
There is no such thing. Condoms have a failure rate of approx 15%, which means that 1 in 10 condoms is at risk of breaking. Almost every woman I know who had an abortion (I am involved in pro-life) had one because of failed contraception.
How delightful we live in a world where we can choose to view different acts how we wish.
Freedom of choice is God given.
OK, you've raised two separate issues here. Having responsible sex with whomsoever you choose and having irresponsible sex with whomsoever you choose without concern for STDs or pregnancy are different subjects. I find your point of view surprising since you claim to defend women's rights. I see nothing wrong with a woman who has sex responsibly (i.e., protected) with more than one partner.
Again, there is no such thing as safe sex. Like amalgam, vested interest groups have told people it's safe. Firstly, reasearch had suggested HIV can pass through a condom if it's not been kept in proper conditions, and it has a failure rate. Warnings will most likely appear on condoms in the near future telling people the risks. The chances of a failed condom increase the more times people have sex with a condom. It's called accumulative probability.
But that's because I am a strong defender of liberating women and allowing them to choose their own path in life, rather than chaining them down to an ancient set of rules.
It would only be sexist if one was saying it's okay for men to have sex out of marriage but not women. The BIble says it's wrong for both.
See my response above. You will find your statements regarding safe sex disproved by observing statistics. Besides which, one can always engage in non-copulating sexual acts which 100% prevent pregnancy and STDs (which, aside from naming mutual masturbation, I don’t think I need go into further detail here).
That is what the sex industry would like you to believe. But anal sex, oral sex and mutual masturbation all carry the risk of both pregnancy and std. I've been involved in pro-life for a while. Even though I am not sexually active myself, I've had to learn all this stuff. It's a lie what people are told about safe-sex, as many people have found out to their detriment.
If that's what you believe FOR YOURSELF, fantastic. I'm delighted that you've found a foundation with which to live by, one that satisfies you. Likewise, I encourage others to have their own beliefs (even if that stands in opposition with yours).
I have never said you have to be a Christian. I was merely explaining why I am a Christian and what I believe. You are under no obligation to believe the same. It would be against the free will God gave us to force you to be a Christian or to live by Christian standards.
Look, I don't mean to be offensive -- we are allowed to disagree of course -- but, much like the entire Western half of the Christian faith, I think you're a little too hung up on this notion of sex. I've often wondered where Christianity’s phobic obsession with sex stems from. For example, I don't have a particularly strong point of view on gays. Frankly, I could care less what they do with their lives (it's their life, after all, not mine). Yet it amazes me to no end that so many ALLEGEDLY NON-GAY Christians oppose the homosexual community with fanatic devotion. It makes me wonder if maybe they're not really angry at gays for .. being gay .. but instead fearful that they, themselves, might be gay. Otherwise, why would they care so much!? It's something I've just never understood. And, again, I'm saying that as someone who has virtually no opinion whatsoever on the issue of gay rights and such (a bit of a derailment, I realise).
Sex is an important issue in society today, especially so with increase of std's. The number of abortions are also disturbing.4000 a day in America, 95% as method of birth control. It's not just Christians who are involved in trying to educate people about the myths of safe sex. I know atheists and pagans who are involved in this movement.
Two of my best friends are gay, for what it's worth. That is their choice and I have never condemned them for it. They are free to live how they want.
Really? How many Atheists do you know? Are you friends with any, or do you instead shun them or, at best, merely argue with them? I'm saying that as an honest, matter-of-fact question, not to provoke you or inspire anger. {/quote]
I find this rather offensive. I was hoping for a civilised discussion. Most of my friends and family are atheist, agnostic at best, and there are non-believers who would not accept my gay friends. I've been to gay parties, gay church, gay households. I accept people for who they are. I respect their opinions. That doesn't mean I am not entitled to opinions of my own.
[quote]Again, I must point you to my above remarks regarding Atheism and morals. One needn't worship a deity to have morals. One of the greatest misconceptions of the non-Atheist world (and I'm saying this as something of a non-Atheist myself) is that if you don't believe in God (conveniently the Christian god only for some unexplained reason) then murder, rape, theft, and so on are perfectly OK.
One doesn't have to be a Christian to be a humanitarian.
I do feel that the world has lost it's way, though. There is so much pain and heartache. But all I can do is live my life my way and be there to help those who need help if things go wrong for them.
Hurting others isn't nice. I don't want to be hurt because it's unenjoyable, therefore I have no desire to hurt others because I know how it feels. I don't see why religion necessarily has to enter into that picture. Rabbits don't hurt each other, and they're not even sentient! A lot of animals co-exist peacefully and it's not because of any religious observance.
As I said, one doesn't need to be a Christian to be a humanitarian. But for me, personally, without God there is no one to set the standards. More than that, though, I find the principles of the Bible to be the best to live by, which reinforces my belief in God. I find it the most practical, the most accurate, and the most loving (although I appreciate it doesn't come across that way always by some zealous ones who have forgotten Christ's humility), aswell as the most wonderful imagery of marriage I've ever read. If I looked to the world to see what marriage is like, I'd become a nun, lol, but in the pages of Scripture we see God's vision, and there's some hope in that.
It's not my desire to force my religion on anyone, though. I merely posted my opinions.
And I must again point you towards the history of the single most violent concept known to man: monotheism. Monotheism (with Christianity at its forefront and Islam following as a close second) have been responsible for an infinite amount more violence and bloodshed than Atheism or Evolutionism.
True, a lot of terrible things have been done in the name of Christianity. Those things are against the principles of Christianity, though. A lot of Christians are poor representatives of the faith.
If I depended on Christians for my faith, I'm afraid I would have lost it by now. I can't explain my faith, I wasn't raised into it any more than anyone else in my family, and my life certainly hasn't been easier than anyone elses (possibly harder than some of my friends given the numerous health problems and difficult situations I've been through) but God has always, for some reason, been a presence in my life. I can't describe it more than that. I'm not the world's best theologian and I don't regularly go to church at the moment, but for reasons even unknown to me I have since my teens felt God's presence in my life - even physically felt God a couple of times. I've also been in a room with a poltergeist. Yet there are times when I doubt the supernatural. Human minds are weird.
This makes me wonder how you can think Atheism condones an absence of morals. You name me one violent Atheist who has left his or her mark on history. In return, I'll name for you one thousand violent Christians (or other Monotheists). I'm being completely serious.
Well, one is Hitler <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But I don't think it's right to compare the nazis to atheists, however, as a lot of atheists are humanitarians.
And with that I'm bowing out of the discussion. I feel this is going in the way of an argument and I have neither the strength or the desire for one.
I wish you all the best in the path you choose to follow.
