Why follow God and what makes it moral?

That is amazing, lol, I have asked over one hundred christians to site the golden rule in the bible, you are the first to do so. (I have learned to use it as a "trick question") I thought only us atheists knew the bible well enough to find it.
Sorry, but by the golden rule you "do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Since masochists like to receive pain, by the rule, they would have to give pain, which just proves the entire concept is foolish. Oh, the golden rule is more evidence that the bible was highly influenced by Buddhism.
One sentence guidelines for life are usually idiotic.

 

NO IT leads to fear of consequences and seeking ways to get around the rules, laws or morals.

 

Right is whatever your society accepts and promotes via laws, morals and rules. Wrong is whatever your society rejects and issues punishment for.

 

Wrong again, 99.99999999999999 percent of the people that drive, speed, despite "fear of punishment".

 

I understand your point, that the masochist likes to receive pain,yes, but they like to receive this pain on their own decision. In other words, they don't want people to give them pain if they are not in the mood. This is why, that if they followed the golden rule, that they too would not inflict pain on another person that was not in the mood for it AKA against that persons decision.

As far as Jesus being influenced by Buddhism is a possibility that I accept and have no problem with.

 

Yes, consequences make us learn what is good and what is bad. But it's not WHY we do good things. We behave morally good because it feels like the right thing to do, not because we wish to escape punishment.

Depending on circumstance, escaping punishment can give rise to a range of states - from the deepest relief to guilt to even more anxiety - but it doesn't give rise to the feeling of doing the right thing, only of escaping punishment.

Fear suppresses moral judgment. When you fear something then you do the things you need to do to get past the fear. This is diametrically opposed to the situation of wanting to do the right thing. Morality is a way to deal with situations without fear.

And by the way, morality is always personal (I merely point this out because you still make it sound like 'sound moral principles' is some kind of external entity that stands in the middle of the town square ready to dip and roll anyone who goes against it in tar and feathers )

 

Are you really that ignorant? "Atheists are not a group"? What contrived definition are you going to use to explain away that level of stupidity?

 

is post seems to be asking a subjective question and so I will give my personal opinion, which may or may not match with general consensus.

I follow God because I feel a spiritual connection with reality and the universe. I believe God speaks to all of creation through many mediums.

Faith in God and faith in scripture to me are separate issues. Scripture has been altered to accommodate political and social agendas. It is useful as a source for understanding the history of people and their relationship with spirituality, but it is not necessarily verbatim Gods word. Following scriptural guidelines allows followers of any religion to feel a continuity with the past and a personal connection with other members of their religion. As such the defense of scriptural morality is a social cause as much or more than it is a religious one.

Morality is believing an ethic, idea or rule is holy. I, having free will, must try to discern, from what I see, hear and experience, what Gods true message is. It may be tempting to leave everything in the hands of religious leaders and take my own personal responsibility out of it. Personally I feel doing so would be a sin.

 

Thank you for validating my claim regarding a set of beliefs.

 

You avoided the questions here. Why should you, or I, follow God, even if we have a connection etc?

 

The term 'society' is ambiguous: There are many societies each having differing beliefs regarding what is right and what is wrong, subsequently those differing beliefs result in culture wars. Much like what is experienced between Theists and non-Theists. The attribute of 'right' must be universal in order for it to be called 'right'... If any part of that attribute can be shown to be 'wrong' then the attribute cannot retain its title of being 'right'.

 

In my opinion following God and doing what you know is right equate to the same thing.

 

Well thank you for the admission toward 'free will'. So you agree that people exercising their free will can and will violate laws (regardless of source of law [law being both an external and internal force per your example]). On the other hand, please show your statistics that show where and when the minds of "99.99999999999999 percent of the people that drive," have been read and a determination made that clearly showed that their driving actions were conducted despite "fear of punishment".

 

How so? What evidence or reason is this opinion of yours derived from?

 

I feel the same about nationalists.

 

Is all of Christianity wrapped up in the Bible? Is all of Islam wrapped up in the Qur'an. If an alien were to pick up the Bible and read it cover to cover, could he understand modern Christian or Islamic?

Does the fact that someone is long dead mean they were also primitive? It's your characterization to prove, not mine. I can claim it's a mischaracterization until you prove that it's not.

A long dead philosopher on the subject of logic would call that a fallacy.

The premise of your argument is that anyone who does not live in modern times or who does not have a modern degree from a university or does not drive an automobile is "primitive and ignorant" is unsupported, and, utterly ridiculous. Civilizations have existed for thousands of years and much of what is in the major texts is from those who were either within those civilizations or educated within them. It's still a mischaracterization. Judging by your utter contempt for history and knowledge, I'd say they were probably far less ignorant than you.

 

Prospect had it right. Since masochists like to have their boundaries respected (ie. not too much pain, not be killed, etc.) then they would, by following the golden rule, acknowledge the boundaries of others.

What's foolish is your nitpicking about such a simple concept.

It may be true, however, that Jesus - or whoever it was that said the things attributed to him - was highly influenced by Buddhism or Taoism or both.

 

If you view atheism as a group, that is only your subjective viewpoint. There is no unifying relationship between the myriad of atheists in the world, other than the being the antithesis of theists. What, other than theism, is the unifying relationship among all theists? Can I group you into the religious, applying to you the same characteristics of the extremist Muslims? Why do you want to blow up people, and influence children to be suicide bombers?

 

And that is all you do with your rationalizations. Make excuses.

Sane? "having a normal, healthy mind; able to make sound judgments". "reason: an explanation or justification of an act, idea, etc." .. So essentially you are opposed to people using normal thinking while making their judgments, drawing conclusions, etc. Amazing how high-minded you think your own character to be.

Yes... there must be an excuse based reason to justify your actions. I agree with that.

Wrong! Morality is not 'objective'. Morality is subjective. You are in gross error in your perception of morality and the nature of morality.

Gee, that gives them the right then to reciprocate and attack your ideas. How nice. I suppose you will not object then when Christians and other Theists start launching attacks at your 'ideas'.

 

You have not shown ANY objective truth relating to God. Please show that TRUTH and be able and ready to prove your claim.

Now the definition of Atheism shifts once again,.,. Now you give Atheism a whole new meaning. Because Atheism is now "just a thought" (standing alone subjective thing) then there can be no objective reasoning behind the subjective thing. In other words, based on that line of bs logic, Atheism does not exist in the real world.

Why are you projecting your assumptions upon me. I have not presumed anything... It is a stated fact that Atheists acting through Atheism have no set of morals, no set of laws, no set of rules. You see, you are drifting off into the ozone.

 

You are delusional.. no-one has said anything about 'following' anyone.

Original statements were:
quote=BleedingHeadKen]
Why should one "use their own mind" rather than the rantings of long dead people?[/quote]

To which I responded:

My goodness, have you taken your mellaril or thorazine today?

 

No my view is objective. The objective unifying relationship is the name "Atheists".

Belief.

No! Not all religious are of that characteristic.

Now you are projecting.

 

Duplicate post.

 

What excuses? Name one.

But you haven't used normal thinking or any justification in your responses, hence I describe your comments as insane.

That isnt what I said. This is another of your strawman responses - a logical fallacy. To deny that "there must be some rationally based reason why we act in such a way" is to admit you comments are insane.

Yes it is.

Some is some isnt. That which is objective is true.

All you have to do, to show how something is morally correct, is to say why we should act in that manner. This is objective reasoning.

Correct. This is called debate. You have obviously never heard of it, you certainly dont engage in debate, just childish antics.

Not at all. You just have problems with reality because your comments are insane, irrational and illogical, hence you are scared to debate them.

Exactly because God isnt objective let alone truthful - he's an imagines, created concept. Entirely subjective entirely unreal.

Truth about what, exactly? The whole point of this thread is to provide a basis as to why God should be followed and what makes him moral. You cant do this, hence you lose out in your reasons for being religious in the first place.

It isnt subjective though. Its based on objective reasoning - ie the logical observation of the fact Godly tales and stories are all unsubstantiated bs and there is no reason to follow God.

You are incorrect in your comprehension of atheism. Of course by admitting this reality about subjectivity, you have just conceded God "does not exist in the real world."

You have presumed God is real. You have also presumed that, if he is real based on your first presumption, he is good.

Stated fact? WRONG. Atheists follow reaosn and truth, two things theists deny. In this way it is a FACT that atheist CAN follow law and morals etc.

LOL That comment is so dumb it deserves no rebuttal.

You did - you said to follow God, or are you finally coming to terms with his illogical conceptualization within the human mind.

 

Before man invented god, atheists existed. Atheism is far older than religion and it has no courts, lol. The gods that are made up by man are always understandable, they are just humans with powers. Just what the guy that invented them wanted to be like.