Why follow God and what makes it moral?

Wrong, incorrect, no, and of course not. We have ONE fact, exactly ONE fact that supports existence of PILATE and that is a stone from a gym in Israel, that has a date and his name.
We have NO fact that supports the existence of the biblical Jesus. What we have on Jesus is supposition, tales written by unknown authors, stories, and guesswork--there is NOT ONE REAL FACT to support the existence of Jesus and that is FACT. It is NOT "secular history" or guesswork by writers, It is fact, there is no REAL evidence to support the existence of Jesus. Not one known eyewitness account, NOTHING, at best, everything said the be known about Jesus is second, third, fourth hand or imaginary, no one knows. And before you go ranting about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, lol, The fact about the books of the NT is that they were written by UNKNOWN authors and only ATTRIBUTED to the names given in the NT by the Church, the authors of the NT are for the most part, UNKNOWN, with the only possible, exception being the Book of Revelation, which was written by a man called john of Patmos. Who has no valid relationship with even the biblical Jesus.

 

The single unifying attribute of nearly all theists is fear! Fear of death, fear of the unknown, fear of punishment for their actions, Fear FEar FEAr FEAR!!!!

 

You are so far off base as to be playing soccer instead of baseball. There is no organization called atheism with rules. Atheism is the name of ONE concept - nothing more. But anyone holding to that one concept also has MILLIONS of other concepts they hold to, that are not a subset of ATHEISM. I am an Atheist, I have morals, I have beliefs. Only one of my beliefs is withing atheism and that is that no god or gods exist. None of my morals are related to atheism in any way, they are the result of my entire life experience. Just like YOUR morals are the result of your life existence, so are the morals of all others. Many people talk the "moral values of JESUS" and they go out and have affairs with women other than their wife, they rob, they gamble, they treat others badly, all things that are NOT what Jesus considered moral. That does NOT mean those people do not have moral values, it means they have their OWN moral values as all do, unless you are a total psychopath. YOU keep trying to lump all atheists together in a cohesive group, and it is NOT possible. No two atheists have exactly the same beliefs, morals, or even political leanings. Each atheist is an individual with only ONE thing needed to be considered an atheist, the lack of a belief in any god or gods.
I am not sure what kind of idiotic point you are attempting to make, since it comes out so childish and full of opinionated bigotry and ignorance. What is apparent is that for some reason you dislike atheists and keep trying to lump them together so you can "PIN" something on them. I think you need to address your fear and hatred of atheists by looking withing and find out what it is about yourself that makes you fear them. One possible answer to that, and it is quite common, I have seen it many times. You fear that atheists may be right, and if they are right, all your religious concepts are wrong, so you have to attack and attack and insult and rant, to prove to yourself that atheists are indeed wrong. Just to let you know, it will not work, for very few atheist will give a hoot one way or the other what you think or do not think. Don't worry, since atheistic belief is correct, you do not have to fear hell, since there is no hell, and you do not even have to fear not going to heaven for there is no heaven to go to. You will die, just like everyone else and then you will be in exactly the same state you were, before you were born, non-existent.

 

As to your first remark, it makes no difference what Christianity or Islam was like a thousand years ago, that is dead and gone. Religions are, what they are, today and nothing more or less.

I am sorry, but yes, the long dead civilizations were primitive and ignorant compared to today's civilization, you can fuss if you want you can say anything you please, ,but the fact remains, that compared to a modern child they were quite ignorant about the world around them. Oh and man existed for thousands and thousands of years without writing, without fire without the wheel, , and he was also ignorant.
Long dead philosophers did NOT have the KNOWLEDGE we have today, they did NOT have the facts we have today they did not have the education we have today, so anything they may have said is without inherent value, except for knowing what long dead people thought, believed and how they lived. From Plato to Kant, the philosophers did NOT make any more sense than I do, in fact for me they made far less, for they did not anywhere near as much as I do about the human mind, and the universe. If a person needs an ancient philosopher to teach them about the world, humans and human interaction they are in bad shape.

But, back to the religion, the bible and Qur'an are meaningless. What they say or do not say does not affect me at all. What affects me are people, idiotic, ignorant, stupid modern savages that want to make the world over in their foolish beliefs. The bible has great historical value for learning how ancient people lived, what they believed, how they interacted. As far as being a moral provider for today, it is less than worthless, as is evidenced by the newspapers every day. The myths and superstitions of the past should have NO part in the present.

 

Sorry, but "free will" is a non-existent religious concept, just like god. Humans and animals have a will, the ability to make choices and they make those choices. The concept "FREE WILL" means some god-given right, and since no god or gods exist to give anyone anything, then there is no such thing as
free will".

 

Nope, right and wrong are totally location, time, place and society oriented. What is right or wrong at one time is not always right or wrong in anther time, etc.

 

Nope! 'right and wrong' are subjective, and have no dependence upon location, time or place.

 

That is not in the least true. It is a trait that is frequent amongst believers, but it is by no means universal.

 

There are certain universally preferred behaviors amongst humans. Identifying those leads to the derivation of an objective set of ethics. However, I will agree that supernatural beings have nothing to do with it, even if they were to exist.

 

Are you an American or are you an Atheist? Obviously, by your logic, you cannot be both or either. To be either; you must accept the fact that you are part of a group of people. To be both; you must accept the fact that you are a member of both groups (one group living in and among another group).

It is obvious from your language above that you classify yourself as an Atheist. Surely you don't classify yourself as a Theist. In fact your classification as an Atheist sets you apart from that classification known as Theists. Oh! I'm sorry... did I mention this?:

The systematic way in which this grouping or classification was made is based upon name of the group/class. The MMOH lawsuit was a 'class action' lawsuit. So you see, even the founder of the American Atheists recognized that atheists are a 'group' or class of people. You really do not to get a grip on the reality of language.

BTW: Look at this "What is apparent is that for some reason you dislike atheists and keep trying to lump them together so you can "PIN" something on them."

now look at this "What is apparent is that for some reason you dislike Theists and keep trying to lump them altogether so you and "PIN" something on them."

Gee, it was not hard to turn that one around.

 

Well, I have heard a lot of variations on the meaning of 'free will'. Is the one that you list, the meaning that you are assigning to the term?

Since you admit further that humans and animals have a will and exercise that will; Did they pay anything to obtain that will? No? Then it must be 'FREE'. What you or they do with that will, might end up costing you or them something, but the acquisition of that will was free-gratis.

 

Gee... such emotionalism. Looks like mrconservative might have hit a sore spot or a raw nerve on you. LOL.

I do like your line of thought on that one. It reminds me of the story (fairy tale) about a fellow that was allegedly called Socrates. Of course the first mention of that imaginary fellow was from two other fellows by the names of Plato and Aristotle. Somehow, those two fellows A&P (sounds like a chain of food stores), managed to cause a bunch of others to believe their story of that closet creature called Socrates and that gave them a boost in the other fanciful imaginations that they were marketing. They (A&P) must have had one heck of a sales pitch going on... perhaps buy 1 get 2 free. Anyway... it is shameful that two such prominent business men (A&P) could not prove that their imaginary friend Socrates ever was a real man. So in essence, all the little gadgets that were sold by A&P were accomplished by the proliferation of a lie.

 

Why we do good things is for our benefit and/or others. This benefit is it's own reward. So why we do good things is reward based.

This sounds like the master/slave analogy used earlier (external) but it isn't that simple when the master/slave scenario is within yourself.(internal) You say that fear suppresses moral judgment but that all depends on what the fear is. i.e The fear of hurting someone. The fear of hurting yourself. Fear of consequences is kinder than consequences without warning. Fear leads to knowing morality in the first place.

I had to say 'sound moral principles' so that they accommodate the Golden rule as best possible. When I personalized it, you threw the abortion clinic killer at me .. (lol)

 

Well we agree that right and wrong are totally subjective. However, that subjectivity depends on many things. Time, location and society are but three of them. What was RIGHT to a Roman Citizen in Rome of the year 5, was not right to a Hebrew in Judea in the same year. Nor is what the roman thought of as Right, correct to modern Americans. For a Society, the definitions of right and wrong change from time to time, place to place and according to the society. The Christian, Jewish and Islamic societies in today's Israel, certainly do NOT all agree on what is right and what is wrong.

When you start breaking down "right and wrong" on an individual leval, then it becomes much more personal experience oriented. However, since the time, location and society in which one lives, is a HUGE part of personal experience, then, these three things always play a part. Each person decides what is right, for themselves. What they decide will always be based on where, when and in what society they live in--even if they choose to go totally against their society, that society IS what they rebel against, so is part and parcel of their subjective decision.

 

We do not agree, I have yet to meet a Christian or Muslim that does not fear, eternity in some hell. I have yet to meet anyone of any religion, including Buddhism that does not seek the religious and spiritual meaning of life, to allay their fear of death, of nuclear weapons, of disease, of hell, or something else.
OH, and I have never seen a single Christian that daily prays to god to allow him to go to hell, and save one or more that was previously destined for hell.
Seems to me, that if love and mercy was what Christianity was about, every Christian would be praying for god to save the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, even if it meant they would have to go to hell, in place of the saved ones. But--it will not happen, they fear hell to much to take a chance that god might save, 50 young women and send them to hell in the girls place.

 

These "universal behaviors" are simply the things that allow large groups of humans to live and work together to create a society, nothing more. Don't kill the guy holding the other end of the saw, Don't take your neighbors food, etc. Even the seemingly foolish Mosaic laws had similar purpose, to allow the Hebrews to work together, to protect them from unknown causes of misery (in the case of the food laws) and on and on. And, as any biblical scholar knows, the laws of the OT were for HEBREWS only. It was fine to cheat, steal and kill non-Hebrews, as the bible shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over--Jericho is just one instance.

 

Yes, I am an atheist. Yes I am an American, and no, I am not a theist.
Lets see if we can make this simple enough for even you.
Americans share MANY MANY things, Location, language, Culture, and on and on and on and on and on(I realize that there are a few that may be slightly different in some things, but I am speaking in general terms)
Theist share MANY MANY MANY things, a belief in some god, a book of rules, leaders that study the book and tell them what to do, a belief that their RELIGION is the one and only correct one, and on and on and on and on
Atheists, share two basic things, they are Human, and they do not accept the existence of any god or gods. Oh, and most more than likely believe that they are right, that is a pretty common characteristic of all humans.
Notice any differences>
Atheists have basically ONE thing in common, other than common human traits.
Theists and Americans have a great many things in common, hmm, sounds like a huge difference to me.

It's kinda like saying, Fords, Chevys and ball point pens are all the same since they all have something that rolls!! But, sorry, atheists and ball point pens do NOT fit in the same grouping with theists and autos.

 

Judgement, or exercising ones will is NOT free. Ever decision animal makes has consequences, costs. Sometimes good, sometimes not. You decide to go bear hunting and the bear eats you, then your decision that you took was quite expensive.

Will=judgement=decision, and they all have costs. Nothing is free. Or as the sci-fi nuts say, TANSTAAFL = There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

Great story and very apropos, since Jesus, like A, P and S is only known by anecdotal evidence. There is no real evidence to support the existence of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, or Jesus. All we have are at best stories about them by unknown characters, repeated and repeated until they become accepted as real. For all we know a guy named John, wrote the "works of Plato". However. there is one huge difference, no one claims A, P and S are gods, lol. Human beings living 2 or 3 thousand years ago, could not be expected to leave any evidence of their particular existence, the same cannot be said for gods, or at least not be said, with any believability.

 

Another fundamental difference here is that A, P, and S all wrote under their own names. We can not say the writers of their works don't exist, as the works are here and they came from somewhere. The most that can be said is that someone wrote them under a pseudonym, but the writer of their works most certainly existed.
Jesus left not a single written word from his hand.

 

Then according to that kind of 'expectation', we could justify taking all printed material starting at a your determined 2 or 3 thousand year mark, and destroy all that material because all that material surpasses our expectations of people from that era.

Regarding the issue of those others from the past that were not referred to as gods. Oh well. I guess Jesus made a greater impression on the populace. Such a large impression that he was thought of as a 'God', even the Son of God. Are you by any chance showing a tinge of jealousy? Jealous of the fact that A, P and S were not considered as 'gods'. But they were considered as 'gods'; even Jesus said so.

 

What a blatant lie or at the minimum a blatant expression of ignorance. It is already well determined that "S" never wrote anything that he was alleged to have said.

 

My bad. Not sure why the anger in your correction, but you are absolutely right.
My point only eliminates two thirds of your argument.
Tomteapack eliminates the other in that those that speak of him do not try to ascribe supenatural traits to him.

 

You still don't get it, Incorporeal (or don't want to get it). It doesn't matter if Plato, Socrates or Aristoteles existed, - the works that are attributed to them stand on their own. For example, Plato did not have to exist for the politics he wrote about to have merits. It has no importance for the causation models attributed to Aristoteles if Aristoteles existed or not. As Tometeapack said, a guy named John could have written them and they'd still be exactly what they are now that a guy named Aristotele is said to have written it.

The works written about Jesus, however, are more or less all premised upon the existence of Jesus. The religious ramifications of the crucifiction of Jesus stands or falls with the existence of Jesus.

 

Well said.