A Challenge for Believers in God.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a moral act that could be carried out by a believer (person with faith); that could not be carried out by a non-believer (person without faith in god)

you've already mentioned the most obvious one, faith.

i have a friend at work who's taken voluntary redundancy because her faith that the lord will provide for her is SO strong.

i'm guessing a non-believer would need to find his/her confidence elsewhere?

edit: I have to ask tho.... why do you even care?????

reply to post by Beavers

why do you even care?????

I care about the freedom of atheists as much as i care about the freedom of believers.

What was the point of this post? To highlight that morality isn't restricted to faith; and to help cure prejudice that many people hold regarding lack of belief.

There has been wonderful responses so far, from non-believers AND believers:-

The short answer is that morality is not relative to faith.

All goodness come from grace. This is why stuff like the little girl in the Casey anthony trial was put in a bag and throw out in the garbage.

Evil is the lack of grace... from our perspective.

So In essence, non of us can do a moral act without grace. God has said to saints that graces are NOT off limits to Atheist. Signal graces.. he grants them from their dilligence in life and work ethic, other reasons..

But sanctifying grace is the moral act that they cannot do. It caused saints to go into Ecstasy and created the gifts of the holy ghost like, stigmata, prophecies, ect... strickly received from a real communion.


It's too hard to explain. People on page one, especially deabtes said it in simplistic terms...


peace op

reply to post by bogomil

I'm aware of that, so I suggest that you don't make universal claims on behalf of all mankind in the future. At least not if you don't want to see my answer repeated.

"Suggestion" noted. There is nothing wrong with making universal claims about all of mankind. You just don't like the claim.

Originally posted by JesusisTruthh

All goodness come from grace. This is why stuff like the little girl in the Casey anthony trial was put in a bag and throw out in the garbage.

Evil is the lack of grace... from our perspective.

So In essence, non of us can do a moral act without grace. God has said to saints that graces are NOT off limits to Atheist. Signal graces.. he grants them from their dilligence in life and work ethic, other reasons..

But sanctifying grace is the moral act that they cannot do. It caused saints to go into Ecstasy and created the gifts of the holy ghost like, stigmata, prophecies, ect... strickly received from a real communion.


It's too hard to explain. People on page one, especially deabtes said it in simplistic terms...


peace op

edit on 6-7-2011 by JesusisTruthh because: (no reason given)

Applause for your moderate tones. A few changes in style, to "from our perspectives etc" and it's quite honky-dory, without the confrontational monopoly claims of THE absolutes, which everybody ought to accept.

That doesn't mean, that we are spiritual twins though; there are still the academic aspect, but hopefully without me acting as if I'm pickled in vinegar. And I would like to point out, that the various 'spiritual experiences' religionists claim, are far from being copyrighted to christianity.

Even contact with 'the holy spirit' has its counterparts elsewhere (I have one myself), so turning attention to what religions actually share wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bogomil

 

I'm aware of that, so I suggest that you don't make universal claims on behalf of all mankind in the future. At least not if you don't want to see my answer repeated.

"Suggestion" noted. There is nothing wrong with making universal claims about all of mankind. You just don't like the claim.

For one thing it's invasive in a social context. For another it's a brake on real knowledge-seeking, when it clamps down on 'academic processes'. That should be enough to discredit it.

Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

teaching someone the ten commandments! rather than you bashing my Gods existence, why dont you prove your superiority by spreading the ultimate rules of humanity. you cant do it! do aliens exist? go bash the alien hunters for a while! then maybe some puppies that have offended you?

Teaching someone the ten commandments? Any morality derived from the ten commandments was around long before there existence.

The first three say you have to fear a heavenly dictator, they are amoral. Thou shall not murder, thou shall not kill, and thou shall not steal are all self evident.

The last one lumps women, which the entire bible has a disrespect for, into the same class as a neighbors ox,slave, and donkeys. I would call that immoral.

It is also interesting that after these so called moral instructions were received Moses went about killing 3,000 people, women and children included. The levites actually killed there own family members. Where is the morality in that?

reply to post by bogomil

For one thing it's invasive in a social context.

So is telling people cigarettes are a known carcinogen in a smoke shop, the claim's invasiveness doesn't make it untrue. Invasiveness or lack thereof doesn't determine truth, sorry.

I'm pleased to see you're stepping back form your suggestion not to make universal claims for all mankind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


When we're honest with each other; we will say "it's my belief (in accordance with doctrine) that mankind....."

Because your bible can't be verified as truth; it's a matter of belief, it's unwise to make claims (that are not your own) about all of mankind. (e.g. Mankind is born with sin and needs religious salvation in Christ)

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

It is also an attempt to get flags and stars by pandering to the Atheist crowd here on ATS.

Yes and the op gets a star and flag from me.

I don't know anyone that has said that Christians are more kind or more apt to performing acts of kindness or compassion because they believe in God.

Really? It is a common argument presented by theists that without religion there would be no morality. Christians often say that atheists have no motivation to be a good person or kind to others. They claim morality comes from god and without god you must be immoral. The op raised a very pertinent question.

There are good people and bad people in all groups and in all walks of life.

Yes but only one group of people possesses a logical pathway to commit acts of tremendous immorality. If you believe you have a divine warrant you can justify anything.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


ah ok, sorry!

i thought you were trying to shove your atheism down religious people's throats

Originally posted by Beavers
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

ah ok, sorry!

i thought you were trying to shove you atheism down religious people's throats

Not at all; unlike some; i don't believe prosthelytisation is moral; and atheism isn't a claim to truth; it's a lack of belief; there's nothing to "shove down people's throats" - They either believe or they disbelieve. I'm quite sure people are mature enough to make their own choices and convictions.

Peace.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You wrote:

["So is telling people cigarettes are a known carcinogen in a smoke shop, the claim's invasiveness doesn't make it untrue. Invasiveness or lack thereof doesn't determine truth, sorry."]

No, invasiveness doesn't determine truth. Evidence does, and an often used method by invasive theists, when evidence lacks, is to resort to invasion as plan B.

Quote: [" I'm pleased to see you're stepping back form your suggestion not to make universal claims for all mankind."]

You must know me better, than I do. I'm not aware of, what you talk about.

What about immoral acts? It's not hard to think of examples whereby immoral acts are carried out by someone who thinks they have a "divine" warrant, by someone who thinks they have Holy permission.

I was reminded recently of the death of babies for the sake of religion in a book I am reading.

How about the catholic church stating that condoms cause AIDS and then translating that message to the languages of third world countries.

reply to post by megabytz


3000 years ago. wtf, obama can do that on a good weekend! as far as a list, do you have one better? the op asked what can a non believer not do. i am on topic. and as far as not coveting your nieghbors wife, thats for your own good. what could you possibly find wrong with that one? and the 3 that you say are common sense, cmon, the jails are full. maybe if someone made a big deal about it, then there wouldnt be a full jail house. morals...where should the populace get them?

Originally posted by TylerDurden2U
reply to post by megabytz

 

3000 years ago. wtf, obama can do that on a good weekend! as far as a list, do you have one better? the op asked what can a non believer not do. i am on topic. and as far as not coveting your nieghbors wife, thats for your own good. what could you possibly find wrong with that one? and the 3 that you say are common sense, cmon, the jails are full. maybe if someone made a big deal about it, then there wouldnt be a full jail house. morals...where should the populace get them?

3000 years ago? What does Obama have to do with anything?

Teaching the ten commandments is not a moral act was my point.

Why do you need a list?

I find nothing wrong with the tenth commandment but I find it interesting the context that was used, especially since the bible demonizes women.

The jails are full? Yes they are full of christians and other believers.

They are self evident. That is, we do not need the ten commandments to know these things are wrong. It was not considered moral to murder, steal, or lie before the ten commandments.

reply to post by megabytz


your point is moses killed men women and children 3000 years ago. my answer is for example, obama killed men women and children last month. he has a peace prize. whats the difference. you point out moses, i point to obama. both leaders. why are you not saying something bad about obama. because hes not christian? hes a leader of our people killing the leader of another country and thier people. the op was trying to point out morality does not specifically belong to a religous sect. you are pointing towards ...your angry about religion? (thats kinda a question)

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


I think there's an entirely different forum where you can discuss your concerns about Obama.

This is about religion.

Exodus 20:17 "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's."

What's wrong about being envious? I could be envious of a neighbour's book collection; or his economical house; or his self-sustaining tendancies - There's nothing wrong with that.

So i don't know what your point was Earlier.

reply to post by TylerDurden2U


First off, do you think before you post?

your point is moses killed men women and children 3000 years ago.

No it is not. My point is that teaching the ten commandments would not be a moral act.

you point out moses, i point to obama. both leaders.

Obama is not the law giver of a religion that claims a monopoly on morality.

why are you not saying something bad about obama. because hes not christian?

Again, Obama is not a leader of religion, nor is this thread about comparing the acts of Obama to the acts of Moses. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Obama is not a christian? Or were you asking?

you are pointing towards ...your angry about religion?

Yes I am angry about religion. I would love to see it eradicated. At least in its current form.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Because your bible can't be verified as truth

I disagree completely. It's not that it cannot be verified, the problem is people all have different degrees to which they have their dial of skepticism turned.

That's why there are believers and those who are not.