Agnostic.com

5 1

I recently came to this forum considering myself to be an atheist. But, thanks to all of you who responded to my post, I now consider myself to be a free thinking agnostic-atheist.
I've been pondering about something I'd like to share. I believe there are such things as universal truths that are self-evident, with respect to our human existence. I define a universal truth as a belief that 100% of human population would accept as a universal, applicable everywhere by every one. For example, all new-born babies should be provided for, and protected.
However, there are exception to universal truths, if the exceptions are made for a higher purpose. For example, the killing others is always wrong (a universal truth): however, killing someone to save the lives of others isn't wrong. Another example, lying is always wrong (a universal truth): however, a German, in WW II, who lied to protect Jews, wasn't doing anything wrong.
But, now to my main point. It seems to me that Christianity co-ops universal truths, they profess them and then say their divine, and associate them with a personal God.Just look at a few of the Ten Commandments: don't steal, don't kill, don't covet, et cetera. By doing this, they grab at a so-called spiritual authority, that they're not entitled to do.They do this in order to brainwash their adherents.Brain-washed with universal truths do not come from any God.
Another example, Jesus said in effect: "Woe to the person who causes harms a child." So Jesus then becomes falsely associated with a universal truth that no child should be intentionally injured.
Thus,the Bible is filled with universal truths that atheists are entitled to accept and promote, just as much as Christians. I can agree with something in the Bible if it's an independent statement of a universal truth.
Is this babbling nonsense? If so, I apologize in advance.

Tomm 5 Nov 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Personally, I donโ€™t like the term universal truth because it is used by the religious as a god-given but it appears that you are talking about morals rather than truth. Something is true or it is false and the truth of something should be provable by the scientific method. Morals on the other hand are right because they benefit people or wrong because they harm people. Society has set standards from an evolution of progressive thinking that brings the most benefits to the greatest number of people. Over the last year, it seems that both truth and morality are up for grabs but hopefully that gets back on track.

gearl Level 8 Nov 23, 2017

Now if we could just get the politicians to think the same way. Ah...wishful thinking. ๐Ÿ™‚

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post. I'm new to the world of atheism and I wish that all those I have an interchange with are as thoughtful as you seem to be. I hope we cross paths in future discussions.

0

Itโ€™s certainly babbling. For truths Iโ€™d refer you to our inalienable Rights.

Thank you for responding to my post and your right my thinking was babbling. But, my question is: Should I, or anyone, post something that may be babbling nonsense, or just keep our mouths for fear of saying something stupid? If I refrained from posting something that is probably babbling nonsense, I would be a coward. Which would be worse for me to see myself as a coward, or to have others think of me as just an idiot? I'm not saying that you inferred that I'm an idiot, I don't, but you've made me self-question my motivations.

I think of myself as a writer. On Facebook I write essays (keeping attention spans and how much I post in mind for length) and sometimes become aware that I babbled. It happens while proving ourselves to be geniusโ€™s. Because youโ€™re intelligent we will either get your basic train of thought or you will edit it upon realizing the need. Never fail to write and post, however.

2

Two men Oliver and Shaver,wrote, in the 1960s and 1970s about an approach to moral decision-making with which I agree. The moral decision we have to make are seldom between absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Rather, they between relative goods or lesser evils. The question is what should be the basis for making choices between comparative or competing goods, and bad and worse choices. Their answer, with which I agree, is the concept of minimal violation of human dignity -- that which does the least damage to the quality of life of human beings. I would recommend that approach.

Well said. A philosophy to live by. ๐Ÿ™‚

Thank you for your most excellent reply to my post, I don't see how any thoughtful person could disagree with your analysis. It reminds me of something Martin Luther King Jr. said in one of his books: "Whatever uplifts society is good; whatever detracts from society is bad." He was pointing out how wrong segregation is, because it diminishes society. Thanks again.

More detail: The men were Donald Oliver and James Shaver who (along with Fred Neumann) created the Harvard Social Studies Education Project. It focused on values decision-making in social issues. They called their approach the "jurisprudential approach." I am sure that you can find information on it on Google.

2

No its a sound argument.

The Golden Rule is well established by all sorts of cultures.The Ancient Greeks understood it as did Confucious and Bhudda. Christians learnt it from Judaism.So I don't believe Christians can claim it as there own exclusive deal. Of course they would say their version is the best but in this day and age we are free to think what we want.

Than you for your thoughtful response to my post. I think that we're pretty much in agreement. Christian shouldn't claim, for example, that the Golden Rule belongs to them. However, isn't the Golden Rule "Do unto others as others do unto you" most often associated with Jesus? If so, to me, Christianity is co-oping a universal truth to enhance their so-called credibility? I don't know, you seem to understand this more than I do.

It does seem Jesus is very much associated with the Golden Rule. I would say that he definitley taught this ideal, but he certainly was not even the original creator of it. Jesus would have learnt this from possibly two sources
Firstly from Ancient Greek philosophy ,which pretty much inventedthe idea 500 years before he was born.He probably spoke Greek (as well as his native Aramaic)since that was widlet spoken amongst the well educated,of which he undoubtedly was(contrary to popular belief) Or he may have also learnt it from some spiritual Jewish teachings of the time,pretty much like the modern teachings of the Kabbalah.No one will know for sure but there is little doubt he was teaching something pretty revolutionary for his time in Judea and Israel.So he maybe he was just just repeating what he had learnt from some inspirational teacher, but he was obviously a very charasmatic and influential teacher in his own right
The irony is that as a he was a Jew, so he would not have had any idea about what a Christian was, since that phrase was not used until well after his death. Jesus was a Jew ,lived as a Jew and died as a Jew. Christianity was invented after he died ,think on that.

.

1

do you really think xians are the only idiots on the planet . NO we are surrounded. All I ask is, you out there , don't repeat their mistakes

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:4927
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.