Hi - I haven't read much of the Bible, but aren't there some claimed basic moral precepts there about:

• the love of money not being a good thing.

• Loving thy neighbor as thyself
  and some social and political related points:

• not stealing

• honoring mother and father

and: so-on.

So the point of this thread is not just whether the Bible presents some sort of contradictory tale, or even whether it presents ideas that people do not live up to, but whether those ideas are actually good ideas at all. But if we are to judge those ideas, then with reference to what? How do we know if something is a moral good or bad thing?

I didn't phrase things that well in starting this thread, but I see at least a decent number of atheists appear to accept some of the same moral principles as nominally extolled in the Bible as good principles, but I don't see much evidence of any sort of explicit basis for doing that other than that it makes sense to them and others. Ok, but these are some of the most important considerations we will ever engage in, whether with ourselves or other members of the community. Many of us make a big deal at some point in our lives out of our rejection of the belief in God, and if many of us see that the belief in God is not made on a sound basis (even though we run into a lot of theists for whom it "just makes sense" ). I'm just a bit flumoxed that I don't see more atheists do somewhat the same with re-examining and questioning ideas for defining the good, in moral philosophy, and considering whether they are of a sound basis.

For the most part when I listen to Christian preaching, it is not just about believing; it is also about the moral point of the lesson. I may agree or disagree when I listen, as to whether the thinking is sound, but the interweaving of moral lessons brings home that it is such a big part of the point of the Christian teachings. In my view, the drumbeat of "why don't you believe in this?" that we get for some of our lives is not just about whether we believe in the supernatural entity, but whether we buy into the moral lessons. So, I'm suggesting that we think about and discuss a bit more, as to the moral points or questions that are sometimes raised. The easy part, to me, and ultimately not as important as all that, is rejecting the belief in supernatural entities. The harder part, in my view, and arguably the more important part, is figuring out and finding meaning and value in life, independent of old mythology and rule-sets that go sometimes un-questioned.

@kmaz surely you don't think those basic dos-and-don'ts originated with the Bible? If morality didn't pre-date Christianity, our species probably would have become extinct long before developing the ability to speak or write. Morality is a survival tool borne of compassion.

@Deb57

I'm saying that many atheists seem to think the Bible did a decent job of enumerating do's and don'ts. I don't know why they think this, and since they do not believe in the mythology of the Bible, then if they are pressed, they must think that the validity of that particular enumeration of do's and don'ts is more solidly grounded in objective reality than others might think. I personally don't see much logic in some of the morality of the Bible, though I suspect -

• humans have a real need for explicit moral principles by which to live.
• such principles are discoverable.

One side-note:

Many Christians seem to justify belief in God (& the Bible) not by an appeal to reality or reason, but by saying in effect: "You have to believe in God, because that's the way to be happy. Further, the way is prescribed by God in the various teachings explicit and implicit in the Bible". This may not be a terribly logical thing (that one is asked to believe a proposition is true, not because it is true but because by believing it, one will be happy), but it's an argument that seems to me to be prevalent. It's also an argument that I think works with some folks, and it underscores the need for humans to have some set of principles by which to live, and a need (in some ways) to have some community agreement as to what those principles are.

@Beachslim7 I have no idea and the only information I am privy too is just capitalist propaganda. Believe what you will.

@Beachslim7 Your opinion is noted and I rest my case.

If I see one of those fish symbols on an advertisement for a business, I immediately knock them off my list of places to spend my money!

Right

I thought this was a decent point, and it made me somewhat rethink my own, or how I have put things. I did and do realize that folks here see the supernatural mythology of the Christian Bible for the nonsense that it is. Over the years, and in this thread, the majority of folks seem to be fine with the basic moral principles to be found explicitly or implicitly in the Christian Bible. Why is that? Do they think that it's because good basis/justification is given in the Bible (beyond the "God says so" stuff)? Or perhaps (as is somewhat more in-line with your post) they simply think there is good justification in reality, never mind the Bible? Or perhaps they've never really thought about it, or when pressed would be found to have a mixture of thinking?

I am not convinced that all the moral principles that many people in our culture accept as sound are in fact sound. So I guess it leads me to question "Where are they getting this stuff?" If they claim to be getting it from experience, reasoning and sound thinking, then I think that is at least a basis for discussion, but in creating this thread the initial thought I had in mind is that I think many atheists, (as rightly proud as they may be to have exercised first-hand thinking and rejected the bs nonsense god hypotheses in cosmology and metaphysics) .... I question how many atheists have put as much first-handed clean-sheet-of-paper thought into the sort of usual-suspect principles we hear called moral principles and whether they agree or disagree.

More thanks than I can say for posting Hitch’s statement. This is the first time I’ve heard all of it.

Best 20 minutes of my day! Thanks for sharing!!!

[edited]
Hi I also liked this statement, for what it was, but I marked it with the thought-provoking icon rather than the thumbs-up icon.

at 12:10, we have: "....How can this church say it has any moral superiority? It has difficulty catching up to what ordinary people regard as common moral and ethical sense....."

So, my point here is that in this particular speech Hitchens did not get into questioning more deeply (beyond writing them off to common sense of ordinary people) the basis of moral and ethical concepts for those outside the church. He may have looked into that elsewhere, I don't know.

As to whether he was questioning the Church's basis for its claimed moral and ethical concepts, I suppose it could be said that it is implicit that he at least calls it into question.

@kmaz Perhaps you missed it, but he acknowledged there is no such thing as "objective morality", as in a morality that would be imposed by a universe creating god. All morality is therefore subjective (having NO objective basis). However he went on from there to point out that child abuse particularly the child sexual abuse committed by religion "the church" is morally reprehensible even by any relativistic human moral standard he can think of. Therefore, it is absurd to think the church (or religion in general) has a moral and ethical basis provided by God unless that God is a real creep.

There is a lot of interpretation and paraphrasing in my paragraph. You'll have to re-watch if you want to know what it was exactly that he said.

My one complaint about HItchens is that he had an extensive vocabulary, and he used it. IMHO it would have done all of us a favor by using a $0.25 word instead of a $5.00 when he had the option. But if he did that, he wouldn't have been Hitchens.

If you are looking for an objective moral standard for those "outside" the church, you've definitely come to the wrong place. The closest I think we would come is called "moral reciprocity".

Hello @Normanbites

• I heard nothing along the lines of Hitchens indicating that he does not think there is an objective morality. If you wish to claim this is what Hitchens said, please identify it in the video or elsewhere. He even praised one of the opposition panelists for having condemned moral relativism.

• Whether or not Hitchens said something does not make it so. The argument from authority is of no more value in atheist discussions than in theist ones.

• For the most part we see people here indicating they have a handle on telling right from wrong. This is at least an implicit claim that they think there are such things as objective principles in this area.

@kmaz I don't care to spend my time rectifying your inability to listen to the tape. Hitchens spends much of his time revealing the errors and crimes of the church in the name of something they call a creator in a sense of moral superiority. That's enough to imply an "objective morality" to me especially at 13:00.

The only moral authority that I have heard Hitchens or any other atheist claim is that of the ethic of reciprocity, which is relativistic by it's nature.. As Hitchens points out, religion and in particular the church has woefully failed even that standard.

@Normanbites

Yes, the points at 13:00 are good to listen to. There is his criticism of the church's claim on a truth we don't have along with criticizing the church's claim on a warrant to tell other people what to do. There's quite a bit of difference between this claim and the claim that there is no ojective moral truth to be found anywhere, which is the very different concept you are improperly putting in Hitchens mouth.

@kmaz Please define this objective moral truth, I've never heard of such a thing. By all means, proceed... and please don't forget to tell us where the objectivity comes from ... I'll wait ....

Do we overuse the h-word: hypocrisy?

Hello @Beowulfsfriend

To say that the issue is "hypocrisy" implies that the morality espoused by Christians is (or may be) good, but that it isn't followed. I think it's worth asking whether the espoused moral principles are, in reality, good ones.

There’s a similar joke about lawyers’ ethics, Has anyone found any?

SCOTUS needs an ethics code. The Ginnie and Clarence Thomas matter may motivate people to demand one.

I’ve seen some commentary saying FDR’s threat to enlarge SCOTUS resulted in “justices” rejecting fewer of the agencies he created.

@yvilletom I have heard that sharks and snakes don't attack lawyers out of professional courtesy. And that 50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean is called "a good start", but I can't recall much else.