Stargazer Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 One of my favorite atheists is Pat Condell. He is generally seen reviling against Islam, but some of his videos go off into other subjects, such as religion. Naturally, he doesn't have a high opinion of religion, in general. But in this video he responds to the charge that atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't hew to scripture. I thought this was worthy of being analyzed here. Does Condell have a point? Or not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4 Trying to embed this, and it won't embed...
Kenngo1969 Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 While many Christians treat the Bible as a whole, and while many of them ignore the fact that it is internally inconsistent, not all of them do. Condell, however, treats the Bible as a whole and proceeds on the assumption that most all Theists/Christians ignore its internal inconsistencies because if Condell were to do otherwise, it would make it more difficult for him to use the Bible as a club with which to beat Theists/Christians over the head.
Stone holm Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 Good article, and good argument except for one flaw...he refers to our conscience...we believe either the light of Christ or the Holy Ghost drives that and the Gnostics would have said we have been saying the same thing all along. 1
The Nehor Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 Saying you can be moral without religion is true. The Light of Christ takes care of that. Saying you can be moral without God is false. The Light of Christ comes from God. Some few acknowledge it but most are like infants who have no idea where their nourishment is coming from so they assume it is just there. They are nourished just the same.I doubt we will ever win this argument until the Messiah returns in glory and takes credit for it so I probably would not bother. 3
thesometimesaint Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 One small disagreement. Whether it is your own conscience or Light of Christ(religion) it still comes from someone else.
Coreyb Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 He thinks all Christians are the dense headed ones he uses as his caricature. The sad part is there are a lot of us like that
Rob Osborn Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 One of my favorite atheists is Pat Condell. He is generally seen reviling against Islam, but some of his videos go off into other subjects, such as religion. Naturally, he doesn't have a high opinion of religion, in general. But in this video he responds to the charge that atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't hew to scripture. I thought this was worthy of being analyzed here. Does Condell have a point? Or not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4 Trying to embed this, and it won't embed...OH HAPPY DAY... Thats about all i got out of that video.Typical atheist who thinks organized religion has some evil influence and control over us. He uses the bible against believers to say in reality "it's false and you actually just get the truth from your own self so quit allowing religion to have dominion over you". Typical atheist ranting. Yes, there are some things in the bible that are not right, perhaps through mans misinterpretation or outright mistakes, but we believe it to be a historical record of man's dealings with God. I would like to see how he would use this same argument with the Book of Mormon.
Stone holm Posted December 19, 2013 Posted December 19, 2013 OH HAPPY DAY... Thats about all i got out of that video.Typical atheist who thinks organized religion has some evil influence and control over us. He uses the bible against believers to say in reality "it's false and you actually just get the truth from your own self so quit allowing religion to have dominion over you". Typical atheist ranting. Yes, there are some things in the bible that are not right, perhaps through mans misinterpretation or outright mistakes, but we believe it to be a historical record of man's dealings with God. I would like to see how he would use this same argument with the Book of Mormon.Didn't sound like a rant to me, he just got confused as to the source of the conscience is all.
Tiki Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) Meh. Atheists define themselves based on others beliefs.If no one believed in God, they would cease to exist. Edited December 20, 2013 by Tiki
Stone holm Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Meh. Atheists define themselves based on others beliefs.If no one believed in God, they would cease to exist.Oh that is profound,if no one believed in Christ, Christians would cease to exist as well.
changed Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Mere Christianity is one of my fave discussions on "moral law", or the light of Christhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere1.htmlThe question of why we feel the urge to do good and be good cannot be ansered with mere survival or herd instincts.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 One of my favorite atheists is Pat Condell. He is generally seen reviling against Islam, but some of his videos go off into other subjects, such as religion. Naturally, he doesn't have a high opinion of religion, in general. But in this video he responds to the charge that atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't hew to scripture. I thought this was worthy of being analyzed here. Does Condell have a point? Or not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4 Trying to embed this, and it won't embed...Condell is a yokel who is unable to read the Bible critically, as one should do with any literature. Apparently completely unaware that the Bible is a pastiche of ancient writings assembled into an anthology containing diverse narratives, poetry, song, epistles, wisdom, theologies, legislation, etc., he misleads us in his puerile anti-Bible diatribe as to what the Bible is and why it is structured and redacted as it is. One does not have to be a Bible-believer or religious to give the Bible as literature a fair hearing or analysis, but Condell is so filled with venom that he is incapable of that. Some scholars note that the Bible includes the bestial side of human behavior since that is the honest thing to do. There is no sense or honor in making heroes look perfect (the Bible portrays them warts and all), despite the goodness they may exhibit. God is depicted in the Bible as dealing with very fallible humankind. That is the honest thing to do, I think. As the late Lord Bertrand Russell (an atheist) himself observed, morality for an atheist has no fundamental base, but can be anything at all, including self-seeking bestiality -- as for men like Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung. 1
Tiki Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Oh that is profound,if no one believed in Christ, Christians would cease to exist as well.Christians don't define themselves based on others beliefs.You missed the profundity.
mfbukowski Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 One of my favorite atheists is Pat Condell. He is generally seen reviling against Islam, but some of his videos go off into other subjects, such as religion. Naturally, he doesn't have a high opinion of religion, in general. But in this video he responds to the charge that atheists don't have a moral compass because they don't hew to scripture. I thought this was worthy of being analyzed here. Does Condell have a point? Or not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC-9uJrotC4 Trying to embed this, and it won't embed...I can't stand this guy's attitude and voice and frowning face, but dang that is a perfect argument and I could not agree with him more.
mfbukowski Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) As the late Lord Bertrand Russell (an atheist) himself observed, morality for an atheist has no fundamental base, but can be anything at all, including self-seeking bestiality -- as for men like Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung.But the reality is that men like those get erased by society for their nefarious deeds. Society cannot allow that kind of behavior- it is destructive to mankind and arguably, since it has no survival value for mankind in the long run- actually negative survival value, it gets selected out. One can make a good case for the evolution of morals- mankind needs culture to survive and that behavior which is destructive to society is selected out as destructive to mankind's long term survival. That would be a good argument for an atheist I think, but of course as a theist I see that differently. For me, I find it unsurprising that God teaches those principles which lead to the highest happiness of society instead of its destruction. What a coincidence! I suppose I could call that the "Plan of Happiness". Gosh maybe I could start a religion or something based on that. Edited December 22, 2013 by mfbukowski 1
Stone holm Posted December 22, 2013 Posted December 22, 2013 But the reality is that men like those get erased by society for their nefarious deeds. Society cannot allow that kind of behavior- it is destructive to mankind and arguably, since it has no survival value for mankind in the long run- actually negative survival value, it gets selected out. One can make a good case for the evolution of morals- mankind needs culture to survive and that behavior which is destructive to society is selected out as destructive to mankind's long term survival. That would be a good argument for an atheist I think, but of course as a theist I see that differently. For me, I find it unsurprising that God teaches those principles which lead to the highest happiness of society instead of its destruction. What a coincidence! I suppose I could call that the "Plan of Happiness". Gosh maybe I could start a religion or something based on that. No fan of either Stalin or Mao Tse Tung, on the other hand -- without Stalin, am not sure how WWII would have ended, and it seems like Mao Tse Tung succeeded in erasing a lot of nationalists and other competing "isms" in his day. We tend to be optimistic that the good guys will always prevail -- not sure that is necessarily always true.
mfbukowski Posted December 23, 2013 Posted December 23, 2013 We tend to be optimistic that the good guys will always prevail -- not sure that is necessarily always true.Well if they don't prevail, we will all be on the other side. I suppose that will be good for some, and for others, not so good.
Recommended Posts