Are atheist morals PLASTIC?

[Fred75]

[Gibbous Moon]

[Fred75]

Let me esplain sumtin to you GM... my post is about ATHEISTS and the RELIGIOUS.
Not TWO religious groups.

[Gibbous Moon]

The Sacred Band was a religiously motivated military group; therefore religious. Jews of the same period were a religious group, therefore religious. That would be two religious groups.

There’s something plastic here but as these are Iron Age groups I don’t think it’s the Thebans’ swords or the Jews ploughshares.

Each group had a diametrically opposed view on the practise of homosexuality.

How does your argument that religious morals are less plastic than atheistic morals deal with two religious groups having such differing views on a subject?

How does it deal with differing and changing views of the marriage of clergy or the ordination of women?


GM

[Fred75]

The subject is comparing the flexibility of morals between religious people and atheists.

Religious people have unchanging commandments and the word of God to go by.
Atheists do not.
They go by whoever is in power that day and or by whatever they feel or who has the best argument of the day.

[Gibbous Moon]

Your argument as I understand it is that those who base their morals on religion have less plastic morals than atheists. I think what you are trying to prove by establishing this is that moral views derived from religion are more valid than those derived from atheist philosophies on the grounds that they change less.

I’ve given you examples of different religious groups with different moral codes, similar religious groups with different moral codes and the same religious group whose moral rules have changed over time. I am attempting to show that religious morals are just as plastic as atheistic morals. They change over time and you also a choice about which religion or sub-religion you follow.

A number of people left the Anglican church when it allowed the ordination of women priests and joined the Catholic church. There you have a religious group that changed its views and a number of people who chose not to the supposedly authoritative view of their church but to join a church that they agreed with.

GM

[Fred75]

[Gibbous Moon]

I see, so what you are saying in is that religious people you disagree with are liberals (your usage of liberal, not mine), liberals are less godly and more like atheists and therefore their moral position is invalid.

It sounds to me that what you mean is that people who disagree with you are not properly religious. However, if two religious motivated people agree that moral sanction derives from the word of God (or Gods) but they disagree on the detail then they must be disagreeing about what God said or what He meant by it when He said it. How do two religious groups determine which of them is right if they both think that they are following the very word of God? Well it sounds like they have to ask you.


Therefore the determining factor in deciding whether their moral code is valid or not becomes whether they agree with you.

If you become the arbiter of whether morals are properly religious (and therefore right) or not properly religious (and wrong) doesn’t that mean that morals are man made i.e. made by you.


GM

[Fred75]

[Gibbous Moon]

More is a comparative. In order for something to be more X, something else must be less X. So in order for atheist morals to look more like a random social experiment religious morals must look less like a random a social experiment.

By comparing the moral codes of different religions I’ve shown that different religions deal with different moral problems in different ways and people get to pick which religion they follow.

By comparing the moral code of the same (or similar religions) over time I’ve shown that religious morals change. Again people are changing them and / or picking which version of orthodoxy they follow.

So, religious morals are subject to difference, subject to change and the factor that makes them lived by or not is the decision of people to follow them or not.

So, religious morals are just as plastic as atheist morals. So atheist morals do not look more like a random social experiment.

The chain of reasoning in religious moral is that God (or the Gods) lay out a moral code, this is recorded by people, then interpreted by people, then applied (or not) by people.

In order for religious morals not to change they need to be recorded correctly and then correctly interpreted. There are a number of occasions where various religions have changed their interpretation of the rules and there a quite a few examples of mis-translation, meaning that the recording of the rules was flawed.

Even assuming that you have an unchanging foundation the interpretation of the rules is constantly up for debate, by people.

But you don’t have an unchanging foundation. At least one major world religion has its leading deity announce in person a new set of laws, twice.

I’m not sure I’d like to explain to my god why I didn’t think he was allowed to change his mind or change the rules when he thought the situation had changed.

Given that atheist moral codes are grounded in the human condition and this is fairly constant and religious moral codes are subject to mis-interpretation by (often insane or ignorant) people and the caprice or whimsy of at least one deity and sometimes more I’d be tempted to say that religious morals were more plastic than atheistic ones.

Hey ho.

GM

[Fred75]

You can call it like you want.
But if you read the forum you get to understand that atheists and liberals HATE the rigid rules of the religious and how the religious frown upon them for doing as they feel.

Abortionists hate the religious because their newly found freedom to kill children is frowned upon.
Homosexuals hate the religious because their newly found freedom is frowned upon.

SECULAR society APPROVES all that. (abortion and homosexuality)

They changed the laws and morals to conform to others needs.

[The Colonel]

[Fred75]

[The Colonel]

[Fred75]