BookOwl wrote:

_nix wrote:

It's not a bad course, besides when it claims that literally every religion besides Christianity is inherently a false religion. (Don't even get them started about atheist people.. they don't have any morals!)

Well, if you are a Christian, then you have to believe that because that is what the Bible teaches. I don't know why they would say atheists can't have any morals though…

Yep. The frustrating thing is that it seems a bunch of the time, they (the people who wrote the book, and other books) also say that people who worship™ a false god™ are inherently lesser (“they have no morals” / “they aren't being taught the only good morals” / “since they followed a false god, their culture inevitably failed”). So you end up having two groups – Christians, and not-Christians – and the (school) book presents Christians as inherently better and more good, while not-Christians have no true chance at life or success or contributing to the world.

But I'm ranting. I'm of the perspective that I'm fairly uncertain whether any gods exist or not, and I also tend to disagree with many religious views (e.g. the one I described above). So I'm biased

BookOwl wrote:

Do you mind if I ask what curriculum you are using?

This book specifically is World Geography in Christian Perspective.

Just want to drop in and give everyone a high five for having a political and religious discussion that is productive and interesting.

Are you sure you didn't misinterpret "from an atheistic perspective there's nothing is inherently morally wrong“ as ”atheists can't have any morals"?

Liam, if it doesn't affect your grade, I suggest you drop that course. Why would a class about WORLD GEOGRAPHY need a “Christian perspective”? Sounds like such a course would be filled with borderline or overtly racist (for lack of a better word) material. Seriously? Non-Christian countries “don't have morals?” I sincerely hope that's an exaggeration…

BookOwl wrote:

How is this legal?

It probably isn't, although the requirements differ not only between states but sometimes between school districts in the same state. (That is, the legal framework will be the same statewide, but some laws give a lot of discretion to school districts to approve individual cases.) But unschooling (as opposed to homeschooling) is a growing movement. BirdOTD is right that unschooling requires a lot of parental support, although I wouldn't use “discipline” as the word to describe it – kids are born curious and want to learn, given a chance.

I fall more in the Intelligent Design camp

Oh wow. Sorry if I insulted you. So, do you think the vast majority of scientists are deliberately dishonest, or just wrong?

Jonathan50 wrote:

Are you sure you didn't misinterpret “from an atheistic perspective there's nothing is inherently morally wrong” as “atheists can't have any morals”?

If you got that impression from me, please know that my moral relativism argument is from my own ramblings and doesn't represent the views of all atheists. I'm not a philosopher, I don't claim to have the answer to “what is morality,” and I do not know how many or how few atheists share my absolutely conjectural ideas.

Jonathan50 wrote:

Are you sure you didn't misinterpret “from an atheistic perspective there's nothing is inherently morally wrong” as “atheists can't have any morals”?

From my perspective as an atheist, even the former would be bad enough. I think lots of things are inherently wrong, for example racism, sexism. homophobia, capitalism, dictatorship,,, If anything, it's the religious people who think nothing is inherently wrong – if God declared that you should be racist, they'd be racist, right?

P.S. I admit the theoretical possibility that there's a god who's a jerk. But, given the world we live in, there can't be a god who's both omnipotent and benevolent. (I know the argument about free will and I think it's a lawyerish attempt to have it both ways.) But such a god would not be worth worshipping, and that's why I think it's right to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic.

bharvey wrote:

From my perspective as an atheist, even the former would be bad enough. I think lots of things are inherently wrong, for example racism, sexism. homophobia, capitalism, dictatorship,,,

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

TheAspiringHacker wrote:

If you got that impression from me, please know that my moral relativism argument is from my own ramblings and doesn't represent the views of all atheists.

Nope, I can't remember you saying something like that.

Jonathan50 wrote:

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

Can too. Racism is wrong because it hurts people. Why is that any less an explanation than “it says here in this book”?

I feel like there several possibilities for God (I'll refer to him as “he” not because I believe God would be a male but because I'm so used to it and I don't want to use “they” or “it”):

• He doesn't exist.
  
• He exists and is omnipotent but not all-benevolent.
  
• He exists and is all-benevolent but not omnipotent.
  
• He exists and is neither omnipotent or all-benevolent.
  
• He exists, is omnipotent and all-benevolent, but cannot understand or doesn't wish to interfere in human affairs.
  

I don't know, nor do I care, which one is true. I think that, assuming God exists and he cares about humans, he would want us to improve ourselves and our communities, and I think this is a better use of our limited time.

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

There are plenty of moral philosophies that function very well without a god present.

bharvey wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

Can too. Racism is wrong because it hurts people. Why is that any less an explanation than “it says here in this book”?

I suppose somebody might ask, “Why is it wrong to hurt people?” We feel that it is wrong, but can we explain using why it is wrong with logic and reason?

I don't have the philosophical answers myself, but I don't think that religion supplies the answers.

My question is why does god supposedly show so many wrathful human characteristics.

For example: god is angry at Adam and Eve for misbehaving, after they did something that he effectively let them do. So he kicks them out.

God is angry at people for not believing in him. So he doesn't let them into heaven.

God finally decides that people can come to heaven, but only if his son dies and only if people acknowledge and devote their lives to that fact.

God created people that lie, cheat, behave immorally, and not believe in him. He made their default state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Then he blames them for the problem he created.

TheAspiringHacker wrote:

I suppose somebody might ask, “Why is it wrong to hurt people?” We feel that it is wrong, but can we explain using why it is wrong with logic and reason?

No, if you mean can I prove that something should be considered wrong. That's true for theists, too; supposing god says to do or not do something, why should we obey him? “Because the bible tells us to” is circular.

For me, I don't know about other atheists, in the end what it comes down to is that I'm not capable of watching someone be unhappy and being happy about it myself. Watching unhappiness makes me want to fix it. And, by the way, watching hateful people like the ones in Charlottesville, it doesn't seem to me that they're very happy in their hate. I would want to fix them, if I could, mainly because of the effect they have on others, but also partly for their own benefit.

I don't want to leave the impression that I think I'm a saint. Sometimes I do end up hurting someone, because I'm afraid or angry or just clueless about how someone else is feeling. But I feel awful afterward, because I know I've done wrong. How long afterward depends on just how afraid, angry, etc. I am.

birdoftheday wrote:

God created people that lie, cheat, behave immorally, and not believe in him. He made their default state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Then he blames them for the problem he created.

Yeah, exactly. The God of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is a jerk, supposing He exists. And, if you judge a god by what his followers do in his name, I used to think Buddhists were good, and I'm sure many are, just as many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are good, but the Buddhists in Myanmar aren't so good; they're just as bad as we are. (“We” = Americans.) Or the Hindus in India. I think good religious people are good because they're good, not because of their religion. Same with atheists.

bharvey wrote:

I fall more in the Intelligent Design camp

Oh wow. Sorry if I insulted you. So, do you think the vast majority of scientists are deliberately dishonest, or just wrong?

I think that most scientists are not trying to be dishonest or wrong, they are just believing what they were taught their whole school life. My problem is more that nowadays most scientists that say that Evolution is wrong are belittled and made out to be ignorant fools.

birdoftheday wrote:

My question is why does god supposedly show so many wrathful human characteristics.

For example: god is angry at Adam and Eve for misbehaving, after they did something that he effectively let them do. So he kicks them out.

God is angry at people for not believing in him. So he doesn't let them into heaven.

God finally decides that people can come to heaven, but only if his son dies and only if people acknowledge and devote their lives to that fact.

God created people that lie, cheat, behave immorally, and not believe in him. He made their default state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Then he blames them for the problem he created.

1. That's now what the Bible says happens. God gave a clear command to Adam and Eve to not eat from that one specific tree and told them the consequences of doing so. They ate from it anyway, and so God gave them the punishment He said He would. I fail to see how that is wrathful.
2. The reason God doesn't let people into heaven is not that he is angry at them for not believing in Him, it is that He is just and can not allow our sins to not be paid. Fortunately for us, He sent his Son, Jesus, to take our punishment instead of us, but we have to accept it in order for it to apply to us. Once we do that, we are saved. We don't have to “devote our lives to that fact” to be saved, we devote our lives to Him in gratitude because of all He as done for us.
If you are going to question what God does, question what He actually did.

Edit: Whoops, missed the last point.

God created people that lie, cheat, behave immorally, and not believe in him. He made their default state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Then he blames them for the problem he created.

That is not at all what happened according to the Bible. God made humans perfect, WE choose to rebel against Him and choose sin, which made our state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Again, if you are going to question what God does, question what He actually did.

birdoftheday wrote:

Seriously? Non-Christian countries “don't have morals?” I sincerely hope that's an exaggeration…

It hardly is.

World Geography in Christian Perspective wrote:

Of course, when a nation moves away from Christianity and abandons biblical principles, the changes in its culture will be detrimental. Morality will decline, justice will fail, and personal freedoms will be lost. These consequences have been seen in many Western nations, including the United States, in recent times. It is the Christian's responsibility to prevent this kind of change and to preserve his culture.

World Geography in Christian Perspective wrote:

Their belief in reincarnation causes Hindus to revere and even worship certain animals, especially sacred bulls and cows. Because they believe that all life is connected in the universal spirit, they refuse to kill even harmful creatures like rats or insects taht destroy crops. The superstition of India's religion is a major cause of the nation's economic and cultural problems. Today, many Eastern superstitions have spread to the West, even to America, including the belief in reincarnation and the idea of “animal rights.”

World Geography in Christian Perspective wrote:

The false religion of Buddhism closely resembles Hinduism with its cycle of reincarnations and its ultimate goal of escape into nothingness. (..history about the origins of Buddhism..) Eventually, he became known as Buddha (“Enlightened One”) and developed his own religious philosophy based on the premise that human desire is the cause of all suffering. Through extreme self-denial and righteous living, Buddhists believe they can eliminate desire, escape the reincarnation desire, and thus attain a spiritual state of mind called nirvana, in which the soul is completel oblivious of self and the world. Buddhism, herefore, offers yet another escape from reality, a leap into oblivion, where an individual, in effect, becomes his own god.

birdoftheday wrote:

If it doesn't affect your grade, I suggest you drop that course.

There's the problem. At this point it's not really possible for me to drop it. I'm too far through it.

birdoftheday wrote:

Why would a class about WORLD GEOGRAPHY need a “Christian perspective”? Sounds like such a course would be filled with borderline or overtly racist (for lack of a better word) material.

To sell to Christians, mostly.

Most of the book is factual; the stuff like categorization of climates, descriptions of map types, maps of particular places.. they don't shove any Christian perspective or whatever into those. It's just the cultural profiles that all have to be taken with an ocean's worth of salt.

—

Also, I'd like to say I absolutely agree with bharvey's post. Especially “I think good religious people are good because they're good, not because of their religion. Same with atheists.”

bharvey wrote:

TheAspiringHacker wrote:

I suppose somebody might ask, “Why is it wrong to hurt people?” We feel that it is wrong, but can we explain using why it is wrong with logic and reason?

No, if you mean can I prove that something should be considered wrong. That's true for theists, too; supposing god says to do or not do something, why should we obey him? “Because the bible tells us to” is circular.

Well fortunately for Christianity, that is not what it says.
According to Christianity, people should obey what God says because He created the universe and us, and as such

bharvey wrote:

For me, I don't know about other atheists, in the end what it comes down to is that I'm not capable of watching someone be unhappy and being happy about it myself. Watching unhappiness makes me want to fix it. And, by the way, watching hateful people like the ones in Charlottesville, it doesn't seem to me that they're very happy in their hate. I would want to fix them, if I could, mainly because of the effect they have on others, but also partly for their own benefit.

I don't want to leave the impression that I think I'm a saint. Sometimes I do end up hurting someone, because I'm afraid or angry or just clueless about how someone else is feeling. But I feel awful afterward, because I know I've done wrong. How long afterward depends on just how afraid, angry, etc. I am.

I'm not trying to be rude or insulting, but a feeling as subjective as happiness hardly seems like a solid foundation for morality and ethics.
How would you deal with the following situation?
“Assume Bob has two insecure friends named Alice and Eve. After work all three of you decide to go out to eat. Alice and Eve both suggest a different restaurant. Since they are both very insecure, both of them will view choosing any other restaurant then the one they suggested as a personal rejection of them, which will hurt them. Choosing to not go out to eat after all will hurt both of them because they think that it is because you don't like them.
What should Bob do?”

bharvey wrote:

birdoftheday wrote:

God created people that lie, cheat, behave immorally, and not believe in him. He made their default state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Then he blames them for the problem he created.

Yeah, exactly. The God of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is a jerk, supposing He exists. And, if you judge a god by what his followers do in his name, I used to think Buddhists were good, and I'm sure many are, just as many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are good, but the Buddhists in Myanmar aren't so good; they're just as bad as we are. (“We” = Americans.) Or the Hindus in India. I think good religious people are good because they're good, not because of their religion. Same with atheists.

While I can agree with the Muslim god being a jerk, if you read the Bible you will find out that it portrays God as a very loving, merciful, just God.
On the other hand, I will totally agree with you that some “Christians” act like total jerks and are a shame to their religion.

birdoftheday wrote:

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

There are plenty of moral philosophies that function very well without a god present.

Name one.

BookOwl wrote:

1. That's now what the Bible says happens. God gave a clear command to Adam and Eve to not eat from that one specific tree and told them the consequences of doing so. They ate from it anyway, and so God gave them the punishment He said He would. I fail to see how that is wrathful.

Here's what would make more sense to me:
* God lets them eat the apple.
* God makes it so the people can't be influenced by the serpent.
* God knows that the serpent is going to make Eve sin, so he takes it away.
* God knows that Adam and Eve are going to eat the apple, so he puts the tree somewhere where they can't get it.
Instead, he lets the serpent influence them, he lets them eat the apple, effectively setting himself up to have his creations torn from him forever. Then acts all surprised when he “finds out” that they ate the apple, and punishes them, even when he could just forgive them then and there.

2. The reason God doesn't let people into heaven is not that he is angry at them for not believing in Him, it is that He is just and can not allow our sins to not be paid. Fortunately for us, He sent his Son, Jesus, to take our punishment instead of us, but we have to accept it in order for it to apply to us. Once we do that, we are saved. We don't have to “devote our lives to that fact” to be saved, we devote our lives to Him in gratitude because of all He as done for us.

So what's the reasoning for God HAVING to punish us? Why does he NEED to? Humans can forgive others, why can't an all powerful being do the same? I can't see why it's not within God's power to forgive human beings for what they did to each other.

That is not at all what happened according to the Bible. God made humans perfect, WE choose to rebel against Him and choose sin, which made our state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Again, if you are going to question what God does, question what He actually did.

Why did he make us ABLE to rebel against him? He made it so that people rebel against him, and then gets all mad when what basically was bound to happen, happens. I don't get it!

@liam
That's hilarious!
When I went to church with my family ages ago, we had a pastor that used to get up on stage and openly mock other religions. I think that's why we stopped going.

BookOwl wrote:

birdoftheday wrote:

Sure, the point is, an atheistic worldview can't explain why something is morally wrong, whether or not atheists actually think it's wrong.

There are plenty of moral philosophies that function very well without a god present.

Name one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
I won't go into the details of each one nor whether I think they're right, but they certainly exist.
Just because there's only one that you believe in, doesn't make it the only one ever.

EDIT: To directly respond to your request: Utilitarianism. I don't personally subscribe to any. But I don't need God to tell me “theft is wrong”.

birdoftheday wrote:

BookOwl wrote:

1. That's now what the Bible says happens. God gave a clear command to Adam and Eve to not eat from that one specific tree and told them the consequences of doing so. They ate from it anyway, and so God gave them the punishment He said He would. I fail to see how that is wrathful.

Here's what would make more sense to me:
* God lets them eat the apple.
* God makes it so the people can't be influenced by the serpent.
* God knows that the serpent is going to make Eve sin, so he takes it away.
* God knows that Adam and Eve are going to eat the apple, so he puts the tree somewhere where they can't get it.
Instead, he lets the serpent influence them, he lets them eat the apple, effectively setting himself up to have his creations torn from him forever. Then acts all surprised when he “finds out” that they ate the apple, and punishes them, even when he could just forgive them then and there.

It was a test to see if we would trust and obey God of our own free will. If He did as you suggest, we would never be able to choose to obey Him. Free will is a very big thing to God.

birdoftheday wrote:

2. The reason God doesn't let people into heaven is not that he is angry at them for not believing in Him, it is that He is just and can not allow our sins to not be paid. Fortunately for us, He sent his Son, Jesus, to take our punishment instead of us, but we have to accept it in order for it to apply to us. Once we do that, we are saved. We don't have to “devote our lives to that fact” to be saved, we devote our lives to Him in gratitude because of all He as done for us.

So what's the reasoning for God HAVING to punish us? Why does he NEED to? Humans can forgive others, why can't an all powerful being do the same? I can't see why it's not within God's power to forgive human beings for what they did to each other.

The same reason the state can't just forgive murderers and rapists and not punish them.
Justice.
When someone sins, someone has to punished for it. It can either be us, in which case we go to hell to be punished, or it can be Jesus if we accept His sacrifice on the cross.

birdoftheday wrote:

That is not at all what happened according to the Bible. God made humans perfect, WE choose to rebel against Him and choose sin, which made our state unhappy, miserable, and isolated. Again, if you are going to question what God does, question what He actually did.

Why did he make us ABLE to rebel against him? He made it so that people rebel against him, and then gets all mad when what basically was bound to happen, happens. I don't get it!

Free will. We could have chosen to obey Him, instead we chose not to. We weren't forced to pick either option.

birdoftheday wrote:

@liam
That's hilarious!
When I went to church with my family ages ago, we had a pastor that used to get up on stage and openly mock other religions. I think that's why we stopped going.

That preacher wasn't following the Bible on that topic then. The Bible tells us not to mock others and their beliefs, but to speak the truth in love.