NationStates Jolt Archive

Thats mainly my point, a culture with no morality would just collapse.

And thats what you're failing to see that an atheist culture would develop it's own morality to have achieved the definition of culture.

So if God wanted you to be mean to people, you'd do it, because that would mean it was right?

Don't know, again I don't believe that all of God's commands have to be Good.

Wtf!? Where do you live?
If you are a Christian, I'm sure you are aware that your holy book contains countless examples of rape being condoned and even encouraged by your God. I'm sure you are aware of the many times that your God specifically ordered murder, torture, and genocide. I'm sure you are aware of the many times that God chose to protect, shelter, and even bless murderers and rapists. Why should it shock you that there are Christians who take the direction of your God at face value?

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

you base this on... what?

How is that a strawman, I said many, not ALL.

Because you're now claiming "many" athiests want to remove what you are apparently claiming is the only source of morality.

You're making and attemtping to defeat a false arguement to support your own.

How is that a strawman, I said many, not ALL.

Show me where your getting your many from. Otherwise your using a generalization to set up what is supposedly the belief of "many" atheists. Which if not accurate is a strawman.

I've got a final to deal with so I'll dive back into this thread once I'm done with it.

Wtf!? Where do you live?

she lives in that land blessed by god

you know hte one one that is very moral and christian and does no wrong:rolleyes:

Would you like to see a society in which Christianity is the only religion?

Well I would so long as that is not being acheived through banning of other religions etc...

Don't know, again I don't believe that all of God's commands have to be Good.

so God can be evil (and hence wrong)?

you base this on... what?

I have seen many say that. There are famous ones, like Elton John, and Richard Dorkins.

Thats mainly my point, a culture with no morality would just collapse.Not really. Ethics can replace morality. All you need is a society in which people generally refrain from socially harmful acts, or condemn them. Lying for instance: If lying were considered acceptable, you could always be telling falsehoods. No society that held that value could function because the people can't communicate. Therefore lying must be wrong. You don't need a commandment "Thou shalt not make false testament" to validate that, it only reenforces it. The same goes for killing and stealing. Such societies where those were totally acceptable wouldn't be able to function for lack of security. Again, no need for religion to explain why people would band together and say "You know, maybe we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill. I'll not lie to you, steal from you, or kill you if you don't do it to me, and we'll punish anyone that does."

There you have it. That's where your ethics come from.

I once knew a guy who believed God was the devil man we had some good discussions.

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

... you're not reading anything I write, are you?

YOU are hypothesizing not a world where religion is banned, but a world where religion has NEVER BEEN. A fake, impossible world, in other words.

Your entire premise is false.

I don't care what "many" atheists would like (according to you). Banning religion is not a definitive part of "atheism," nor "atheist culture" (there is no such thing). All you're doing is harping on strawmen and blurting out stupid-ass shit designed with one goal: to say that atheists are immoral. Yawn. Get a new tactic - something more Christian, please. Like going out and helping people, instead of calling them immoral.

so God can be evil (and hence wrong)?

Yes and no, but my belief is that he wouldn't.

Well I would so long as that is not being acheived through banning of other religions etc...So if athiests went out and convinced people that Gods are just imaginary friends so long as they don't ban religions, that would be ok too then?

... you're not reading anything I write, are you?

YOU are hypothesizing not a world where religion is banned, but a world where religion has NEVER BEEN. A fake, impossible world, in other words.

Your entire premise is false.

I don't care what "many" atheists would like (according to you). Banning religion is not a definitive part of "atheism," nor "atheist culture" (there is no such thing). All you're doing is harping on strawmen and blurting out stupid-ass shit designed with one goal: to say that atheists are immoral. Yawn. Get a new tactic - something more Christian, please. Like going out and helping people, instead of calling them immoral.

I didn't say banned, I said non existent. Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist, I have seen it said many times on this forum. I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.

I have seen many say that. There are famous ones, like Elton John, and Richard Dorkins.

that's what your basing it on?

by that same logic most religious people want to see large parts of teh world conquered or laid to waste

I've posted this many times before, but it seems to fit in with this thread (especially since I'm seeing some new faces around here):

The vast majority of people who claim to draw their morality from God do not actually do so. There is a very easy way to establish this.

Pose to the believer a simple question. "Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God speaks directly to you. There is absolutely no doubt in your mind that God is speaking to you. God tells you that He wishes you to torture a kitten to death. Do you do it? Now, replace 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Do you do it?"

At this point, the believer will usually try to tell you that their God would never ask them to do this. If you inquire as to why, they usually will tell you that God is good and would not ask them to do something bad, like torturing a baby.

Very clearly, they have a sense of morality that exists independent of God. Their understanding of Good and Evil does not require God, they simply use God to lend it additional significance and (oddly enough) credibility.

I didn't say banned, I said non existent. Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist, I have seen it said many times on this forum. I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.You haven't brought any valuable arguments that such societies wouldn't function.

So if athiests went out and convinced people that Gods are just imaginary friends so long as they don't ban religions, that would be ok too then?

People can say or think what they want.

Yes and no, but my belief is that he wouldn't.

You were the one claiming that right and wrong were the same as good and evil. You are the one claiming that religion gives objective morality. If something is not good then it is evil. You claimed good and right are the same. Then evil and wrong are the same. You have now claimed that god is not all good and can therefore be wrong. Can we say Heresy? Go talk to your priest.

I didn't say banned, I said non existent.

I know that. You are only proving that you don't actually read anything I write here.

Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist

Some atheists.

, I have seen it said many times on this forum

Oh ho! Well, you know, many Christians would like to see Muslims forcibly deprived of their right to worship, breed and EXIST. I have seen it many times on this forum. Therefore, Christians are immoral! ;)

I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.

By trying to say that atheists have no morals. Gotcha. What a decent argument you're making so far - how many have been convinced so far?

I didn't say banned, I said non existent. Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist, I have seen it said many times on this forum. I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.

I would like to see that. Not through banning, but through people realizing religion is not worthy. That doesn't mean history would be erased. No, religion would be taught as part of history, and hell, if someone wanted to follow a religion, let them.
This doesn't mean I mind much religious people, as long as they don't bother others or don't use the name of God to their own faults.

I've posted this many times before, but it seems to fit in with this thread (especially since I'm seeing some new faces around here):

The vast majority of people who claim to draw their morality from God do not actually do so. There is a very easy way to establish this.

Pose to the believer a simple question. "Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God speaks directly to you. There is absolutely no doubt in your mind that God is speaking to you. God tells you that He wishes you to torture a kitten to death. Do you do it? Now, replace 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Do you do it?"

At this point, the believer will usually try to tell you that their God would never ask them to do this. If you inquire as to why, they usually will tell you that God is good and would not ask them to do something bad, like torturing a baby.

Very clearly, they have a sense of morality that exists independent of God. Their understanding of Good and Evil does not require God, they simply use God to lend it additional significance and (oddly enough) credibility.

going to have to try that one out.

I didn't say banned, I said non existent. Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist, I have seen it said many times on this forum. I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.
It sounds to me like you're making a much more convincing argument for putting religious individuals in institutions.

You appear to be claiming that without God-belief you would have no reason to refrain from killing, raping, and stealing. You are claiming that your only source of morality is your belief in a magical spirit-being. You are claiming that you are unable to participate in human civilization, culture, or society without your God-belief, and you are claiming that all religious believers are like you.

I'd say those are some compelling reasons to make sure that nobody with your kind of belief is in any position of power. You seem to be giving us great reason to believe that you are dangerous and immoral individuals who are only held in check by superstition.

Many athiests would like to see a society where there is absolutely no religion at all. Some even would like to see it banned.

I have seen many say that. There are famous ones, like Elton John, and Richard Dorkins.

I didn't say banned, I said non existent. Many athiests would love to live in a world where religion doesn't exist, I have seen it said many times on this forum. I am disputing the benifits of such a culture.

Careful, you'll trip yourself.

And it's Dawkins, by the way.

I've posted this many times before, but it seems to fit in with this thread (especially since I'm seeing some new faces around here):

The vast majority of people who claim to draw their morality from God do not actually do so. There is a very easy way to establish this.

Pose to the believer a simple question. "Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God speaks directly to you. There is absolutely no doubt in your mind that God is speaking to you. God tells you that He wishes you to torture a kitten to death. Do you do it? Now, replace 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Do you do it?"

At this point, the believer will usually try to tell you that their God would never ask them to do this. If you inquire as to why, they usually will tell you that God is good and would not ask them to do something bad, like torturing a baby.

Very clearly, they have a sense of morality that exists independent of God. Their understanding of Good and Evil does not require God, they simply use God to lend it additional significance and (oddly enough) credibility.

My answer is that God is Good.

God gave us an inate consience to show us what is right and what is wrong. If God told us to do something that are consience says was wrong, that could not be God as it would be going against himself, like a paradox. Whatever God does or says, our conscience also thinks is right. So it would be impossible for God to say something that are conscience thinks is wrong.

You appear to be claiming that without God-belief you would have no reason to refrain from killing, raping, and stealing. You are claiming that your only source of morality is your belief in a magical spirit-being. You are claiming that you are unable to participate in human civilization, culture, or society without your God-belief, and you are claiming that all religious believers are like you.

Yep. That is exactly what he's saying. Not only that, but he's projecting the idea that atheists are exactly like him.

My answer is that God is Good.

God gave us an inate consience to show us what is right and what is wrong. If God told us to do something that are consience says was wrong, that could not be God as it would be going against himself, like a paradox. Whatever God does or says, our conscience also thinks is right. So it would be impossible for God to say something that are conscience thinks is wrong.
Please answer the question. Would you torture and kill the kitten? The infant?

You were the one claiming that right and wrong were the same as good and evil. You are the one claiming that religion gives objective morality. If something is not good then it is evil. You claimed good and right are the same. Then evil and wrong are the same. You have now claimed that god is not all good and can therefore be wrong. Can we say Heresy? Go talk to your priest.

No. I am saying God has the ability to do something wrong, he can do anything. But he wont because he is good.

I think that there is a paradox in arguing between a religous person and an athiest.

As an athiest, I think that morals were the result of human nature and progressed, with society, to be what they are today. Therefore, an athiest society would develope the current set of morals because there was no god to create the morals we have today. The athiest society has meaning because there is meaning in life. Human society has became almost a organism in itself and singular contributions carry on to later generations, which gives meaning to human life. This is in addition to an obvious reason for living, happiness.

However, if you were to believe in god, you would believe that god created a system of morals for mankind to follow, that their is a correct set of morals and that the reason for living would be to go to heaven for eternity.

^^ please read: I would like to know if people agree with this.

Please answer the question. Would you torture and kill the kitten? The infant?

I would not believe that is God telling me to do that.

I would not believe that is God telling me to do that.
Voila!

Look at that, ladies and gents! Bottle predicted the future on this very thread!

Don't feel bad that this worked with you, Criik. It actually is a good thing. It means you aren't a sociopath. It means that you have the same kind of moral compass as the rest of us, you're just choosing to name your compass "God" while many of the rest of us don't do so.

Voila!

Look at that, ladies and gents! Bottle predicted the future on this very thread!

*hands bottle a box of cookies*

Voila!

Look at that, ladies and gents! Bottle predicted the future on this very thread!

Yes your argument is invalid as I have already said that our seperate conscience comes from God.

Voila!

Look at that, ladies and gents! Bottle predicted the future on this very thread!

You're worthy of worship. Please, give me morals so I can refrain from killing, raping and burning in an orgy of genocidal, anarchic atheism!

so God can be evil (and hence wrong)?
No. If God told someone to do something, there was a good reason for it. Either that, or the Israelites just committed genocide and bullshitted that 'God told them to'.

----

Genesis 18:22-32

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. [a] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [b] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge [c] of all the earth do right?"

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

I would not believe that is God telling me to do that.

And yet earlier I do believe you implied you would kill for the greater good, so you would not do that for the greater good?

No. I am saying God has the ability to do something wrong, he can do anything. But he wont because he is good.

So you've changed your stance that good/evil = right/wrong?

If he is good, he can never be wrong. By the catholic faith, he is perfect and can do no wrong.

Yes your argument is invalid as I have already said that our seperate conscience comes from God.
Yeah, this is the usual wiggle tactic, just another variation of "My God wouldn't ask that!"

You have a moral compass that exists apart from God. That's a good thing! :D

I think that there is a paradox in arguing between a religous person and an athiest.

As an athiest, I think that morals were the result of human nature and progressed, with society, to be what they are today. Therefore, an athiest society would develope the current set of morals because there was no god to create the morals we have today. The athiest society has meaning because there is meaning in life. Human society has became almost a organism in itself and singular contributions carry on to later generations, which gives meaning to human life. This is in addition to an obvious reason for living, happiness.

However, if you were to believe in god, you would believe that god created a system of morals for mankind to follow, that their is a correct set of morals and that the reason for living would be to go to heaven for eternity.

^^ please read: I would like to know if people agree with this.

I certainly agree with you that meaning and morals can be found without being dictated from on high. As I said away up above, "I find fulfillment and purpose and meaning in my everyday life, in the love I share with my partner of 23 years, in the beauty and majesty of the universe, in books and music and art, all without the promise of a heavenly afterlife or the threat of a hellish one. I find meaning and purpose and fulfillment in the feel of well-knead bread dough under my hands, in the way it smells as it cooks and in the taste of it warm from the oven. No flights of angels are necessary."

And yet earlier I do believe you implied you would kill for the greater good, so you would not do that for the greater good?

For God to do something against are conscience is a paradox as God is good.

Yes and no, but my belief is that he wouldn't.

but he caused the slaughter of all teh first born of egypt? that's alot of innocents!
he kicked adam and eve out of paradise. and this guy is all knowing and all powerful. So he knew all the shit that was going to happen to humanity. all teh death and suffering, etc.. thats a pretty shitty thing to do for breaking one small rule and eating an apple

Yeah, this is the usual wiggle tactic, just another variation of "My God wouldn't ask that!"

You have a moral compass that exists apart from God. That's a good thing! :D

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

Did you not even look at the link I gave you on Moral universalism?

Moral universalism is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics applies universally, that is to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature. The source or justification of this system may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the commands of God. It is the opposing position to various forms of moral relativism.

Just one of the many beliefs on morality that it is possible to have while being an atheist. Enough with the strawmen already.
Psychopaths break moral universalism.

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

But you said you believed not all his commands could be good therefore it is not impossible.

... where would any sense of morality come from?
The society itself would supply a code of conduct that its members would be as likely to follow as a religous system.

Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from?
There would be no obligation, people would be good because they are good people, rather than because they fear divine punishment. A better system.

Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?
There would be a gut feeling, its called your conscience, and is not created by religion. It is a part of a developed, healthy mind.

Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?
Atheists do not consider the world meaningless, just without any greater inherent purpose. The motivation to achieve is the benefit of oneself, those with whom one is concerned, or the world in general. People can be truly happy in meaningless world as long as their brains are releasing the right chemicals in the right amounts and proportions. However people can be happy in a world without any greater inherent purpose by fulfilling the purposes they choose to give themselves.

How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?
By adhering to the laws of the society (as a citizen) and by employing law enforcement professionals to enforce those laws (as a government).

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

Impossible - kinda like a world where religion never existed, yes?

But you said you believed not all his commands could be good therefore it is not impossible.

No I believed he had the ability to do so, but he wouldn't.

But infact, I have changed my belief a little thanks to NSG. It has made me think a bit.

I now officially believe that it is impossible for God to do bad things.

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

Why? He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He accepted the human sacrifice of Jephthah's virgin daughter. And Bottle's proposition explicitly stated that you were absolutely certain that it was God speaking to you, no demons or Satan or hallucination involved.

No I believed he had the ability to do so, but he wouldn't.

But infact, I have changed my belief a little thanks to NSG. It has made me think a bit.

I now officially believe that it is impossible for God to do bad things.

So you would kill the infant if told to by God? He's done so in the past.

Yeah, this is the usual wiggle tactic, just another variation of "My God wouldn't ask that!"

You have a moral compass that exists apart from God. That's a good thing! :D

errr.... is it a good idea to tell him this? according to him the only reason he don't kill, torture, etc.. is because god is good.

Why? He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He accepted the human sacrifice of Jephthah's virgin daughter. And Bottle's proposition explicitly stated that you were absolutely certain that it was God speaking to you, no demons or Satan or hallucination involved.

I don't believe in the old testement. My belief in God is through spiritual experiences, not through the Bible. Though I do support many of the things that it says.

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

No it isn't God required Abraham sacrifice his son, of course it didn't go through but he demanded it. He demanded Genocide as we discussed earlier which included the women and children. It's only impossible if there is no God did you suddenly become an atheist?

I now officially believe that it is impossible for God to do bad things.

Therefore, if God wanted to torture and kill the kitten, torturing and killing the kitten would be a good thing.

I hope you wouldn't refuse God's will by questioning His great plan with your own pitiful "compass."

I would not believe that is God telling me to do that.

Why not?

Abraham did...

Therefore, if God wanted to torture and kill the kitten, torturing and killing the kitten would be a good thing.

I hope you wouldn't refuse God's will by questioning His great plan with your own pitiful "compass."

If it was a good thing then none of us would have such a instinctive problem with it as our conscience comes from Gods goodness.

I don't believe in the old testement. My belief in God is through spiritual experiences, not through the Bible. Though I do support many of the things that it says.

You really need to go talk to a priest if you claim you're a catholic.

If it was a good thing then none of us would have such a instinctive problem with it as our conscience comes from Gods goodness.

It can be a good thing in one situation, a bad thing in another. Most of us would have an instinctive problem with crucifying a man to death, but hey that was a Good Thing because it Saved everyone.

So answer: would you or would you not torture and kill a kitten if it was God's will?

And that moral compass comes from God. How hard is that to understand?

This torturing a kitten complex is a paradox as it is impossible.

That makes the assumption that God exists. Besides how would God supply this compass?

If God is omnipotent and omniscient (which, apparently, he is) then he knows about suffering and evil, and can stop it, therefore one must conclude that he chooses not to and if that is the case he is worthy of neither worship nor of distributing moral compasses.

If it was a good thing then none of us would have such a instinctive problem with it as our conscience comes from Gods goodness.

I actually support Criiks view on this, despite being an agnostic, if I was to believe in an all loving God, that would have to be true.

My answer is that God is Good.

God gave us an inate consience to show us what is right and what is wrong. If God told us to do something that are consience says was wrong, that could not be God as it would be going against himself, like a paradox.You mean something like sacrificing your own child to him?

You really need to go talk to a priest if you claim you're a catholic.

I am not mostly catholic, but I am catholic in so far as I believe in Mary as a saint and other saints. As well as other various catholic rituals. Though I do not believe in the old testement as literal fact, which most catholics I know do not.

Actually the general view is this world is a test etc. But why wouldn't God demand you torture a kitten/baby? Wouldn't that be the ultimate test of your adherence to the moral compass he supposedly provided by showing his definite existence and seeing which you choose to follow his literal will or the conscience he gave you. I again say God asking you to torture a kitten/baby is not a paradox and is only impossible if you're an atheist.

I am not mostly catholic, but I am catholic in so far as I believe in Mary as a saint and other saints. As well as other various catholic rituals. Though I do not believe in the old testement as literal fact, which most catholics I know do not.

Even though it is the profecies in the OT that Jesus alledgedly fulfilled and numerous parts that have the murder of children are part of recorded history? Why do you recognize saints?

Actually the general view is this world is a test etc. But why wouldn't God demand you torture a kitten/baby? Wouldn't that be the ultimate test of your adherence to the moral compass he supposedly provided by showing his definite existence and seeing which you choose to follow his literal will or the conscience he gave you. I again say God asking you to torture a kitten/baby is not a paradox and is only impossible if you're an atheist.

Even though it is the profecies in the OT that Jesus alledgedly fulfilled and numerous parts that have the murder of children are part of recorded history? Why do you recognize saints?

I can't be bothered to go into that, thats a long story. I will say though I am not fully decided on the idea of saints.

That makes the assumption that God exists. Besides how would God supply this compass?

If God is omnipotent and omniscient (which, apparently, he is) then he knows about suffering and evil, and can stop it, therefore one must conclude that he chooses not to and if that is the case he is worthy of neither worship nor of distributing moral compasses.

I do not have a definative answer yet on the 'problem of evil', but I know they will be answered soon.

historically speaking religion has been a great sponsor of most of what your talking about here. So people have been doing 'god work' for quite a long time
No, people who ignore the religion they claim to believe in have been the sponsors of it. Even worse examples of the above can be found from people who openly despised religion.

The Christian-based culture I live in condones many forms of rape. The Bible specifically and explicitly condones genocide, torture, theft, and murder, under the correct circumstances (read: when practiced against non-Christians such as myself).

Let me guess, you're going to quote a number of Old Testament passages which tell of when Israelites did these things. (but where it does not say that followers should do the same)

You will meanwhile comepletely ignore the passages where Jesus tells His followers to love, aid and respect each other. The Bible does not tell us to harm people of other religions. Rather, it tells us to aid and respect them because all humans are our equals.

I have internalized the wrongness of rape, theft, murder, and genocide despite the prevailing culture in which I grew up. Indeed, most of the Christians where I live regard my views on rape (i.e. that rape is never acceptable) as radical!
You live in America. Rape is not considered acceptable in American culture. If it was it wouldn't be illegal. Your views on rape are not radical. If America is such a (rape, theft, murder, and genocide)-infested hole, then where did you internalise your opposition to them?

Why should it shock you that there are Christians who take the direction of your God at face value?
Because of the huge amount of material in the Bible that they will be ignoring by doing these things?

she lives in that land blessed by god

The USA isn't particularly blessed by God, despite the proclamations of drooling closet fascists.

At this point, the believer will usually try to tell you that their God would never ask them to do this. If you inquire as to why, they usually will tell you that God is good and would not ask them to do something bad, like torturing a baby.
That's circular logic. They would be more correct to say "it's because of [insert Biblical passages]"

Actually the general view is this world is a test etc. But why wouldn't God demand you torture a kitten/baby? Wouldn't that be the ultimate test of your adherence to the moral compass he supposedly provided by showing his definite existence and seeing which you choose to follow his literal will or the conscience he gave you. I again say God asking you to torture a kitten/baby is not a paradox and is only impossible if you're an atheist.

If God was benevolent then he shouldn't want to see a cute, helpless kitten tortured. In fact he shouldn't really need to test you at all, he should already know what you are going to do and accept you for it. However he does seem to be almost as unpleasent an individual as the fanatics who worship him.

Thats the old predestination vs freewill vs omniscience debate that can go on for hours. I generally try to get around it by suggesting that God if he/she exists knows all the possible outcomes and is simply waiting to see what we choose. Not to mention Even if God knows the outcome the outcome would become meaningless without the test.

I do not have a definative answer yet on the 'problem of evil'.
Of course not, probably because there isn't one (at least a satisfactory answer).

but I know they will be answered soon.
What makes you say that? It has not been answered well by anyone ever. Why would that change?

Of course not, probably because there isn't one (at least a satisfactory answer).

What makes you say that? It has not been answered well by anyone ever. Why would that change?

What I implied was, when I die it will be answered (probably). I have seen some theories that answer pretty well, including that God does not have the ability to intervine etc...

Thats the old predestination vs freewill vs omniscience debate that can go on for hours. I generally try to get around it by suggesting that God if he/she exists knows all the possible outcomes and is simply waiting to see what we choose. Not to mention Even if God knows the outcome the outcome would become meaningless without the test.

But God already knows, if not then he is not omniscient, which, if nothing else should eliminate one of the 'reasons' for worshiping him. It would also raise the question of how he intelligently designed everything that is if he lacks the comprehension of how it works.

What I implied was, when I die it will be answered (probably). I have seen some theories that answer pretty well, including that God does not have the ability to intervine etc...

Are you sure God has the time to justify himself to you? He must be busy ruling the universe.
If God does not have the ability to intervene then he is not omnipotent etc...

Are you sure God has the time to justify himself to you? He must be busy ruling the universe.
If God does not have the ability to intervene then he is not omnipotent etc...

Well maybe he doesn't but I don't care too much about it. If he is not omnipotent, then he is not omnipotent.

If he is not omnipotent, then he is not omnipotent.

Consider the implications of that though. If God cannot influence me or you, insignificant beings who must mean nothing in his grand plan, then what chance is there that he could have created the universe and developed it thus far.

But God already knows, if not then he is not omniscient, which, if nothing else should eliminate one of the 'reasons' for worshiping him. It would also raise the question of how he intelligently designed everything that is if he lacks the comprehension of how it works.

Yep but if it's for our benefit even though God knows we don't until we make the choice. And it is the choices we make that help define us and our morality, as there is always a choice even if it is to not choose or to choose an option thats not readily apparent. Such as in the kitten case challenging God to Mortal Kombat for it's life.

I'd really rather not continue this since I'm no longer a christian and feel no desire to defend God or the contradictions, besides the best one is if God could make a stone he couldn't lift. :D

However he does seem to be almost as unpleasent an individual as the fanatics who worship him.
OK, so the Salvation Army (to take a random example) are an unpleasant group of fanatics?

And people think only Muslims get attacked unfairly on these forums....

Yep but if it's for our benefit even though God knows we don't until we make the choice. And it is the choices we make that help define us and our morality, as there is always a choice even if it is to not choose or to choose an option thats not readily apparent. Such as in the kitten case challenging God to Mortal Kombat for it's life.

Life faces us with these challenges, God could manipulate the world to give us these options in a more subtle way.

I'd really rather not continue this since I'm no longer a christian and feel no desire to defend God or the contradictions, besides the best one is if God could make a stone he couldn't lift. :D

Fair enough. Although I prefer if God knows everything then he knows what he is going to do, so can he do otherwise.

Now, I've been reading over your arguments, and they don't make sense at all.

From what I can tell, you're trying to pose a hypothetical that says that if we lived in a world where religion never existed, it would be sheer moral terror, since, "logically", without a belief in a God-like figure (specifically Christian in your case) we would be without any moral guidance whatsoever, and would have no remorse or fear of consequence for our actions.

In my experience, that's a load of crap.

Just because someone doesn't have a faith in your God doesn't mean that they're inherently without morals. If you had bothered to even consider taking a class or even attending a lecture about cultural anthropology, you would realize that morals vary immensely in this world, and that every group, even every person, has different moral/ethical views. These principles aren't given by one almighty being; they are discovered and added upon by one's own experiences.

As for the 'gut feeling' you described as stopping you from doing terrible things to others and which atheists lack having because they have no ethical values, where is this coming from? Do you think that others, just because they don't believe in your god, have no instinctive sense of guilt? Again, this is something that is inherited from experience. A child, born and raised in a Christian household, could grow up to be a murderer, while a child who has no direct religious guidance could grow up to be a very caring individual for his fellow man. It's all dependant on your own experiences and choices.

Nextly, and this part especially, what makes you think that atheists think the world is meaningless? That is not atheism; atheists choose by definition, not to lean to one particular religious denomination or another; they simply deny the existance of a divine being. They aren't nihilists, who by definition reject all rules and laws of society and argue that life has no meaning in the grand scheme of things. What you are trying to argue is that atheists are immoral and disrespect everything (especially, it seems, that which you respect, like atheists are out to get you or something), which is completely false. If you can't handle the fact that there are people out there who deny the existance of your God, then you better toughen up quick, because there are many people who don't believe in the same thing you do.

Also, if you're going to argue the existance of God, you might want to try not cutting yourself down (case in point: your "if he's not omnipotent, then he's not omnipotent" comment. You just took away one of the three things that your God supposedly is). As for culture turning to chaos, we already live in organized anarchy (yes, we do, talk to an International Relations professor, he'll explain that all our countries live in anarchy held together only with belief in our common human integrity, not divine direction), so that destroys your entire argument right there. If you want to try arguing religion again, argue it with a little more force behind your points.

We still have consciences and a sense of ethics and values, we just don't believe in things we can't back up without at least some evidence.

OK, so the Salvation Army (to take a random example) are an unpleasant group of fanatics?

And people think only Muslims get attacked unfairly on these forums....

If you look at the phrasing then it could also be interpreted as saying God is as bad as the fanatics among those who worship him, not that everyone who worships him is a fanatic, which is what I meant. I was aware of the potencial for misinterpretation but adding a bracketed explaination was not worth the effort.

Personally, I'm agnostic, but I still recognize that atheists do have moral and ethical values that are on the same par as those of devout Christians. I don't attack them for not believing in something someone else does, that's ridiculous thinking, that because someone else has views other than you that they're instantly immoral and wrong.

Personally, I'm agnostic, but I still recognize that atheists do have moral and ethical values that are on the same par as those of devout Christians. I don't attack them for not believing in something someone else does, that's ridiculous thinking, that because someone else has views other than you that they're instantly immoral and wrong.

Yes, its the views that can make the person wrong. But try telling that to some people. They really don't want to hear it.

Most of this thread has been everyone else trying to get the openere to agree that it's possible to derive and enforce morality without bringing God into the picture.

I'm an atheist. A true atheist.

Atheism isn't about having a non-objective view of blah, blah, blah.

Theist: Someone who is religious.
Atheist: The opposite. Someone who actively denies religion.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god, or divine force, etc, specifically.

It's not the belief that science rules all, or whatever.

I'm totally moral. Just for reasons other than god tells me. Why do I have non-religious morals? Because I know that if someone was mean to me, I wouldn't like it, so I'm not mean to other people, because they won't like it.

I specifically don't believe in a god, and I'm a good person.

Most of this thread has been everyone else trying to get the openere to agree that it's possible to derive and enforce morality without bringing God into the picture.

But since it's probably impossible to reason someone out of a position he hasn't reasoned himself into, we've wasted our time. Better than working, though.

That's because it is possible, just because one doesn't believe in a divine being such as God doesn't mean that they are without morals, like the opener of this thread has been trying to say the entire time.

just wondering, has anyone mentioned the IMmonral things done by religious people, INCLUDING those in leadership positions in the respective churches? the little children abused by priests? holy war throughout history? oppresion of the poor, gays, other cultures and women?

just a thought, correct me if i've missed a point or two.

But since it's probably impossible to reason someone out of a position he hasn't reasoned himself into, we've wasted our time. Better than working, though.

He may have reasoned himself into the position, he just reasons using a different set of universal basics which would influence what he decides.

just wondering, has anyone mentioned the IMmonral things done by religious people, INCLUDING those in leadership positions in the respective churches? the little children abused by priests? holy war throughout history? oppresion of the poor, gays, other cultures and women?

just a thought, correct me if i've missed a point or two.

No point, it will either be 'the will of God' or 'they were not real followers of God'.

No, no one has brought that up, but you also have to realize that those kinds of atrocities are brought on by extremists who twist their religion to work for them and the things they want to do.

Yep was fun especially the whole kitten/baby thing and gave me something to do while I was downloading the season finale of dexter. Now to go watch it.

Wow, besides the author discriminating against individuals such as myself, the conception of atheists as immoral is totally wrong. Richard Dawkins postulates that there are certain genes which promote altruism. Think about it this way: Man created the false illusions of religion, which promote morality - ergo, man was already moral to create a facade promoting morality.

Oh, lookie here. The 1000th thread on "how Atheists have no morals".

YOU GET AN AWARD!!! HOW COOL IS THAT???

The award is the honor of being answered by me despite the horse having been beaten to death.

Let us assume that atheists are all amoral. Not true, and that will be proven later, religion means nothing to ethics, but let us even ASSUME that. Because I'm a nice boy.

Many evil people, from all religions including none, do not harm anyone. Why? Laws are in place to protect people from themselves even in atheist countries, that's why. That would be enough to send your point packing.

BUT, in case it isn't, we go back to the fact that evil has nothing to do with religion. How many people have killed in the name of any and all religions? How many atheists made the world a better place? How many religious people helped people? How many atheists did? Do some research and you'll find that the numbers are about the same. In case that does not move you from your point of view, though allow me to point some evidence of violence on BOTH sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_abortion_movement

...and some evidence of good deeds on BOTH sides...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

...as well as...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

...so, what does religion mean in defining a person's ethos? Nothing.

Before you ask, though: Not an atheist. Not believing in the divine or metaphysical would sorta cramp my style as an occultist.

So, are we done here?

Wow, besides the author discriminating against individuals such as myself, the conception of atheists as immoral is totally wrong. Richard Dawkins postulates that there are certain genes which promote altruism. Think about it this way: Man created the false illusions of religion, which promote morality - ergo, man was already moral to create a facade promoting morality.

I like that, is that Dawkins? On the whole I find his militant atheism a trifle shrill, but I agree with him on principle.

If it was a good thing then none of us would have such a instinctive problem with it as our conscience comes from Gods goodness.
Then how do you explain psychopaths? They don't have an instinctive problem with it.

Think about it this way: Man created the false illusions of religion, which promote morality - ergo, man was already moral to create a facade promoting morality.

Yes, but religion also fulfilled a number of other requirements. It created feelings of unity and answered questions that none could answer at the time. Now we have societies nicely set up and science to answer questions. Religion has become obsolete.

I hate to ponder how much bandwidth has been expended since the birth of the internet on atheism versus religion arguments... :)

The argument that the world would be anarchy without religion ignores that people have lived all over the world with a set of values that could be described as spiritual instead of belonging to a formal religion as we usually conceive of it. I and almost all of my closest friends are atheist, although I do have many other friends who are religious to varying degrees. While not a scientific sample by any means, my religious friends are no more or less immoral than my non-religious friends.

I also find it quite funny that some people are happy to blame things on someone's supposed atheism, yet religion is off-limits. If polls are to be believed, 90% of Americans believe in God, the odds are that 90% of all pedophiles, perverts, murderers and the like believe in God as well. Unless someone explicitly does something because of their beliefs, I don't blame religion or lack of it for anything.

Yes, but religion also fulfilled a number of other requirements. It created feelings of unity and answered questions that none could answer at the time. Now we have societies nicely set up and science to answer questions. Religion has become obsolete.

You would think so, wouldn't you, and yet it survives and thrives. I suppose religion gives people a way to feel good about themselves, to feel that even though their lives are miserable, there is a reward for them in the afterlife. I suppose that helps.

Then how do you explain psychopaths? They don't have an instinctive problem with it.

Psychopaths have the Devil to blame. Y'know, that entity that, despite God's OMNIPOTENT efforts to the contrary, succeeds at "possessing" people regardless of God's say in the matter.

But wait, you will say, isn't God omnipotent?

Why yes, they will say, He is.

But wait, you will say, if God is omnipotent, can't he do anything about it?

Why, no, they will say, because he can't do some things.

But wait, you will say, isn't God omnipotent?

Wash.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Wrong.



Wrong.

In the first place, the truth of a proposition does not depend upon one's ability to prove it to be true. It means that one can't know for sure, but "can't know for sure" != "false".

In the second place, Ayn Rand did just what you asked. Read her works "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and "The Virtue of Selfishness".

morals vary across cultures. I wasnt talking about truth, I said there was no universal set, for example there is no tangible evidence for say "murder is wrong."

Second I may indeed check out those books, but laziness combined with profound dissolusionment in relation to the arguments of philosophers might prohibit me from doing such a thing. Nonetheless if there is a proof of the same rigour as say Godels Incompleteness Thereom its worth checking out. So Ill at least have a look.

In a completely atheist culture...
... where would any sense of morality come from? ?

Same place its always come from…

Where did you learn your morals from? The bible is not exactly an easy read. So before you could read it yourself where did you acquire your moral code?
The answer is other people taught you. Your parents, your teachers, your friends and in your case another fellow.. your preacher.

As you have pointed out numerous times in your posts the bible is not straight forward.. it has to be interpreted. Some people take it very literally some people less so. How could you determine which parts are the bits to be taken literally and which are metaphorical if you had no outside sense of morals.

How do you explain our changing moral codes? Only 50 years ago racism was not unusual (aboriginals didn’t have the vote here in Australia) and sexism was accepted (women weren’t allowed in pubs). 100 years ago practically the only place women had the vote was New Zealand. If our morals were somehow set by the bible why would they change.. why would they evolve?



Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from?

Ok you are scaring me now. Are you telling me that the only thing that is stopping you from going completely feral is the fear of retribution. The difference here is not religion or no religion. Its society or no society. Solitary animals may well live by those rules… but social animals gain benefits from helping each other. Meerkats will keep guard over each other… share food and tend to their wounded.. you think they have read the bible??

Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you?
’
That gut feeling you get.. that’s biology. If it was religious you would be thinking it… if you feel it, its subconscious or biology.. not a good point for the “morals come from on high” argument…

Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?

Meaning is a difficult thing to define. I enjoyed going to the beach this morning and surfing. Did it have any meaning? I didn’t really get anywhere. I just paddled out only to ride a wave back in. Does that mean because I didn’t do anything practical that it brought me no happiness? Hell no .. I had a great time. I live life because I love living. My life is rich and rewarding. My wife is about to give birth to our first child. I imagine I will be doing a lot of living for my children and will gain a lot of purpose in life by attempting to pass on the lessons I have learnt. Perhaps they will make better use of the info than I have ;)

How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?


That’s what Laws, social norms, peer pressure etc is for. Most people won’t shoplift not really because of the consequences but because of what people will think of them. That’s why people will keep shoplifting if they are hanging out with people that that will impress. Think about it. Most of your actions are aimed at making sure you don’t disappoint the people around you (or yourself) rather than disappointing God. If you did something really bad surely your first thought would be “oh my what will my mother think of me now..” Not “oh no I am in the shit with god now.”

God even by your own definition is forgiving… is your mother as forgiving?? So if he will forgive you and your mother won’t who is really stopping you from doing something bad??

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?I'll just pretend you're not trying to offend atheists.
My parents, also atheists, taught me right from wrong. I tend to think my ethics are stronger for not having to have the threat of punishment from some guy in the sky to make me do the right thing.
As many religious people do, I like myself better for being a good an ethical person. Though I don't believe in an afterlife, I believe in doing the right thing and making the world better in my own small ways. To an atheist, it's the here and now that's important. And that's the time to try and make a difference.
The world is not meaningless. It seems more like people who believe in an afterlife would think the world is meaningless. Afterall, why try to make the world better if you've got something better coming along later? Is it just to get into Heaven?
I do have a gut feeling about right and wrong. It just doesn't rely on some carrot and stick act to get me to act on it. I have an obligation to help my fellow beings and treat them well because it's right. And because it's the way I'd want to be treated.

You would think so, wouldn't you, and yet it survives and thrives. I suppose religion gives people a way to feel good about themselves, to feel that even though their lives are miserable, there is a reward for them in the afterlife. I suppose that helps.

I would rather focus on living than getting ready for dying (after all none of us have all that much time).

Why would anyone care about these rules/laws?

I don't care about your religions laws, I care about societies laws. I would also ask how many religious people break atleast one of their rules, and how many commit illegal acts.

Quick note: People have morals and ethics.

Another quicker note: Religion is relatively immoral compared to modern views.

I would rather focus on living than getting ready for dying (after all none of us have all that much time).

I agree, I was just saying. But that could be a baseless assumption (Criik expects nothing less from me). And being an atheist, my life is meaningless, so what do I know? :rolleyes: :p

I agree, I was just saying. But that could be a baseless assumption (Criik expects nothing less from me). And being an atheist, my life is meaningless, so what do I know? :rolleyes: :p

Don't worry, at least you won't have to face up to God at the end. Me and Criik have already agreed that he doesn't have the time.

Don't worry, at least you won't have to face up to God at the end. Me and Criik have already agreed that he doesn't have the time.

Some of his statements about what he believes make me wonder. Suppose there is a God, one like Christians believe in, and there will be a Last Judgment. I know what will happen to me, I'm in with the goats, not with the sheep, I denied God and I will get a straight-forward punishment, or at least be denied Heaven. But Criik, who wants to pick and choose what he believes ("I don't believe in the Old testament," "I'm not sure about saints"), is going to be denied too, and he'll feel way worse than I will, since he thinks he's a believer and so will be taken up. Finding that unless you accept the whole package you're not eligible for salvation will be a terrible shock for him.

Some of his statements about what he believes make me wonder. Suppose there is a God, one like Christians believe in, and there will be a Last Judgment. I know what will happen to me, I'm in with the goats, not with the sheep, I denied God and I will get a straight-forward punishment, or at least be denied Heaven. But Criik, who wants to pick and choose what he believes ("I don't believe in the Old testament," "I'm not sure about saints"), is going to be denied too, and he'll feel way worse than I will, since he thinks he's a believer and so will be taken up. Finding that unless you accept the whole package you're not eligible for salvation will be a terrible shock for him.

But you forget, a major part of the Christian God is that he loves us all and forgives anything. If he is real then all us goats will just have to apologise and make do in heaven with rooms that don't have a descent view. As for the 'pic'n'mix' lot, they can rely on the same treatment, even if the rooms suck.

Depends which Christian God you mean.

New Testament or Old? They are different you know.

Depends which Christian God you mean.

New Testament or Old? They are different you know.

Old Testament God is is the Jewish god. The New Testament god is exclusively Christian updates Gods stance on humanity, from what the Torah says to the new Christian way.

Nonsense, the Old Testament is so corrupted for being translated through several languages that it is now beyond comparisson. What we are then left with is;

Yaweh
Jehova
Brian

You decide which is patron deity of which religion, I'm too tired.

Suffice to say it does him credit that he doesn't follow the old testament.

Suffice to say it does him credit that he doesn't follow the old testament.

But it makes it a great deal harder for his followers to keep to his teachings, hatred and intolerance are so easy, while being pleasant is so much harder (probably why Christians often fail at it).

What can I say? The Old Testament nicely reflects basic human nature, whereas the New Testament is idealisation that came with the advancement of society.

But it makes it a great deal harder for his followers to keep to his teachings, hatred and intolerance are so easy, while being pleasant is so much harder (probably why Christians often fail at it).
I've really had enough with this general attitude on NS by which posters believe Christians to be generally bad people, or at least, more prone to cruelty than atheists.

What can I say? The Old Testament nicely reflects basic human nature, whereas the New Testament is idealisation that came with the advancement of society.

The New Testament represents the increasing abstraction of God from a psuedo-human being(s) to what we now consider to be a 'god'. In the past religion was defined by culture, it began to define the hopes of the culture.

I've really had enough with this general attitude on NS by which posters believe Christians to be generally bad people, or at least, more prone to cruelty than atheists.

Yes, I am sure you are. Heh, anyone would think atheists were sick of being called amoral perverts, yet really, we love it!

The New Testament represents the increasing abstraction of God from a psuedo-human being(s) to what we now consider to be a 'god'. In the past religion was defined by culture, it began to define the hopes of the culture.

Yep, which is why I consider Christanity to have two Gods.

Harry and Larry I call them.

I've really had enough with this general attitude on NS by which posters believe Christians to be generally bad people, or at least, more prone to cruelty than atheists.

While I do see religion as a source of strife that is completely unneeded, the reason I bring it up is that far more terrible things have been done in the name of religion than in atheism.

Yep, which is why I consider Christanity to have two Gods.

Harry and Larry I call them.

Where did that come from?

Seriously?

I've really had enough with this general attitude on NS by which posters believe Christians to be generally bad people, or at least, more prone to cruelty than atheists.

Well, according to the prison population, they are more prone to cruelty, at least in the U.S.

It came from the land of sleep deprevation.

At any rate, I do so love the Old Testament.

It came from the land of sleep deprevation.

At any rate, I do so love the Old Testament.

God is my favourite fictional character.

So, Criik, you're saying that since I am an atheist, I have no morals?

:rolleyes:

Santa is mine, he brings gifts. God is fifth, after Jimmy the Hand, but above Belgarion.

*sigh* I don't need a God to tell me what's right and what's not. Or to scare me into doing what's been written down as "right" in His Book, for fear of sulfurous lightning bolts striking me and mine dead.

*makes popcorn and settles in to watch*

nope, instead you listen to a society that was built from a large religious background

nope, instead you listen to a society that was built from a large religious background

Is it though? I was making a point along the same lines earlier except I was saying "I cant think of any societies that don't have religion imprinted on them" anyway...

I've come to the conclusion that our society is built on survival not religion. We didn't build schools and hosipitals so we could live morally, but rather so we could simply live.

Psychopaths break moral universalism.


Heh it was just an example used to show that the assumption of all atheists believing that there are no objective morals is incorrect. That doesn't mean that I agree with it though.

nope, instead you listen to a society that was built from a large religious background

Yes, religion that originated by worshipping pythons. My how religion has evolv- I mean, developed and expanded to enlightenment and realisation.

I am going to quote my favourite bible passage.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Love it.

Yes, religion that originated by worshipping pythons. My how religion has evolv- I mean, developed and expanded to enlightenment and realisation.

I am going to quote my favourite bible passage.

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Love it.

Mistranslation. Hebrew word means "poisoner".

Mistranslation. Hebrew word means "poisoner".

I'm sure there was no interest at all in mistranslating it in order to slap the word onto political enemies... :p

How curious, how many other mistranslations does the Bible carry then?

Source?

How curious, how many other mistranslations does the Bible carry then?

Source?

Probably a few thousand.

Probably a few billion.

Edited for accuracy. :p

How curious, how many other mistranslations does the Bible carry then?

Source?

God, loads. Mary Magdelene wasn't even really a prositute, although everyone thinks she is, its just not true. Nothing in the bible actually says she was there was Another mary who was interpretted to be a prostitute, but even so it might have been interpretted wrong.

You know, if you actually need a being in the sky to tell you murder is probably not a good thing, then I weep for you and humanity. I'd like to think that most people would still refrain from such even without the threat of eternal damnation.

Precisely. People know what's right and what's wrong innately, and don't need some magical, fictional "god" to dictate morality.

A completely atheist culture could still have a sense of meaning, morality, and joy. You don't need God for that. Indeed, some belief systems like Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism could be considered atheist or nontheist and they were capable of developing solid moral systems.

And this is coming from an agnostic who has been as critical of certain atheist positions as much as he is of theist ones.

Evolution doesn't allow for a morality that's harmful to the species even without God.
So, for humans(call it cavemen here), if X murders Y, X gets kicked out of the group and dies of exposure, because nobody else wants X killing them.
This keeps murder squarely in the immoral camp.
Now for theft:
X steals something.
X is forced to (at minimum) give it back and after that the rest of X's group distrusts X.
X therefore will not survive as well as the rest of the group.
So theiving becomes immoral.

And so on.

Evolution doesn't allow for a morality that's harmful to the species even without God.

And so on.

Yes, but you also run in to problems. For example, rape is perfectly acceptable in a strictly evolutionary sense because it maximizes the number of children and genetic mixing; the social disruption of rape is meaningless if you can father a lot of children and disseminate your genetic material in as many places as possible.

Nature is not a good source of moral justification. Reason is a lot better for that one.

Yes, but you also run in to problems. For example, rape is perfectly acceptable in a strictly evolutionary sense because it maximizes the number of children and genetic mixing; the social disruption of rape is meaningless if you can father a lot of children and disseminate your genetic material in as many places as possible.

Nature is not a good source of moral justification. Reason is a lot better for that one.

very true. however, I always wonder about these "subjective morality" people who claim "murder is wrong because it is" and yet can not objectively prove that.

I think (troll-ish rants aside) when people ask the question in the OP what they mean is "if there is no objective morality why is anything wrong?"

However, it makes an individual socially shunned, therefore removing him from the gene pool, and discourages rape throughout the rest of society.

However, it makes an individual socially shunned, therefore removing him from the gene pool, and discourages rape throughout the rest of society.

why would they be shunned?

if morality is subjective then why would rape be objectively wrong?

Yes, but you also run in to problems. For example, rape is perfectly acceptable in a strictly evolutionary sense because it maximizes the number of children and genetic mixing; the social disruption of rape is meaningless if you can father a lot of children and disseminate your genetic material in as many places as possible.

Not necessarily. The trauma of rape often prevents the mother from not only getting pregnant in the first place, but from ever having sex again.

why would they be shunned?

if morality is subjective then why would rape be objectively wrong?

Because rape causes harm.

Because rape causes harm.

*totally not advocating rape, being an objective morality girl who has been also a victim*

why would someone care about harm to another if it meets a need of their own?

Individuals wouldn't care, but society as a whole would view it as wrong, for the same reasons modern society views it as wrong, therefore, huge amounts of negative social stigma would be placed on the rapist, removing him from the gene pool and discouraging future acts of rape.

Not necessarily. The trauma of rape often prevents the mother from not only getting pregnant in the first place, but from ever having sex again.

Yeah, but if you rape a few thousand women and impregnate even several hundred of them (as a few people in the past have done; Ghengis Khan and Moulay Ismail come to mind) it doesn't really matter if that woman has sex again because of sheer volume.

The most adaptive males could concievably rape their dicks off and disseminate their useful genetic material in the widest way possible.

However, societal expectations and stigmas would discourage the children from turning to rape.

However, it makes an individual socially shunned, therefore removing him from the gene pool, and discourages rape throughout the rest of society.

Why does it matter? If you're a successful chief who commands the loyalty of his men through military prowess, that's not going to matter, and it's the successful men that are going to be capable of the most rapes overall.

I mean, guys like Attila and Ghengis committed hundreds or even thousands of rapes and murders in their time and nobody ostracized them...they were admiried and respected by the men they commanded.

Individuals wouldn't care, but society as a whole would view it as wrong, for the same reasons modern society views it as wrong, therefore, huge amounts of negative social stigma would be placed on the rapist, removing him from the gene pool and discouraging future acts of rape.

so if rape is objectively wrong by "society standards"* then there is objective morality?

* the surplus of cultures who condone the rape of women and children really hurts your "society won't put up with it" arguement

However, societal expectations and stigmas would discourage the children from turning to rape.

Not all societies have those stigmas, and they have often been subverted when the people are dedicated to something else. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no moral basis for opposing rape.

Yes, there are going to be people that rape. Always. And that can't be changed. But, societal expectations, regardless of the presence of stupid "religion", discourage it on the whole.

Yes, there are going to be people that rape. Always. And that can't be changed. But, societal expectations, regardless of the presence of stupid "religion", discourage it on the whole.

maybe where you live, but that is not true everywhere.

Yes, there are going to be people that rape. Always. And that can't be changed. But, societal expectations, regardless of the presence of stupid "religion", discourage it on the whole.

Yeah, but there is no evolutionary justification from it. The justification comes from societal and rational arguments agaisnt it, not some biological reason to oppose it.

Not all societies have those stigmas, and they have often been subverted when the people are dedicated to something else. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no moral basis for opposing rape.

Hmm...kindness is valued by humans. Therefore, those who are kind are more likely to reproduce. Evolutionarily speaking, rape is frowned upon whenever it is looked upon as unkind.

Yeah, but if you rape a few thousand women and impregnate even several hundred of them (as a few people in the past have done; Ghengis Khan and Moulay Ismail come to mind) it doesn't really matter if that woman has sex again because of sheer volume.

The most adaptive males could concievably rape their dicks off and disseminate their useful genetic material in the widest way possible.

Because the women that are raped are potential partners of other men.

Man X rapes women A B and C

Man Y and Z can no longer father children with women ABC because they are already pregnant

So its in Y and Zs interest not to allow X to rape women A B and C

Therefore Y and Z will not tolerate rape as there are more people negetively effected by the actions of X it will be strongly socially selected for the actions of X to be seen as bad...

Also rape removes female partner selection. Thus reducing the fitness selection simply to sexual reproductivity rather than child raring which is an important factor is survival.

Yeah, but there is no evolutionary justification from it. The justification comes from societal and rational arguments agaisnt it, not some biological reason to oppose it.

So social animals only use reasoning to enforce their societies rules?
Did you know that all bees are fertile (including the worker bees) but their reproduction is suppressed by the hive. If they lay eggs the other members of the hive will kill the eggs.

Meerkats will stand guard over their fellow foragers while they themselves go hungry. Is it reasoning that allows this to happen in each and every warren? Or is it socially evolved. They are trained at birth by other meerkats to behave in this fashion. Their biology is set up to facilitate living in a society…

What makes you think humans operate their society differently. Sure we may have a more complex society due to larger numbers of members but it’s a society that has evolved.. ideas on morality are passed from one generation to another and modified during the process…

As technology places different demands on society new morals will be developed to deal with the new problems.. these morals come from a sort of biological democracy rather than from an individuals reason

First may I say...

Wow...

now I am not taking the stance of No Religion = Immorailty... but a few points...

Morals and ethics in no way require the threat of a cosmic spanking. Most people get them from parents more than religion.but how do you know your parents didn't get their morals from a religous source... perhaps their parents were religious... or their Grandparents... thus the true source of your morals is from religion.
See above. I don't need a god to know what is right and wrong.
There is a gut feeling, it just isn't because of god.how do you know... it could be the Holy Spirit or even the FSM's spiritual Noodle guiding you... :p
Personal satisfaction with oneself? The world isn't meaningless without a god anymore than it is with a god.
Again, see above. Additionally, we don't need meaning to be happy.
the fuck?usually, most people are happy as they are fulfilling one of the "Deadly" sins. especially Greed. Some people will feel personal satisfaction as they exact revenge against someone who did them wrong. but Vigilatism is still against the law. Others feel Personal Satisfaction as they squeeze every penny out of other people... or lording it over those less fortunate.

Golden Rule, FTW!
you mean this golden rule?

12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. or as stated in Luke...

31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

What about not doing harm to others just cause it's the right thing to do, instead of through "obligation" to some dogmatic principle?"Might makes Right" or "He who has the Gold, makes the rules" those can be non-religious baised sources of morals... including an "Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth." of course that would mean Murders get killed, and rapists get... :eek:

You're under the mistaken impression that secular people have no way of discerning right from wrong.I was under the impression he was asking for non-religious sources of morals...

Precisely. People know what's right and what's wrong innately, and don't need some magical, fictional "god" to dictate morality.Innately? then why are there restrictions on laws that protect a child because they don't know right from wrong? why do we need laws and lawyers if everyone knew what's right and wrong innately...

sorry, but after reading 4 pages and only finding a hand full of replies that answered the OP questions...

still reading through the thread... so If these points have been touched upon, apologies.

snip
but how do you know your parents didn't get their morals from a religous source... perhaps their parents were religious... or their Grandparents... thus the true source of your morals is from religion.snip

How do you know your great great .... grandparents did not originally get their morals from a pagen religion or some other source

It works both ways ... and if their morals were based in tradition off a non Christian god inspired source what makes them right?

*totally not advocating rape, being an objective morality girl who has been also a victim*

why would someone care about harm to another if it meets a need of their own?

I made a post about this a while back. I'm tired now, so I can't remember most of it, but the gist of it was that if you harm another human, you open youself up to harm yourself. You can't have a stable society without trust that other members will not harm you.

It's called the Golden Rule. Genetically, humans are predisposed to reciprocate good behavior and punish anti-social behavior.not really. think about some of the gangs out there. Good Behavior isn't reciprocated, anti-social behavior sometimes gets rewarded.

at the same time, good deeds often lays the foundation for the expectation of more good deeds.

unlike you, it isn't a fear of getting spanked by the great cosmic babysitter that stops me from treating other like shit.*grins* sometimes it's getting spanked by the law that keeps one from treating others like shit also... [jk]

in my mind, religious types are truly some of the most pessimistic, self-centered idiots on the planet.same can be said with Athiests... so why don't we agree that Pessimistic, Self-Centered idiots are abundant everywhere.

You think that if it were not for fear of retribution, people would behave like animals. You think so low of humanity that you need to imagine a supernatural punishment for bad behavior, and think that this is the only thing that stops humans from ripping each other apart.and isn't it the fear of Legal Reprecussions that also do the same thing?

[snipped]

Incorrect. People make their own instead of it comming from a religion. but where does those morals come from? some say parents, but how can you be sure that long ago, your family ancistors were part of some religion and that their lessions were passed down from generation to generation. (oh and Religion doesn't mean Christianity, it can be the Moon Goddess or the Sun God or even Gaia.)

This is an interesting an idea, but how can we be sure of this? I mean, is there any culture where there has been no effect whatsoever of religion?that is a good question.

Early societies had intense communalistic bonds, and many of them predate any sort of religious system of morality. Religion, rather, served as a means of understanding the world around them.are you sure? are you sure that even early Cavemen didn't have some form of animal worship or even Gaian worship?

Point taken. But did they really exsist in a moral society, back then? It seems they stuck together to survive, (if we are talking cave men era).But isn't behaving in a "moral" way towards others a survival strategy?what is a Moral Society... for some, it could be "only the leader mates with the female." or others "women are only useful for making babies and cooking." such morals would be baised on survival, but it would only extend to the clan/family unit and not outside that.

Hmm *chuckles* this could be said, in the way that stealings someones bag ends you up in prison (so to survive be moral, I see) But what if you steal someone's bag and get away with it. You survive, but its not moral..;)"Do unto other then RUN!" :D

You're being disingenuous. I was talking about a survival strategy for a group of people, not for an individual. If a person could manage outside of society - completely outside - then stealing might actually be a survival strategy for that person. That's not possible, though, unless one removes oneself from the company of others, in which case steaking is moot because there's no one to steal from. ;)except other clans/family units (if we are still in caveman era...)

But someone else might steal your bag. That the action may be reciprocated in the future is what drives morality.and escallation is a natural thing. for all we know, the first, the VERY FIRST war may have been over one person making an insulting gesture and the other sought payback of a higher magnatude to "learn em" and so forth and so forth...

Page 6 and going...

How do you know your great great .... grandparents did not originally get their morals from a pagen religion or some other source

It works both ways ... and if their morals were based in tradition off a non Christian god inspired source what makes them right?

ah, but the original question is RELIGION. not specifying Christian, Muslim, Buddist or such. so a Pagen Religion is still a form of Religion.

and an Athiest still wouldn't be apart of that religion... ;)

ah, but the original question is RELIGION. not specifying Christian, Muslim, Buddist or such. so a Pagen Religion is still a form of Religion.

and an Athiest still wouldn't be apart of that religion... ;)

True, very true. though my question still stands if you do not truly know the origin of your morals How do you know what they are based in is any more then what the atheists are.

Maybe yours are both based on nothing more then tradition for traditions sake or survival for societies sake.

Atheists may not apply the mysticism to the creation or mantinance of their morals but both of your morals may be woven from the same cloth

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

Well since so few atheists think that genocide is a good thing and so many Christians (those who think that the 700 club is run by a decent human being) think it's a good thing, I'd say that in an atheist society morality would come from ignoring the Bible.

... where would any sense of morality come from?

Do you think parents care for their children because they think God told them to?

Do you avoid manipulating and extorting your friends because God tells you not to?

Would you enjoy torturing children if not for what you read in the Bible?

No? Then realize the absurdity of your position and give it up.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

The vast majority of human morality is inherent instinctual drives.

For a man that would be things like:
Don't have sex with your siblings.
Don't pick fights for no reason.
Share with your friends.
Be nice to women and children.
Be fair with other men.
If you want people to follow you you have to make it worth their while.
If you want women to hang around you you have to make it worth their while.

When religion tries to supress these things it will always loose, one way or another. The behavior it tries to create will get reacted against in hidden ways. If a religion bans a lot of sex, a lot of hidden sex will go on. If it bans alcohol a lot of hidden alcohol will get consumed (ask anyone serving in the Middle East).

Most religous taboos are based on situational things. Like restrictions on eating meat tend to pop up when there isn't enough meat to go around. The problem is that these taboos hang around even when the reason for them is gone. In pre-literate or multi-cultural societies such obsolete taboos tend to get abandoned. If there's plenty of meat to go around, then people figure that they shouldn't starve themselves. Even in a literate society they wear out eventually. Just look at how today's Catholics don't go to hell for eating meat on Friday (sure sucks for the Catholics who died 20 years ago.) But a great deal of suffering gets caused by those who try to impose their taboos on the rest of us against our consent (like the abstinence only people).

It's just a lot of superstitious crap.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved,the true, proper source of objective moral fact is not the word of some non-existent invisible man in the sky, but man's fundamental nature as a creature that must act in its own rational self-interest to survive.are you saying that the laws of nature is a Non-Religious source of moralls?

Self-interest. If there is nothing preventing you from killing someone, then there is nothing preventing you from being killed.unless you fall to "Might is right" then strength and numbers prevail. or the Majority/Strong rule.

Lets go with the biblical, the Israleites commited genocide under the command of God. Genocide is wrong but because God commanded it, it was good.and God also commanded to give generously and with a free heart, (no strings attached) so is that bad because it's religiously baised?

I believe this entire argument is based on a definition no one has defined yet. What is good? What is evil? And what standard are we measuring it by?I would think that it needs first determine at what point does the source of morals be determined? after all, if the great Earth Goddess declared to her children to care for the children... won't that make Paternal responsibility baised on religion?

No, they do not. Good is objective. Killing someone is not good. Right is not objective. There are times in which killing someone is the best answer.and if the only way for a police officer to save a child is to kill the attacker, while it's "Good" for the child and the officer, it's "Bad" for the deceased and their survivors. Good is also relative, what's good for one isn't good for others. Saddam kept Iraq whole, that is Good, but those he oppressed it wasn't Good.

Read your own thread, kiddo. You do that in the freaking first post.I believe he did not specify Christianity, but Religion in General and total. and he didn't say Athiest are immoral, he was curious as to where and what you base your morals on. then again, it could be how I read the OP... :p

... where would any sense of morality come from?

From the same place your god concept came from. Morality is a social necessity. It will evolve or the society will exterminate itself.

True, very true. though my question still stands if you do not truly know the origin of your morals How do you know what they are based in is any more then what the atheists are.

Maybe yours are both based on nothing more then tradition for traditions sake or survival for societies sake.

Atheists may not apply the mysticism to the creation or mantinance of their morals but both of your morals may be woven from the same clothwhich is why I (and please don't think I'm in the same boat with Crik... ) never assumed that the morals of an Atheist was anything less than that of a religious person.

I've read so far that people say Religious people use the fear of Hell/Eternal Punnishment/lower reincarnation/etc to keep people in line. the same can be said with Laws. the fear of Jail/fines/punnishment will keep people from committing crimes. yet within the letter of the law, people will do immoral things. Lie, for instance, is immoral on a religious standpoint... but as long as no one gets hurt or takes action, one is free to lie all they want.

Theft... sure I hold up a person or bank, I'll go to jail. but if I find a dollar on the ground, I know it's not mine, I know it belongs to someone, seeing that the dollar didn't just materialize there... yet the phrase "Finders Keepers, Loosers Weepers" comes to mind and thus we justify claiming something that wasn't ours, nor was it given to us, as ours. Morally, is that right?

There are exceptions to the law that say that finding something that ownership cannot be determined is free to be claimed by anyone. In nature, it's the law of holding. if the animal can hold it, it's theirs. if it can defend it's territory, then it's that creature's territory.

I guess that in a totally, removed from all forms of religion, lifestyle... Laws are the source of morallity for people.

*sigh* I don't need a God to tell me what's right and what's not. Or to scare me into doing what's been written down as "right" in His Book, for fear of sulfurous lightning bolts striking me and mine dead.

Amen to that, mon amis.

For example, rape is perfectly acceptable in a strictly evolutionary sense because it maximizes the number of children and genetic mixing; the social disruption of rape is meaningless if you can father a lot of children and disseminate your genetic material in as many places as possible.

It isn't just one male who is raping; it's ALL of them. So all of them are fighting over females, instead of finding food. And what happens to the females, if they are raped callously again and again? Who will care for their children?

Let's not forget perhaps even the more compelling basis for avoiding rape - evolutionarily we are altruistic to a degree. Mutual aid and cooperation aids in overall evolutionary fitness, and as a result we have caring and compassion hard-wired into us. Like many of the things contributed by evolution, this has plenty of consequences that have nothing to do with its evolutionary role; there's no reason that a sense of empathy for a raped woman, and thus revulsion at such a cruel and degrading act, would not result simply from evolutionarily provided sentiments.

Nature is not a good source of moral justification. Reason is a lot better for that one.

Reason is quite useless if you're looking for a basis for moral justification.

Not really. Ethics can replace morality. All you need is a society in which people generally refrain from socially harmful acts, or condemn them. Lying for instance: If lying were considered acceptable, you could always be telling falsehoods. No society that held that value could function because the people can't communicate. Therefore lying must be wrong. You don't need a commandment "Thou shalt not make false testament" to validate that, it only reenforces it. The same goes for killing and stealing. Such societies where those were totally acceptable wouldn't be able to function for lack of security. Again, no need for religion to explain why people would band together and say "You know, maybe we shouldn't lie, steal, or kill. I'll not lie to you, steal from you, or kill you if you don't do it to me, and we'll punish anyone that does."

There you have it. That's where your ethics come from.actually Ethics and Morals are the same things. so if the Core Morals/Ethics collapse, That society will fragment... thus effectively destroying that society, but creating numerous new ones.

I've posted this many times before, but it seems to fit in with this thread (especially since I'm seeing some new faces around here):

The vast majority of people who claim to draw their morality from God do not actually do so. There is a very easy way to establish this.

Pose to the believer a simple question. "Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God speaks directly to you. There is absolutely no doubt in your mind that God is speaking to you. God tells you that He wishes you to torture a kitten to death. Do you do it? Now, replace 'kitten' with 'human infant.' Do you do it?"

At this point, the believer will usually try to tell you that their God would never ask them to do this. If you inquire as to why, they usually will tell you that God is good and would not ask them to do something bad, like torturing a baby.

Very clearly, they have a sense of morality that exists independent of God. Their understanding of Good and Evil does not require God, they simply use God to lend it additional significance and (oddly enough) credibility.
Replace Human Infant with infidels. and you'll see that going on right now in conflicts between Shi'ites and Sunnis.

now, to answer your question Bottle, (and I know you would not like the answer.) yes, I would if I was told by God, whom I know and communicate with daily, to do that deed. would I say I was right? no. Would I try to defend myself in Court? No. would I say "God told me to"? No. I would accept the crime as well as the punnishment the laws of man would deal out.

now the question you need to ask, is this.

Has God asked for such a deed to be done from me?

actually Ethics and Morals are the same things.

Not even in the slightests.

If God was benevolent then he shouldn't want to see a cute, helpless kitten tortured. In fact he shouldn't really need to test you at all, he should already know what you are going to do and accept you for it. However he does seem to be almost as unpleasent an individual as the fanatics who worship him.now what if that Cute Helpless Kitten had a genetic quirk in his system that allowed a mutated and Hightly verulant form of Bird Flu to cross between birds and Mammals. and the only way to defeat that is not just by killing the kitten (fleas you know...) but to kill the Genetic Quirk by a massaive doase of adrenaline. (hence the torture.) so knowing that by killing one kitten, or one baby, you will save MILLIONS of lives. two lives (yours included) for over Two million of others. would you still do it?

just wondering, has anyone mentioned the IMmonral things done by religious people, INCLUDING those in leadership positions in the respective churches? the little children abused by priests? holy war throughout history? oppresion of the poor, gays, other cultures and women?

just a thought, correct me if i've missed a point or two.and are you saying that ONLY religious people do immoral things? I hope not.

But you forget, a major part of the Christian God is that he loves us all and forgives anything. If he is real then all us goats will just have to apologise and make do in heaven with rooms that don't have a descent view. As for the 'pic'n'mix' lot, they can rely on the same treatment, even if the rooms suck.yep... as long as you do so before you're called to judgement.

Not even in the slightests.

Explain the difference.

Definition of Morals (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morals)

Definition of Ethics (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics)

They're synonomous the differences so slight that it's practically immaterial.

which is why I (and please don't think I'm in the same boat with Crik... ) never assumed that the morals of an Atheist was anything less than that of a religious person.

I've read so far that people say Religious people use the fear of Hell/Eternal Punnishment/lower reincarnation/etc to keep people in line. the same can be said with Laws. the fear of Jail/fines/punnishment will keep people from committing crimes. yet within the letter of the law, people will do immoral things. Lie, for instance, is immoral on a religious standpoint... but as long as no one gets hurt or takes action, one is free to lie all they want.

Theft... sure I hold up a person or bank, I'll go to jail. but if I find a dollar on the ground, I know it's not mine, I know it belongs to someone, seeing that the dollar didn't just materialize there... yet the phrase "Finders Keepers, Loosers Weepers" comes to mind and thus we justify claiming something that wasn't ours, nor was it given to us, as ours. Morally, is that right?

There are exceptions to the law that say that finding something that ownership cannot be determined is free to be claimed by anyone. In nature, it's the law of holding. if the animal can hold it, it's theirs. if it can defend it's territory, then it's that creature's territory.

I guess that in a totally, removed from all forms of religion, lifestyle... Laws are the source of morallity for people.
I know you I would never lump you two together ... give me more credit then that :) (though know you were stating it clearly for other posters)

As far as the fear motivator I don't think that is a big part of the motivation ... I think their core motivation is like the rest of us based on a feeling of right and wrong motivated by tradition and our sense of right and wrong and for societal survival.

Though I think some of the fringe beliefs the non core ones may have some fear motivation they also may not (things like don't eat meat or other non real core beliefs) Some may be motivated by a wish to please ... or a number of other motivations

I know you I would never lump you two together ... give me more credit then that :) (though know you were stating it clearly for other posters)yep I do UT... after being lumped with whas-his-name... I try to state it clearly and plainly for others. :p

As far as the fear motivator I don't think that is a big part of the motivation ... I think their core motivation is like the rest of us based on a feeling of right and wrong motivated by tradition and our sense of right and wrong and for societal survival. then it comes down to a person's interpretation of Right and Wrong. the more people who agree with it, the stronger it gets. the stonger it gets, the longer it lasts... The strong/majority will rule over the weak/minority.

man this is getting deep...

Though I think some of the fringe beliefs the non core ones may have some fear motivation they also may not (things like don't eat meat or other non real core beliefs) Some may be motivated by a wish to please ... or a number of other motivations
(getting nitpicky... apologies in advance) some psycholgists will say the wish to please stems from a fear of rejection. ;)

Remember, the choices during any conflict comes down to two responses.... Fight or Flight. when morals come into conflict, those two basic responses come into play. Does one fight for their beliefs/morals/ethics... or do they run and accept the others beliefs/morals/ethics. To flee, or retreat, means that the conflicting beliefs/morals/ethics can always return while in a conflict, they tend to be stamped out completely...

wow... had to stop that line of thought, I found myself going into a different tangent and topic. A sure sign that it's time for me to log out.

anyway, I'm glad that some civil discussion is occuring now.

Good night.

... where would any sense of morality come from?If morality is the ability to distinguish between right & wrong, then you - and religious fruitcakes like you - must per definition be amoral.

You are a slave. You do not discen between right & wrong, you simply do as you believe you've been told. You are less than human. And if there really is a God somewhere & it really did give you free will, you surely make it cry.

Empathy is a human ability. A rare few are born with a diminished capacity for empathy, and even fewer manage to lose it as a consequence of severe braindamage. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes.

This little ability of ours has far reaching consequences, and people without it cannot lead normal lives. If you & I met, for example, empathy - if nothing else - would keep me from nicking all your shit, and ripping your throat out to avoid listening to any more of your insane babble. Why? Because empathy allows me to imagine how my actions would impact me, and hopefully, the suffering I'd imagine you go through, would be enough to convince me not to put you through it.

Fortunately it works on all levels. I happily pay tonnes of taxes for a wide range of shit I'll never ever use. I do it because others need those services badly, and I'm able to empathise with their need.... And that's a bit of a lie actually, since I personally have a sorely limited ability to empathise, but on average, that's how it works.

In an amusing twist, empathy is probably also why you believe there's a god. You see this amazing reality we live in, and you simply can't help but try to relate to it as you would to another human being. Ever been bitten by a dog? Chances are it's empathy at work again. You try to relate to it as you would to a human being, but sadly you & the dog had highly dissimilar reference points for interpreting intent, so it bit you.

Self-preservation alone doesn't grant people a sense of morality/ethics. It simply allows you to exploit other's sense of morality. That's the difference between psychopaths & the average person. Fortunately some would-be psycho's get a chance to learn about these things, before they start exploiting others mercilessly for their own benefit.

Finally, I have never in all my life been presented with anything more immoral & vile than the Abrahamite holy books. Fortunately, I know for a fact that you can't possibly live by the moral codes of any of those, because you'd be institutionalised for life, or simply killed, within days of trying. That, of course, makes you a hyppocrite, and since you could be said to be promoting Christianity on this forum; a false prophet. You better hope there aren't any real Christians near you, or you'll be butchered like the sinner you are.

Ouch ;)

Has God asked for such a deed to be done from me?Has God ever asked anyone else to do something like that? The answer is undoubtedly yes.

If morality is the ability to distinguish between right & wrong, then you - and religious fruitcakes like you - must per definition be amoral.

You are a slave. You do not discen between right & wrong, you simply do as you believe you've been told. You are less than human. And if there really is a God somewhere & it really did give you free will, you surely make it cry.

Empathy is a human ability. A rare few are born with a diminished capacity for empathy, and even fewer manage to lose it as a consequence of severe braindamage. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in another person's shoes.

This little ability of ours has far reaching consequences, and people without it cannot lead normal lives. If you & I met, for example, empathy - if nothing else - would keep me from nicking all your shit, and ripping your throat out to avoid listening to any more of your insane babble. Why? Because empathy allows me to imagine how my actions would impact me, and hopefully, the suffering I'd imagine you go through, would be enough to convince me not to put you through it.

Fortunately it works on all levels. I happily pay tonnes of taxes for a wide range of shit I'll never ever use. I do it because others need those services badly, and I'm able to empathise with their need.... And that's a bit of a lie actually, since I personally have a sorely limited ability to empathise, but on average, that's how it works.

In an amusing twist, empathy is probably also why you believe there's a god. You see this amazing reality we live in, and you simply can't help but try to relate to it as you would to another human being. Ever been bitten by a dog? Chances are it's empathy at work again. You try to relate to it as you would to a human being, but sadly you & the dog had highly dissimilar reference points for interpreting intent, so it bit you.

Self-preservation alone doesn't grant people a sense of morality/ethics. It simply allows you to exploit other's sense of morality. That's the difference between psychopaths & the average person. Fortunately some would-be psycho's get a chance to learn about these things, before they start exploiting others mercilessly for their own benefit.

Finally, I have never in all my life been presented with anything more immoral & vile than the Abrahamite holy books. Fortunately, I know for a fact that you can't possibly live by the moral codes of any of those, because you'd be institutionalised for life, or simply killed, within days of trying. That, of course, makes you a hyppocrite, and since you could be said to be promoting Christianity on this forum; a false prophet. You better hope there aren't any real Christians near you, or you'll be butchered like the sinner you are.

Ouch ;)

You
STILL
Rock!!!!

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

so your belief in god is the only thing staying you from killing, stealing, or raping people? THAT's what I call morality. :rolleyes:

... where would any sense of morality come from?
The goodness of man's heart.

































What? If Christians can say it, why can't other people? Blind optimism FTW!

The goodness of man's heart.
































What? If Christians can say it, why can't other people? Blind optimism FTW!
Hey, what about the WOMAN's heart? Misogynist.

The majority of athiest do not believe in an objective good.

And the majority of theists are incapable of justifying it coherently even when they bring in God.

Hey, what about the WOMAN's heart? Misogynist.
Philanthropist.

And the majority of theists are incapable of justifying it coherently even when they bring in God.

Ka-POW! :sniper:

Philanthropist.

Maybe philanderer .... oh well, I have enough to give! :)

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless?

Right. I'm an atheist, so that must mean I am an immoral kid molester.

Fuck off.

With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy?

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1163920436-1162032594066.b.jpg

Not all societies have those stigmas, and they have often been subverted when the people are dedicated to something else. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no moral basis for opposing rape.
Evolutionarily speaking?

Evolutionarily speaking, there is no moral basis for anything. Evolution does not provide moral basis for anything, any more than the sky being blue provides moral basis.

Now, PRAGMATICALLY speaking, evolution and natural selection provide gadjillions of reasons why rape is a lousy option. This is why there are so many species in which rape is not practiced, or in which rape is not accepted by social groups of animals, and why an individual animal (always a male animal, in your examples, which I find adorable) will be worse off raping. Bonobo chimps are just one example of this.

[QUOTE=JuNii;12106089]now what if that Cute Helpless Kitten had a genetic quirk in his system that allowed a mutated and Hightly verulant form of Bird Flu to cross between birds and Mammals. and the only way to defeat that is not just by killing the kitten (fleas you know...) but to kill the Genetic Quirk by a massaive doase of adrenaline. (hence the torture.) so knowing that by killing one kitten, or one baby, you will save MILLIONS of lives. two lives (yours included) for over Two million of others. would you still do it?[QUOTE]

Then I would kill the kitten, without the torture. And because I'm a moral person, not because God told me to.

Evolutionarily speaking?

Evolutionarily speaking, there is no moral basis for anything. Evolution does not provide moral basis for anything, any more than the sky being blue provides moral basis.

Now, PRAGMATICALLY speaking, evolution and natural selection provide gadjillions of reasons why rape is a lousy option. This is why there are so many species in which rape is not practiced, or in which rape is not accepted by social groups of animals, and why an individual animal (always a male animal, in your examples, which I find adorable) will be worse off raping. Bonobo chimps are just one example of this.

Heh I love it when anti Atheists can't work out the whole morlaity bit.

Yes, I am sure you are. Heh, anyone would think atheists were sick of being called amoral perverts, yet really, we love it!
Are you getting the impression that I agree with Criik, the OP? I don't.

While I do see religion as a source of strife that is completely unneeded, the reason I bring it up is that far more terrible things have been done in the name of religion than in atheism.
Well, religion has had a lot longer to do such things, but why are you ignoring the Holocaust, and the genocides of the USSR and Mao's China?

Religion is not really a source of strife. It has probably united more peoples than it has divided them.

Well, according to the prison population, they are more prone to cruelty, at least in the U.S.
Explain.

Precisely. People know what's right and what's wrong innately
Which may be due to the fact that God created them. Alternatively, people don't know anything innately. Almost everything is instilled by culture and education.

Well since so few atheists think that genocide is a good thing and so many Christians think it's a good thing
Be careful, your bigotry is showing. The worst genocides in history were not committed by Christians.

I'd say that in an atheist society morality would come from ignoring the Bible.
More likely a post-Christian society would use an ideology based on Christianity, such as humanism.

Philanthropist.
Philatelist!

Philatelist!


Umm Pilataist!

Heh I love it when anti Atheists can't work out the whole morlaity bit.

I always get a kick out of how a certain kind of believer has put a lot of thought into how "evolution" tells us that it's good for men to rape women. Not that HE would ever do that, mind you, because HE has GAWD to tell him not to rape people. But if he didn't, boy howdy! Evolution SEZ that rape is good! It does so! That's why it's normal for men to want to rape women, and why we need to have GAWD telling men to refrain from following their natural instinct to rape the bitches...I mean, um, pass on their genetic material! Yeah, that's it!

I always get a kick out of how a certain kind of believer has put a lot of thought into how "evolution" tells us that it's good for men to rape women. Not that HE would ever do that, mind you, because HE has GAWD to tell him not to rape people. But if he didn't, boy howdy! Evolution SEZ that rape is good! It does so! That's why it's normal for men to want to rape women, and why we need to have GAWD telling men to refrain from following their natural instinct to rape the bitches...I mean, um, pass on their genetic material! Yeah, that's it!


Heh yeah, it's like they can't get over this evolution thing, it looms soooo large in their psyche, that they think all Atheists must have it as a crux of their belief?

Heh yeah, it's like they can't get over this evolution thing, it looms soooo large in their psyche, that they think all Atheists must have it as a crux of their belief?
They have never developed an internalized set of morality, that's the real problem. Their only concept of morality revolves around gaining rewards or escaping punishments. They have never developed real empathy, the kind that would mean that they don't WANT to rape or steal or kill people, they simply refrain from doing these things because they're scared that Gawd will see them an punish them.

It's no surprise that secularism and "evolution" are so fascinating to them. It's like their secret fantasy: a world with no Gawd watching, where they can do all the things they've been wishing they could do. A world where they don't risk being caught out by the All-Knowing if they rape, steal, and kill.

That's why they insist that atheists must be immoral...because they can't imagine how it would feel to simply not want to rape, steal, and kill. They assume that everybody must want to hurt other people and take what is not theirs. They assume that all men must want to rape women (though women never want to rape men because, um...). Why do they assume this? Because it's how THEY feel. They know that they have no internal moral compass, so they assume nobody else has one either.

Don't know if anybody has mentioned this but...

Human morals/ethics are not derived (directly, at least) from somebody's religion, they are inherent from the day we are born in our genes. This stems from evolution when we worked together in hunting groups, it was more beneficial to be in a group whose members looked out for each other etc. The God Delusion explains it better lol.

I'd hate it just to be some bible passage that stops religious folk from going out and murdering people. On a similar note, if people think being gay is a choice then that means that they too should be attracted to men, but just supress this to follow God's wishes. Obviously this wouldn't be the case (for most) so obviously they are wrong.

They have never developed an internalized set of morality, that's the real problem. Their only concept of morality revolves around gaining rewards or escaping punishments. They have never developed real empathy, the kind that would mean that they don't WANT to rape or steal or kill people, they simply refrain from doing these things because they're scared that Gawd will see them an punish them.

It's no surprise that secularism and "evolution" are so fascinating to them. It's like their secret fantasy: a world with no Gawd watching, where they can do all the things they've been wishing they could do. A world where they don't risk being caught out by the All-Knowing if they rape, steal, and kill.

That's why they insist that atheists must be immoral...because they can't imagine how it would feel to simply not want to rape, steal, and kill. They assume that everybody must want to hurt other people and take what is not theirs. They assume that all men must want to rape women (though women never want to rape men because, um...). Why do they assume this? Because it's how THEY feel. They know that they have no internal moral compass, so they assume nobody else has one either.

Umm not quite sure I see it that way. Shit I hope you're wrong coz otherwise that is a scary thought.

Umm not quite sure I see it that way. Shit I hope you're wrong coz otherwise that is a scary thought.
Meh. It's the only explanation.

I take them at their word when they say that their morality cannot exist without God. When they say that without God there would be no reason to refrain from rape, theft, and murder, I take them at their word.

I, personally, don't want to rape people or steal things or kill anybody. I don't enjoy hurting others or taking what isn't mine. I don't enjoy having sex with unwilling individuals. I have plenty of reason to not do those things, not the least of which is that I HAVE NO REASON TO DO THOSE THINGS.

These God-morality types insist that they don't work that way. So I take them at their word.

... where would any sense of morality come from? Where would any obligation to help people, to not cause harm to people or property come from? Why would people care about what they do when there is no gut feeling stopping you? Where would any desire to achieve and do good come from when the world is completely meaningless? With a meaningless world, how would anyone be truly happy? How would you stop the culture from turning into chaos?

i think i need to get pissed to work this out,the only thing that came's to my mind is this,i don't care much for the shit you find in religion so i can tell you

Meh. It's the only explanation.

I take them at their word when they say that their morality cannot exist without God. When they say that without God there would be no reason to refrain from rape, theft, and murder, I take them at their word.

I, personally, don't want to rape people or steal things or kill anybody. I don't enjoy hurting others or taking what isn't mine. I don't enjoy having sex with unwilling individuals. I have plenty of reason to not do those things, not the least of which is that I HAVE NO REASON TO DO THOSE THINGS.

These God-morality types insist that they don't work that way. So I take them at their word.

I do see what you mean, but its not limited to religous people. I've had a couple of atheists claim the only thing stopping them killing people who disagree with them is the law, and ridiculed my assertion that I wouldnt kill/rape etc to my hearts content if the rule of law suddenly ceased to exist.

Arguing with someone like that is scary.

(atheist here too btw)

They....Their ...They.
-snip-
Who?

I do see what you mean, but its not limited to religous people. I've had a couple of atheists claim the only thing stopping them killing people who disagree with them is the law, and ridiculed my assertion that I wouldnt do it if the rule of law suddenly ceased to exist.

Arguing with someone like that is scary.

(atheist here too btw)

It is true, atheists can also be sociopaths. However, there are many religious denominations that not only condone such antisocial personality disorders, but they actively encourage them. That's what I find really reprehensible. It disgusts me that people would literally teach their children to be psychopaths by indoctrinating them into the notion that God's reward/punishment system is the only morality humans have.

Who?
I'll bet that if I offered you $100 to come up with an answer to your own question, you'd be able to figure it out. :D I specified who I was speaking about in several places.

I do see what you mean, but its not limited to religous people. I've had a couple of atheists claim the only thing stopping them killing people who disagree with them is the law, and ridiculed my assertion that I wouldnt kill/rape etc to my hearts content if the rule of law suddenly ceased to exist.

Arguing with someone like that is scary.

(atheist here too btw)

if we had no law i still would not rape , kill some one who upset's me, let's just see

Meh. It's the only explanation.

I take them at their word when they say that their morality cannot exist without God. When they say that without God there would be no reason to refrain from rape, theft, and murder, I take them at their word.

I, personally, don't want to rape people or steal things or kill anybody. I don't enjoy hurting others or taking what isn't mine. I don't enjoy having sex with unwilling individuals. I have plenty of reason to not do those things, not the least of which is that I HAVE NO REASON TO DO THOSE THINGS.

These God-morality types insist that they don't work that way. So I take them at their word.


Ahhh I see, then I think they lie. Yeah I'm much more comfatable with that as an expliantion. Heh perhaps I have more faith in basic human nature than I should.

if we had no law i still would not rape , kill some one who upset's me, let's just see
I think you misunderstood: I believe he was simply saying that there are atheists who happen to also have no internal moral compass, not that ALL atheists are like that.

It's true, there are some atheists who are jerks or worse. That doesn't mean all atheists are like that, or even that most are.

As I've said several times on this thread, I don't think most religious people are actually devoid of empathy and internal morality. That's what my kitten/infant example is all about. They actually DO have internal morality and conscience, they just don't identify it as such right off the bat.

What you've gotta watch out for is the terrifying minority who actually don't have any empathy or personal morality. They are some deeply scary buggers.

... common sense?

I think you misunderstood: I believe he was simply saying that there are atheists who happen to also have no internal moral compass, not that ALL atheists are like that.

It's true, there are some atheists who are jerks or worse. That doesn't mean all atheists are like that, or even that most are.

As I've said several times on this thread, I don't think most religious people are actually devoid of empathy and internal morality. That's what my kitten/infant example is all about. They actually DO have internal morality and conscience, they just don't identify it as such right off the bat.

What you've gotta watch out for is the terrifying minority who actually don't have any empathy or personal morality. They are some deeply scary buggers.

i just got told this way i don't try to work it out

Has God ever asked anyone else to do something like that? The answer is undoubtedly yes.but my question wasn't if God ever asked that. It was did God ask that of ME.

now what if that Cute Helpless Kitten had a genetic quirk in his system that allowed a mutated and Hightly verulant form of Bird Flu to cross between birds and Mammals. and the only way to defeat that is not just by killing the kitten (fleas you know...) but to kill the Genetic Quirk by a massaive doase of adrenaline. (hence the torture.) so knowing that by killing one kitten, or one baby, you will save MILLIONS of lives. two lives (yours included) for over Two million of others. would you still do it?

Then I would kill the kitten, without the torture. And because I'm a moral person, not because God told me to.remember, I said that the way to remove that agent/quirk was a massive dose of Adrenaline... so just killing the kitten/infant doesn't remove the danger.

so you just killed a kitten/infant for nothing.

remember, I said that the way to remove that agent/quirk was a massive dose of Adrenaline... so just killing the kitten/infant doesn't remove the danger.

Which can be easily acquired and injected without the need for torture of any kind.

Which can be easily acquired and injected without the need for torture of any kind.

massive dose of adrenaline shot into a tiny body while it's still alive?

do you know how painful it is when a heart is driven into overdrive?

In a completely atheist culture, someone would invent religion.

Look at every culture in history. Even in isolation, they invented religion.

massive dose of adrenaline shot into a tiny body while it's still alive?

do you know how painful it is when a heart is driven into overdrive?

The dosage I'm talking about is a bit more than the dosage you're talking about.

Meh. It's the only explanation.

I take them at their word when they say that their morality cannot exist without God. When they say that without God there would be no reason to refrain from rape, theft, and murder, I take them at their word.

I, personally, don't want to rape people or steal things or kill anybody. I don't enjoy hurting others or taking what isn't mine. I don't enjoy having sex with unwilling individuals. I have plenty of reason to not do those things, not the least of which is that I HAVE NO REASON TO DO THOSE THINGS.

These God-morality types insist that they don't work that way. So I take them at their word.

Nonscence, what they are saying is all though a form of emotivism exists, any objective morality is a paradox without a God. When someone says torture a kitten, you may feel personally discusted by it, you may refuse to do it and you would not approve. This is one expressing his feelings towards the action, the feelings which are unhappy. You may like to call this morality, but it isn't, it's just your personal approval disaproval and not "right" and "wrong" in the religious sense of the word.

The dosage I'm talking about is a bit more than the dosage you're talking about.

Granted this is a Sci-Fi scenario...

but the dosage has to travel thoughout it's system... so too much and it won't work, too little and it still won't work.

then you add to that the time perception a person (don't know if Kittens will have the same perception) experiences while in pain. seconds stretch out to minutes so what might be seconds for you will be unbearable pain for the infant... a tortuous time frame before death.

for now, tho. since we're getting off track, so I'll just say that torture is subjective. What I can consider not torture, others would and vice versa.

Nonscence, what they are saying is all though a form of emotivism exists, any objective morality is a paradox without a God. When someone says torture a kitten, you may feel personally discusted by it, you may refuse to do it and you would not approve. This is one expressing his feelings towards the action, the feelings which are unhappy. You may like to call this morality, but it isn't, it's just your personal approval disaproval and not "right" and "wrong" in the religious sense of the word.

So, are you saying that something can be "right" or "wrong" only when a deity, a God, says it is? Human beings cannot determine whether something is "right" or "wrong?"

So, are you saying that something can be "right" or "wrong" only when a deity, a God, says it is? Human beings cannot determine whether something is "right" or "wrong?"

Morality, without a deity is just a subjective concept of ones personal feelings. It is not a seperate entity, IMO anyway.

Some people may theorize that there is a seperate entity of Good which exists without the need of God. Though if you refuse to believe this, it doesn't make you an immoral person who is scared of empathy etc.. as bottle was suggesting.

Morality, without a deity is just a subjective concept of ones personal feelings. It is not a seperate entity, IMO anyway.

Some people may theorize that there is a seperate entity of Good which exists without the need of God. Though if you refuse to believe this, it doesn't make you an immoral person who is scared of empathy etc.. as bottle was suggesting.

But which deity?

Let's take something simple, like dietary rules. The deity of the Hebrews and the Muslims says it is an abomination to eat pork. The deity of the Christians does not appear to have an opinion. Many Buddhists are vegetarians. Many Hindus eat meat but not beef. How is that not subjective? By my personal feelings, I may choose to join one or another of those religions.

I say that human beings are perfectly capable of deciding the difference between "right" and "wrong" without having it dictated to them by a supernatural entity.

But which deity?

Let's take something simple, like dietary rules. The deity of the Hebrews and the Muslims says it is an abomination to eat pork. The deity of the Christians does not appear to have an opinion. Many Buddhists are vegetarians. Many Hindus eat meat but not beef. How is that not subjective? By my personal feelings, I may choose to join one or another of those religions.

I say that human beings are perfectly capable of deciding the difference between "right" and "wrong" without having it dictated to them by a supernatural entity.

Interesting point. Remember, when you join one religion, any other claim to objective morality is simply wrong. However in their opinion, their morality is usually completely objective and cannot be bent or changed. Deciding which one is the true objective morality is really arguing which religion is true.

If there is no God, then what gives authority to decide what is wrong and what is right other then yourself? Therefore morality must be subjective to you our your culture if there is no God.

Interesting point. Remember, when you join one religion, any other claim to objective morality is simply wrong. However in their opinion, their morality is usually completely objective and cannot be bent or changed. Deciding which one is the true objective morality is really arguing which religion is true.

If there is no God, then what gives authority to decide what is wrong and what is right other then yourself? Therefore morality must be subjective to you our your culture if there is no God.

But even with God, morality is subjective to you and your culture. Not only that, morality changes within even religious cultures. Once upon a time, not even so very long ago, a good Christian would have said it was alright to own slaves. Now you would be hard pressed to find any.

Perhaps the question of truly objective morality is moot, and arguing about it, as you say, is really an argument about which religion is true. And that, to me, is like arguing who has the best imaginary friend.

Common sense.

Morality, without a deity is just a subjective concept of ones personal feelings.

Morality remains that even with a deity.

Some people may theorize that there is a seperate entity of Good which exists without the need of God.

And any reasonable theist who wishes to advocate objective morality must argue the same.

See the Euthyphro dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma).

Common sense.

which really isn't common at times... ;)

which really isn't common at times... ;)

It's not that there is an overabundance of fools; lightning just isn't distributed properly. ;)

Philatelist!

No, no, no ... i HATE stamps. Well, i don't HATE them, so much as see no particular function other than to mail them.

Mushroom stamps though ... hmmm, perhaps that's Verdigroth's MOS.

Umm Pilataist!

Pontius Pilataist?


I'll take no part in that.

Atheism =/= Anarchy

uh huh. And i'm sure in a Christian society everything is perfect. My ass.

The bible is a contradictory mishmash of brutality and brotherly love. Christians use this as their primary moral guide! The Principle of Utility alone has more value than the entire old testament.

uh huh. And i'm sure in a Christian society everything is perfect. My ass.

=/= means 'does not equal'.

all capitalists are evil.

ZOMG!
I KNEW IT!
Crik thinks all americans are evil!
:D ;)

If there is no God, then what gives authority to decide what is wrong and what is right other then yourself? Therefore morality must be subjective to you our your culture if there is no God.

I think thats kind of the point though.

Society decides what is "right" or "wrong" by a form of concensus. It occurs at all levels of society.. from the family group to communities to nations... if there is any form of "objective" morality it would be a worldwide set of morals. As there is then only one society at that level (there being no contact with extraterrestrial life) there is nothing for it to be relative to.

So while the morals set out in a particular community.. say a religious community.. or a scientific community.. or a small town community are all relative, a worldwide concensus on morality.. such as the UN declaration of human rights would be objective. More so than a particular religiously defined set of morals.....

Morality, without a deity is just a subjective concept of ones personal feelings. It is not a seperate entity, IMO anyway.

That's right. There is no such thing as objective morality.

Now, knowing that, do you want to go kill people? Do you feel like going out and having yourself a bit of rape?

Me neither.


Some people may theorize that there is a seperate entity of Good which exists without the need of God. Though if you refuse to believe this, it doesn't make you an immoral person who is scared of empathy etc.. as bottle was suggesting.
I don't think these are people who are scared of empathy, it's that they don't have any empathy. Without some Objective Morality (aka God) looming over them, they would go out and rape and kill people because they say that they see no reason not to.

I don't WANT to rape or kill people. It doesn't matter if it is "objectively" moral or not moral to do so. I don't WANT to hurt other people, because I feel empathy. I know I wouldn't want to be raped or killed, and I extrapolate that other people wouldn't like it either, so I don't want to treat them in a way that I think must be icky.

If you need God or "objective morality" in order to embrace the Golden Rule, then you're opperating at a pre-kindergarten level of morality.

You could worship either a celebrity or sports hero or worship the king or queen in a country that had a strong and significant monarch. There are many substitutes for the virtues that religion brings.

You could worship either a celebrity or sports hero or worship the king or queen in a country that had a strong and significant monarch. There are many substitutes for the virtues that religion brings.

You could all worship me.

You could all worship me.

No! Worship me!

*Applying the principles by which holy wars start*

No! Worship me!

*Applying the principles by which holy wars start*

*declares crusade against Heikoku*

The very idea that some arbitrary "God in the sky" is the sole source of morality, is the absolute height of arrogance.
This suggests that anyone who is not a follower of any sort of make-believe deity is bereft of any kind of concience or basic human decency.

People have been taught between what is right and wrong according to thier cultures and societies since people have existed. They didnt need some Abrahamic diety to tell them in some musty old mistranslated and dubious tome.

They dont need one now.

*declares crusade against Heikoku*

*Declares Inquisition against Ifreann's followers.*

Ah, fun! :D

The very idea that some arbitrary "God in the sky" is the sole source of morality, is the absolute height of arrogance.
This suggests that anyone who is not a follower of any sort of make-believe deity is bereft of any kind of concience or basic human decency.

People have been taught between what is right and wrong according to thier cultures and societies since people have existed. They didnt need some Abrahamic diety to tell them in some musty old mistranslated and dubious tome.

They dont need one now.

It's cute, isn't it?

We've got a group of people who insist that they are too stupid (or too devoid of empathy) to understand morality without a magical sky fairy looming over them, yet these same people believe that they are the ultimate in moral authority and are smart enough (or moral enough) to dictate morality to the rest of human civilization.