The argument from morality is scary.

[Mark 13:13]

Thank you for your response. I don't claim to be unbiased; I clearly am, becuase I have strong views and I am human. It was also no attack on yourself as a theist, as I stated it was a purely a practical point. When theism is practised, it frequently leads to absurd and abhorrent moral perspectives, that a naturalist cannot commit themselves to on any rational basis. It is absurd to treat other homo sapiens differently based on colour of skin or sex or sexual orientation. It is abhorrent to vilify or murder women and/or doctors for supporting abortion. These perspectives are pushed by religious demagogues who wind up the theists that follow them. I accuse them of immorality, maybe you would too I do not know, but you cannot deny this happens and if you agree with me that it is immoral, then
you will also find it irrational and just a little scary.

Yes we are all human and getting things wrong is part of that experience but trying to attach or infer a greater propensity to err on every major moral or philosophical on the point of the person being atheist or Theist is becoming a new ism. I agree that trying to use the fact that you believe in God as the sole basis for a conclusion on many of the above topics is a bit lame and of course the unwillingness to listen to the case put against your belief just because the peron making it believes in God is just as lame. being an atheist or Theist does not mean you will be automatically on one side or other. But so often religion becomes the focus of the debate and of course the atheists would blame the Theists but oddly enough most thinking theist of which there are multitudes would contend its a tactic used by the opposition to try to avoid debating the real issues. I ramble now apologies.

A demagogue (/ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/) or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, prejudices, and ignorance of the poorer and less-educated classes in order to gain power. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Do we need to have a thread on whether the only demagogues are Theists and are only operational in the fields of morality or can we just resist the urge to attach negative weasel words to the discussion that don't add anything to your point or the discussion.

[Brian37]

Here in the U.S., those that most boisterously advocate an "I'm going to get mine regardless of the consequences to others" policy tend to be Christian, so I find your assertion that Christians are more in tune to the good of the whole rather than their own needs to be lacking evidence.

i said Christian are more in tune with the Dilema was what i thought i said and hence the need for someone to take charge. God was the being that would be the one that ensured the needs of all be sorted. There are plenty in the world that would have difficulty nit picking which americans are consumming the world resources fastest.

Well since your god character is not real, anymore than Vishnu or Thor, I think it would serve humans better to fill their own needs than pretend a utopia exists which does not.

We need the world's leaders to take charge, because the fictional gods humans make up cannot get anything done anymore than a pink unicorn can plow a field.

[Mark 13:13]

Well since your god character is not real, anymore than Vishnu or Thor

Is this a statement of fact or just your personal belief?

Please don't answer because i'm just joking about throwing in the red herring of burden of proof in the discussion when its not needed. I don't need to discuss burden of proof to listen to your view.

I agree the power to change things does lie with the people. The question really is why don't they ? or what are the real barriers ?and I would contend that in this modern world religion is not the barrier but is often used as red herring to hide the real causes of psycho- socio-economic inequalites that are wrecking this world and creating the proverbial time bomb.

[Captain Scarlet]

I have yet to see any semblance of a credible argument refuting the objections of Epicurus on the morality of such a claimed being.

I assume you are referring to the problem of evil? I think this is better served up inductively rather than the dilemma posed by Epicurus. However both these arguments do not seem as persuasive as the euthyphro dilemma, which theists dismiss all too quickly but never really answer without descending in non-cognitivism.

I cannot stress this undervalued book enough because it explains why morality is a product of biological evolution, "The New Atheism"

I haven't read the book, I will check it out. I like Stenger but not sure of his credentials in this matter though I think he is right to point out that there are purely naturalistic accounts for morality.

But all labels aside, the concept of an "omni" god is broken and cannot work , scientifically and much less morally.

I agree I think it is impossibly incoherent. Theists have continually sought to make meaningless accommodations to this concept as atheists have pointed out inconsistencies. The fact remains that Theists find these accommodations plausible, atheists do not.

[Minimalist]

I want to know where they got the idea that their holy book is the one telling them not to rape, kill or steal? The Bible is filled with stories where God either orders his people to kill, rape or steal or where he gives regulations on how they're allowed to do those things.

The reason, Tara, is that the jesus freaks are full of shit. Keep that thought firmly in mind and all will remain clear.

[Captain Scarlet]

Yes we are all human and getting things wrong is part of that experience but trying to attach or infer a greater propensity to err on every major moral or philosophical on the point of the person being atheist or Theist is becoming a new ism. I agree that trying to use the fact that you believe in God as the sole basis for a conclusion on many of the above topics is a bit lame and of course the unwillingness to listen to the case put against your belief just because the peron making it believes in God is just as lame. being an atheist or Theist does not mean you will be automatically on one side or other. But so often religion becomes the focus of the debate and of course the atheists would blame the Theists but oddly enough most thinking theist of which there are multitudes would contend its a tactic used by the opposition to try to avoid debating the real issues.

Again I think you are constructing a straw man argument of your own and knocking it down. I am happy to debate real issues, but you were musing positively on the practical useful benefits of believing in a theistic moral law giver and I do not accept the implications of that musing. To the extent I am happy to point to facts about theistic absurdities, prejudice etc when it comes to moral matters - which given the supposed access to that perfect moral lawgiver is somewhat surprising. I do not claim atheists nor theists are morally superior to one another in general. However there are some notable theistic inspired moral beliefs which given naturalism are immoral. Atheism inspires no such beliefs.

Do we need to have a thread on whether the only demagogues are Theists and are only operational in the fields of morality or can we just resist the urge to attach negative weasel words to the discussion that don't add anything to your point or the discussion.

I happily stand by the use of the word demagogue. How would you describe people like Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson to name just 3? I think your sensitivity to the word is telling. I stand on a naturalistic interpretation and can call these folks out for what they are. No theist can do that as all these demagogues will claim divine revelation and a correct interpretation of scripture and on a supernatural interpretation they cannot be defeated.

[Mark 13:13]

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly put them into practice.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” (V.I. Lenin)

I've already told you: the only way to a woman's heart is along the path of torment. I know none other as sure.
Marquis de Sade

Just because these people apart from Solzhenitsyn are atheists is it fair for me to say that it was atheism was the root of their crimes ?

[Brian37]

Well since your god character is not real, anymore than Vishnu or Thor

Is this a statement of fact or just your personal belief?

Please don't answer because i'm just joking about throwing in the red herring of burden of proof in the discussion when its not needed. I don't need to discuss burden of proof to listen to your view.

I agree the power to change things does lie with the people. The question really is why don't they ? or what are the real barriers ?and I would contend that in this modern world religion is not the barrier but is often used as red herring to hide the real causes of psycho- socio-economic inequalites that are wrecking this world and creating the proverbial time bomb.

Statement of fact, sorry that bothers you, but that is your baggage, not mine. If you want to believe the earth is flat, I won't stop you, but it is not, and that belief was once widely popular but still just as false and delusional as the idea of a disembodied magical being.

[Mark 13:13]

Is this a statement of fact or just your personal belief?

Please don't answer because i'm just joking about throwing in the red herring of burden of proof in the discussion when its not needed. I don't need to discuss burden of proof to listen to your view.

I agree the power to change things does lie with the people. The question really is why don't they ? or what are the real barriers ?and I would contend that in this modern world religion is not the barrier but is often used as red herring to hide the real causes of psycho- socio-economic inequalites that are wrecking this world and creating the proverbial time bomb.

Statement of fact, sorry that bothers you, but that is your baggage, not mine. If you want to believe the earth is flat, I won't stop you, but it is not, and that belief was once widely popular but still just as false and delusional as the idea of a disembodied magical being.

I was joking as it doesn't bother me, its just that if I was to say similar but from the opposite end of the spectrum of this Atheist/Thiest pole I would immediately be jumped on with "burden of proof" which I have disagree with so would do to others here.

[Brian37]

Statement of fact, sorry that bothers you, but that is your baggage, not mine. If you want to believe the earth is flat, I won't stop you, but it is not, and that belief was once widely popular but still just as false and delusional as the idea of a disembodied magical being.

I was joking as it doesn't bother me, its just that if I was to say similar but from the opposite end of the spectrum of this Atheist/Thiest pole I would immediately be jumped on with "burden of proof" which I have disagree with so would do to others here.

Don't ever step in a lab or teach a science class.

"I can make gold out of sugar, it is true because you cant disprove it".

That is how stupid your use of logic is.

THERE IS ALWAYS a burdon of proof, and even you don't swallow a claim someone offers you simply because they can string a sentence together.

You make god the issue, I am not.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF for example,

You went up to your boss on payday, and they didn't hand you your paycheck and said "it is invisible, you cant see it, prove to me I didn't pay you". I do not think you'd be that foolish to simply say "ok".

Your paycheck is your proof an no one in real life treats all claims equally so the burdon, is always on the claimant. Your foolish "kumbia" "it's true until proven otherwise" has always been a clusterfuck to our species because the credulous often become lemmings and do horrible things to each other because of your attitude.