(September 9, 2012 at 11:14 pm)padraic Wrote:

Quote:This statement alone is like a haiku of stupid.

Oh that's good. I think I'll steal it.

gees, at least give me a kudos before you add that to yer sig mate! You banana benders are all the same; me, me, me.

I don't do smilies, but if I did, y'know there'd be a wink there, don't you?

(September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am)elunico13 Wrote: The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Of course it can. Let us take murder, not self defense, but pure unadulterated premeditated murder. Is that immoral? The majority would agree that it is, so how can we come to this conclusion without your god's help?

Simply. IF the first humans were to ignore morality and just go around killing each other off, one of two things would probably happen.

One. They would eventually kill themselves off before they thrived and a different species arises.

Two. They are the different species and through developing intellect that prompted desires, they also realized that killing each other off would put themselves at risk of extinction.

No god, no book, only survival of the fittest.

(September 9, 2012 at 11:59 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am)elunico13 Wrote: The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.

Of course it can. Let us take murder, not self defense, but pure unadulterated premeditated murder. Is that immoral? The majority would agree that it is, so how can we come to this conclusion without your god's help?

Simply. IF the first humans were to ignore morality and just go around killing each other off, one of two things would probably happen.

One. They would eventually kill themselves off before they thrived and a different species arises.

Two. They are the different species and through developing intellect that prompted desires, they also realized that killing each other off would put themselves at risk of extinction.

No god, no book, only survival of the fittest.

The answer is on page 1.

The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.
James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.
Atheists are consistent when supporting abortions or killing unconscience people dependent on others. (genkaus' standard)
They are inconsistent when they consider the feelings of others.

All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum. I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from randomly murdering people is your imaginary friend? You are seriously fucked up! You REALLY need help if that is the case.

You know what, I've changed my mind and now am convinced that the biblical creation story is the real deal. Only the biblical god could have produced something this moronic. Evolution would never have allowed such stupidity to survive.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Only if random killing is a part of his morality.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.

That's surprising. Since he wasn't an atheist.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Atheists are consistent when supporting abortions or killing unconscience people dependent on others. (genkaus' standard)

Half-right. Unconscious people aren't actually dependent on others. Therefore, there is no reason to support killing them. Unborn babies on the other hand - go right ahead.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: They are inconsistent when they consider the feelings of others.

Only if being inconsiderate is a part of their morality.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum.

That should tell you something - not all atheists follow the same philosophy.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

No, the one that is most rational. But then, I wouldn't expect you to do that, since you aren't capable of it.

His screenname isn't even cool, so that's good.

Also, he still can't answer the question I asked probably a hundred times already.

Guess I win, then.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum. I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?

Any group has a plethora of opinions that are similar and dissimilar and not always in agreement. Even god had the problem. Fallen angels anyone?

As atheists, we have not said that there is an absolute moral authority, which is the discussion as I perceive it.

The theists would have us believe there is an absolute morality through god and I say it is survival of the fittest species. Animals seldom go on killing rampages.There are 'rules' within the animal world that allow perpetuation of that species.

The difference between us and the animals is that we write these 'rules' down and call them laws. Sometimes these laws are a result of a majority and sometimes they are a result of a government and sometimes a combination of both and not all of them are good or moral, including laws created by the church and other religions.

Just read the bible if you need proof of immorality from this so-called 'absolute moral authority'!

(August 31, 2012 at 8:50 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I posted this as a reply in another thread but since this issue comes up all the time, I thought I would reprint the post in its very own thread. Any time theists visit and bring up the moral argument, they can be pointed to this thread.

1. (Perhaps most important) Theistic morality confuses the issues of what morality is and what is moral.

By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers.

The Amish aren’t very concerned with gaining more followers. Christianity requires much less obedience than the Mosaic law. So, no, these things are sometimes present in religion, but not in the nature of religion.

Quote:This is why when you read through the Bible or Koran, often what is described as "evil" are such victimless crimes as idolatry, blasphemy and apostasy. Other moral issues and labeled "abominations" have to do with failure to adhere to rituals and traditions, like not working on the Sabbath or not eating certain kinds of food.

Read the 10 commandments if you don't have time to read the whole Bible. You'll notice that the first four, the one's that Yahweh thought of first and foremost, have to do with religious adherence and not real moral issues. A few deal with how we treat others (don't murder, don't steal, etc) but the majority prohibit victimless crimes. This muddying of the waters is not helpful to our understand of what is moral or what morality is.

Having obligations to both god and other people doesn’t muddy things, as you demonstrated yourself by determining which of the ten commandments pertained to god, and which to other people. It’s an easy distinction to make in most cases.

Quote:2. Theistic morality provides an "easy out"

When you do wrong in theism, you pray to a god to forgive you or perhaps perform some useless rituals of penance that do nothing to clean up the mess.

Incorrect, at least from a Christian viewpoint.

First note that Christians are subject to secular law.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

So for us, it’s not a matter of secular or religious morality. Secular morality is required, with additional requirements of religion.

Second, read the Mosaic law. It required restitution when applicable. It did not just allow a prayer and ritual, as you charge. One example:
Exodus 22
1 If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep.

Quote:When you do wrong as a secularist, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make direct amends.

Some do, some don’t. As noted, the law required restitution, and Christians are to obey secular law, so they are under at least as much obligation as anyone else.

Quote:3. "GodWillsIt" is not an answer

Just as "GodDidIt" doesn't satisfy our curiosity about science, "GodWillsIt" does nothing to help us understand morality. This is an appeal to authority, little better than "Cause I said so".

Compare this with secular morality where things labeled "wrong" or "evil" are activities that involve a victim. Morality can be explained in terms of such useful tools as "the social contract" or in term of our sense of empathy and community. Saying, for example, that slavery is wrong because it violates the rights of others and we would not wish to be treated this way is far more elucidating than "cause big daddy in sky says so".

The Bible doesn’t just say “cause big daddy in sky says so.” Regarding human interactions, it uses the same reasoning you do.
Luke 6
31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

Quote:4. Euthephro's Dilemma

Does GodWillIt because its good or is it good because GodWillsIt?

It’s good because god wills it. I’ve never seen the dilemma.

Quote:If things are good in accordance with what GodWills, than this is little more than a might-makes-right system of justice. The rules are just as arbitrary as with any human imposed system. Therefore, GodWillsit wouldn't solve the problems Elunico frets over.

By saying “just as arbitrary as any human imposed system,” you defeat your own point 3, and dent your muddy waters charge of point 1.

Quote:Apologists, typical of their style when in a conundrum, try to make it "both and yet neither".

You’re projecting. In one breath, secular morality is better. In the next, they’re equally arbitrary.

Quote:5. Read the damn Bible already!

Speak for yourself. You weren’t aware of restitution requirements or the golden rule.

Quote:Yahweh can't seem to answer no-brainer moral issues that humans have long since solved. Issues like rape, slavery and genocide are ones that Yahweh can't seem to provide a correct answer to.

When did humans solve the problems of rape, slavery and genocide? While slavery may be down as a percent of population, in raw numbers it’s at an all-time high. And this isn’t just in third-world countries. TGAC recently linked to an article on sex slavery in Germany and other parts of Europe. Yes, Westerners are raping slaves every day, it’s common knowledge, and it’s allowed to go on.

Quote:6. Christianity is a dangerous belief system

Any religion that proposes a good god vs. evil devil system is going to demonize any who are not part of the religion. By process of elimination, any who do not serve the defined good god must be in league with or at least duped by the devil. If you believe your enemy is in league with the devil, you are capable of doing anything to him.

Secular nationalism is a dangerous belief system. Any system which defines a group also defines those outside the group, and can be dangerous.

Quote:Worse, any religion that proposes a faith-based scheme of salvation is going to push atrocity. After all, if killing a few heathens saves thousands of souls for all eternity, isn't that a good thing. The stakes are as high as they can be if there's a real danger of your children going to Hell for all time. No wonder Christianity has such a violent history.

Can you support that Christianity in particular or theism in general has been a net evil to mankind?

Quote:7. Look at the results
Secular societies do not explode into a fireball of mayhem and murder when they lose their religion. Quite to the contrary, social studies have shown that crime rates fall along with teen pregnancy and other social indicators show that secular societies are happier and better adjusted.

OK, show us the results and we’ll look at them.

(September 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm)elunico13 Wrote: The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.

Incorrect.

Humans evolved in groups of 50-150 people where attributes like: kin selection, altruism, cooperation, empathy were necessary for our survival. Humans are social animals. Our survival as a species depended on the above traits.

Our closest cousins, bonobo chimps, exhibit behaviors that could only be described as morality. They: share food even when in short supply, they protect weaker members of their group even if it puts them in danger, they adopt orphaned babies even if it mean a greater burden, they seem to mourn dead members, they punish violent members by ejecting them from the group (to an almost certain death).

Bonobos don't kill anyone randomly they don't like. Why not? What prevents them?

Quote:James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.

James Holmes is mentally ill. He did not kill because he was following "the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution". If you believe that is the case, you have little or no understanding of evolution.

(June 12, 2013 at 5:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I guess that's why they are one of the world's dominant religions then, huh?

Seriously, religions that aren't concerned with gaining more followers don't prosper as much as the ones that do make such concerns a priority.

This is why religions seem to concern themselves so much with victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. This was my main point of this paragraph and it applies to Christianity, at least according to its scriptures. This is a point your response glossed over.

To my knowledge the Amish have similar or more severe positions re: blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy as other Christians, yet increasing their numbers isn’t a high priority. This isn’t glossing over the point. When you make a claim regarding the nature of religion, showing counterexamples is sufficient to refute the claim. A big problem with your initial post is that it has a number of such sweeping and unsupported generalizations regarding both religious and secular positions. You’d do well to restate it, narrowing the scope to a single religion.

Quote: Actually, yes it does. Blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy. How are these harmful? Yet they're so important to your god, if scripture is any indication.

Consider what is the one sin that Jesus will not forgive. You do know what that is, right? I'll let you answer that one. Hint: It's in three of the Gospels.

Again, the simple fact that you can identify these as distinct shows that the lines are clear, not muddy.

Quote:Irrelevant. When we stand before Jesus on "Judgment Day", he'll forgive all the things we did as long asked him to while on earth. But if we are good people who didn't believe, we are not saved.

Consider, the people who do not keep the law, they shall be called "least" in where...?

Irrelevant to Christianity, since faith in Christ is all that is needed for salvation.

1. As noted, Christians are under secular law, and so are required to do at least as much restitution as anyone else.

2. You apparently don’t realize that there is more to a Christian’s standing in the afterlife than just salvation. There are rewards and loss thereof based on our actions after salvation, so we have continuing incentive to live morally. See 1 Cor 3:11-15.

Quote: Beside the point. As a secularist, I have no easy option to gain forgiveness except by asking the ones I've wronged for it. I have no option to look up in the sky and say "Sorry about that Jesus" and have the slate wiped clean.

As already noted, Christians are under the same secular obligations as you, and the law of Moses required restitution where applicable.

If you need more, this passage directly refutes your charge and further shows your ignorance of the Bible.
Matt 5
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Quote: The Golden Rule is an excellent rule-of-thumb for morality but hardly unique to Christianity and it works just fine without either God or any religion.

And the fact that the Bible includes it shows that the Bible does offer explanation regarding morality, refuting your charge that it merely says GodWillsIt.

Quote: Do tell. You won't mind elaborating, I hope?

Sure. Your point 3 regarded satisfying rational explanations of morality. A system which is admittedly arbitrary by definition does not supply such answers.

Quote: No, this is, in fact, what they do. Next time Ryft is around, I'll let him babble that nonsense for you and you can see that many slick apologists do use this tactic as I allege.

As previously noted, you do this yourself, although I wouldn’t call you slick at it.

Quote: Actually, I was but none of them mean a damn thing on the bottom line of who is saved and who is damned.

A religion can offer sweet words as much as it likes about "love your neighbor" and "do unto others" but these don't mean much to a god that will damn me no matter how loving I am or how much I consider the feelings of others if I didn't believe the correct unproven metaphysical stuff.

Biblically, everyone is damned. This is an act of justice, which is getting what you deserve. Salvation is not an act of justice, it is an act of mercy and grace. Mercy and grace are undeserved, and God can deal them out as he likes. Like many critics, you incorrectly conflate justice and mercy.

Quote:
At one time, the institution of slavery was defended and supported. At one time, genocide was a common practice in war, even by "civilized" generals. Today, slavery is recognized in most circles as an abominable practice and genocide is regarded as a war crime. I never said humans created a perfect paradise on earth. I simply said our morality has evolved.

I doubt that means much to the slaves being raped every day in licensed German brothels.

Quote:Our society's condemnation of rape is still, regrettably, not where it should be but has still gotten better from more primitive times. We don't require a woman to marry her rapist but Yahweh does.

Where does he require that? I’ve debated this before and doubt you’ve really considered the passages in question.

Quote:Consider also Yahweh's admonishments to commit genocide, his rules for slavery and even his rules for how to properly rape your sex slaves. All this indicates a more primitive and barbaric concept of morality, certainly by today's standards.

The word genocide itself was only coined in the twentieth century to refer to current events. And again, sex slaves in licensed German brothels.

Quote: I never suggested that getting rid of religion will get rid of all evil in the world.

You stated plain out that secular morality is superior. Regarding group dynamics, both religious and secular groups can be dangerous. It’s a function of groups, not religion.

Quote:There are other means to get good people to do evil things. However, what makes religion more dangerous than, say, secular nationalism, is that these other ideologies have "reality checks" that can eventually stop them. Communism collapsed because people eventually realized that it wasn't creating a "worker's paradise" as promised. The proof, for any other ideology I can think of, is in the pudding.

Religions also have reality checks that can eventually stop them. If the proof is in the pudding, consider that Europe hasn’t had an inquisition in some time now.

Quote:

Quote:Can you support that Christianity in particular or theism in general has been a net evil to mankind?

Atheists don't fly planes into buildings.

Answer: no, you can't support it, as there are many other factors regarding benefits and detriments to society than flying planes into buildings.

Quote:

Quote:OK, show us the results and we’ll look at them.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf

Seriously? A paper by a dinosaur illustrator with no training in social research is the best you can do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul#Religion