(January 1, 2013 at 3:59 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Who said we aren't?

Real.

There's a lot of people who aim to have as much sex as possible, with whoever they can. It's fun, I'm sure. What's so wrong with this somewhat accurate projection? If I wasn't beta as fuark, I'd be eating pussy right now.

While I wont dispute your evidence re athiests commit less crimes I would suggest that it's a bit soon to jump to the conclusion that its the athiesm itself that causes this. Can the rise in Athiesm or those who are religious only in name in any country in the west be matched to a decrease in crime rate when other factors are taken into account. The old maxim 1 swallow does not make a summer. I would also suggest that its too early to tell because to use the oft quoted idea of atheists that most people only hold a religious belief only do so because of indoctrination then if that was the case the dropping of religious belief would not by necessity mean a drop in the full scope of the indoctrination which also includes a code of morality associated with the previous belief. ( ps please don't feel i'm advocating that you prove to yourself that you have truly "broken free" in action (in the way some can't reference what to many of us are objects of reverence without instinctively dropping a gratuitive insult when it adds nothing to the discussion)). To use an analogy when someone breaks a leg and is bed bound for some time, the bone may be repaired but it takes a further space of time before they can sprint at full speed again. It would be reassuring to us religious folk that even if we should become the clear minority in future that as atheists are more moral we should feel safer in that environment but I don't feel reassured. The freedom the internet has given people to be themselves fully because of their anonymity ( dam it I wish I didn't use so many big words as I have to keep checking spelling ) while bringing the spread of ideas and knowledge has also given rise to much that's not so wonderful, as a teacher I would point to online bullying. So how will the population as a whole operate when finally freed from any possible restraints of religious ideas to their actions. Are you really so convinced that it will be better if everyone just became atheist?

(January 1, 2013 at 5:00 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Are you really so convinced that it will be better if everyone just became atheist?

Sort of a lot crammed into that really long paragraph, so I'll just focus on the question at the end. Personally I don't have any concern with trying to convert or rather de-convert anyone. Maybe Christians are being honest that the bible or their belief in god is the only thing keeping them back from being raging psychopaths. In that case I'd much rather that they kept whatever belief they had before.

I also don't think de-converting automatically makes you commit less crime. I think that being an Atheist is correlated with other factors that are linked with lower crime. Higher IQs, middle-class backgrounds, etc. I think that is the likely explanation for the lower crime rate amongst Atheists.

I would say most Christian are more tuned to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons and believe God to be the only person they can trust with the power and fairness to help us do as a group what we as individuals know to be needs to be done. Though its not the be all and end all of the Christian take.

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.

(January 1, 2013 at 2:35 pm)Faith No More Wrote: 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.

(January 1, 2013 at 5:00 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: While I wont dispute your evidence re athiests commit less crimes I would suggest that it's a bit soon to jump to the conclusion that its the athiesm itself that causes this. Can the rise in Athiesm or those who are religious only in name in any country in the west be matched to a decrease in crime rate when other factors are taken into account.....[ snip]... So how will the population as a whole operate when finally freed from any possible restraints of religious ideas to their actions. Are you really so convinced that it will be better if everyone just became atheist?

Under a naturalist perspective (which entails atheism) neither theism nor atheism is a causal factor in the development of morality. It is interesting to note that the more atheistic a country is, the better the indicators are for the general societal health. I wouldn't claim that for atheism however (ie it cannot be a causal factor). It is more that the degree of atheism is a facet of the ability of a population to think and act freely and a society which places our values and behaviors aligned with promoting the maximum desires of it's citizens. Equally theism cannot make any such claim (more than happy to expeand on that).

But worries atheists like myself, is the practical point. Theistic morality is frequently driven to be anything the prevailing demagogue of the day wishes it to be, and it is subject to their own mania, pandering to prejudice, petty vengeance and flat out absurdities: abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, race, preventing the spread of aids, equality of the sexes. Theism has an excellent track record of getting it wrong, which given it's hotline to a soverign and perfect creator of an entire universe is somewhat surprising - unless of course that being doesn't exist and there is no one at the end of the celestial telephone except the very person attempting to make that call.

Captain Scarlet I appreciated the unbiased way you made your excellent point in the first paragraph but the second paragraph mmmh. " demagogue" is this a tittle you would give to just Theists. Theistic morality "subject to their own mania," leaving the word mania aside, do not most people who consider themselves Theists not tend to associate with a particular religion and as such have less independence to pursue there own mania. flat out absurdities followed by a list of words that would suggest that any Theist view on these matters has to be absurd. Theism and its track record of getting things wrong ; of course science does not; and atheist do not. Of course it would be interesting to have the debate as to when science and religion in civilisations history parted company. By the last sentence any pretence about attempting to make an unbiased comment has gone completely.

(January 1, 2013 at 9:10 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Captain Scarlet I appreciated the unbiased way you made your excellent point in the first paragraph but the second paragraph mmmh. " demagogue" is this a tittle you would give to just Theists. Theistic morality "subject to their own mania," leaving the word mania aside, do not most people who consider themselves Theists not tend to associate with a particular religion and as such have less independence to pursue there own mania. flat out absurdities followed by a list of words that would suggest that any Theist view on these matters has to be absurd. Theism and its track record of getting things wrong ; of course science does not; and atheist do not. Of course it would be interesting to have the debate as to when science and religion in civilisations history parted company. By the last sentence any pretence about attempting to make an unbiased comment has gone completely.

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.

I made no comment on whether atheism nor science is prone to error. Atheism per se is not prone to error as I see it. It is a singluar claim that gods do not exist (or the agnostic atheist version that there are no reasons to believe etc). As such as an atheist, it would be self refuting for me to claim that atheism is wrong. The statement 'gods do not exist' is a statement I agree with, and that conforms to reality. The point you are making about science is a strawman argument which you have built and knocked down yourself. Science is a means of building working models of reality, which can then be applied and repeatabley confirmed. It is premised on only ever being tentative and thus is never right nor wrong just the best current explanation. Theism claims that absolute knowledge is available through a morally perfect and omniscient interlocutor, and that it is possible to hold a relationship with it and some claim to even have a mental conversation with said entity. As such Theism should have a massive advantage over all other moral positions and should be capable of being infallible in moral matters. Instead we see when practiced a sad parade of people justifying their own prejudice based on bronze and iron age mysticism and tribal outlook. Not deeply impressive to the observer.

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

The god character as depicted in the bible is not moral in the slightest. He is a selfish narcissist using human beings as pawns for his own glory. He uses a very dictatorial mafia tactic of bribes and threats to get people in line. He acts like an abusive spouse who beats you "for your own good" and his "punishment" is not corrective, but an act of revenge.

I cannot stress this undervalued book enough because it explains why morality is a product of biological evolution, "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger. It address all the worlds major religions and the common empathy motifs in each of them, such as giving, and charity, and kindness. Religion takes nature and makes it an invention of comic book clubs. It is an unfortunate product of evolution.

But all labels aside, the concept of an "omni" god is broken and cannot work , scientifically and much less morally. It is merely a reflection of our species infantile cry for the mother's nipple. We evolved to want protection and resources. But we made up myths and superstitions in order to ignore that we are in reality finite and not the product of any type of invisible being.