I agree smax; objective morals is a deadly thing to be parading on about. Long story short, it essentially proves God doesn't exist, which is highly unproductive for the theist.

I'm glad this is being discussed so avidly. I think it's important for non-believers to eventually come to some kind of consensus on this issue (probably not anytime soon) through which we can present a united front against the moral argument. I'm aware of many of the very good arguments that non-believers put forth, from the moral landscape, reciprocal altruism, and what theists like to refer to as, "herd morality." Unfortunately, in debates, it tends to come off as a bit heady and too scientific for many people to grasp. The very idea that things just happen, from the universe to abiogenesis, seem to be too much for many people to comprehend, especially if they're not interested in science.

I look forward to reading more; 9 pages is a bit too much to cover on my phone while at work .

(May 9, 2013 at 7:11 pm)Praetorian Wrote: I'm glad this is being discussed so avidly. I think it's important for non-believers to eventually come to some kind of consensus on this issue (probably not anytime soon) through which we can present a united front against the moral argument. I'm aware of many of the very good arguments that non-believers put forth, from the moral landscape, reciprocal altruism, and what theists like to refer to as, "herd morality." Unfortunately, in debates, it tends to come off as a bit heady and too scientific for many people to grasp. The very idea that things just happen, from the universe to abiogenesis, seem to be too much for many people to comprehend, especially if they're not interested in science.

I look forward to reading more; 9 pages is a bit too much to cover on my phone while at work .

So you want all non-believers to think like you do, just as you want all Christians to believe as you do, that's what I call real freedom of thought.

(May 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Godschild Wrote: So you want all Christians to believe as you do, that's what I call real freedom of thought.

Honestly, yes, because religion is absolutely useless. It does much more harm than good.

(April 17, 2013 at 10:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Derp, I forgot to write the first person as "Christian" and the second as "Atheist" for the first two lines, so that you know who's who.

All dogs are pets. I have a pet. My pet must be a dog. But I only have a cat for a pet. Then all pets must be cats. No dogs exist.

There are many ways to create false reasoning and logic. Yours and my example circumnavigate assumptions as facts!

(May 9, 2013 at 9:22 pm)ebg Wrote:

(April 17, 2013 at 10:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Derp, I forgot to write the first person as "Christian" and the second as "Atheist" for the first two lines, so that you know who's who.

All dogs are pets. I have a pet. My pet must be a dog. But I only have a cat for a pet. Then all pets must be cats. No dogs exist.

There are many ways to create false reasoning and logic. Yours and my example circumnavigate assumptions as facts!

All dogs are pets, but not all pets are dogs... you said so yourself when you claimed "I have a cat as a pet".

More simply though, one is a subset of another. *yawn*

(May 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Godschild Wrote: So you want all non-believers to think like you do, just as you want all Christians to believe as you do, that's what I call real freedom of thought.

No, that's coming at the issue backwards from what I'm proposing. I'm saying that theists constantly bring up, ad nauseum, the fact that (to quote William Lane Craig), "On atheism, there is no moral framework."

In a way, this line of reasoning is correct. The simple disbelief in something does not imply a creed or moral structure to follow. This is why many atheists also consider themselves secular humanists. What I'm saying is, science is just scratching the surface on why things like empathy occur naturally, but eventually it will be able to be addressed with a high degree of certainty. Theists can refer to their scriptures and claim they have a base for morality from on high, but the argument only works until science proves where it actually comes from.

(May 9, 2013 at 7:47 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Godschild Wrote: So you want all Christians to believe as you do, that's what I call real freedom of thought.

Honestly, yes, because religion is absolutely useless. It does much more harm than good.

Prove it then big boy.

---

(May 10, 2013 at 1:04 am)Praetorian Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

So you want all non-believers to think like you do, just as you want all Christians to believe as you do, that's what I call real freedom of thought.

---

No, that's coming at the issue backwards from what I'm proposing. I'm saying that theists constantly bring up, ad nauseum, the fact that (to quote William Lane Craig), "On atheism, there is no moral framework."

In a way, this line of reasoning is correct. The simple disbelief in something does not imply a creed or moral structure to follow. This is why many atheists also consider themselves secular humanists. What I'm saying is, science is just scratching the surface on why things like empathy occur naturally, but eventually it will be able to be addressed with a high degree of certainty. Theists can refer to their scriptures and claim they have a base for morality from on high, but the argument only works until science proves where it actually comes from.

Now you're stating science will prove something is not from God because it occurs naturally, how do you know that God didn't plan for this. Morals do not come from anything, morals are part of who God is, they have always existed. Truths are eternal.

Even if I grant you that, which I certainly don't, you could still fall back to the position of God ingraining his morals into his creations through natural processes.

Say that this year, a scientist proves that empathy is the result of some particular base pair. They don't find it in sociopaths, explaining why they lack this trait. Some social animals evolve it, explaining altruism in animal communities.

You can still make the moral argument, you just can't make it from scripture, which most people don't anyway. Why not accept the natural world as it really is? There's no reason to resist the findings of observation.

morality doesn't exist. get over it.