Things about atheism that should be self-evident.

[BreezeWood]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

theism can be a belief in a finite morality necessary to generate an organic existence, the religion of life and as such would require a theoretical "Almighty" whether one existed or not as a functioning being. allowing for a spontaneous universe bound by that religion as the origin of our existence.

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

Actually, she's right on. Your the one who ignornatly proposed, "Hey. Ignore all the evil shit they do, because they do nice things, too, " I just simplified it, to demonstrate what a stupid proposal that is.

No your not. When I pointed out all of the immorality perpetrated by religion, and Christianity in particular, you said, "And you ignore the good it does."

that's unforgivable you attributed that quote to Breeze Wood ... the desert religions are irreversibly destined to oblivion, it's only a question of who they will be taking with them.

Now, unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

you are conversing with yourself, do you read the posts you are commenting on.

I will not move on until you address my question. I'll wait. And if you keep trying to change the subject to what science can, and cannot accomplish morally, I will just keep bringing it back to your unresolved defence of religion.

there is no question you addressed to me, I have been commenting on your 5th law for atheist ... but feel free to repeat it if there is one ...

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome -

in the above, theistic in a generic manner would apply to whoever calibrates the moral compass - that would include an atheist.

 

[BreezeWood]

No your not. When I pointed out all of the immorality perpetrated by religion, and Christianity in particular, you said, "And you ignore the good it does."

that's unforgivable you attributed that quote to Breeze Wood ... the desert religions are irreversibly destined to oblivion, it's only a question of who they will be taking with them.

Now, unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

you are conversing with yourself, do you read the posts you are commenting on.

I will not move on until you address my question. I'll wait. And if you keep trying to change the subject to what science can, and cannot accomplish morally, I will just keep bringing it back to your unresolved defence of religion.

there is no question you addressed to me, I have been commenting on your 5th law for atheist ... but feel free to repeat it if there is one ...

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome -

in the above, theistic in a generic manner would apply to whoever calibrates the moral compass - that would include an atheist.

 

[Czernobog]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

theism can be a belief in a finite morality necessary to generate an organic existence, the religion of life and as such would require a theoretical "Almighty" whether one existed or not as a functioning being. allowing for a spontaneous universe bound by that religion as the origin of our existence.

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

that's unforgivable you attributed that quote to Breeze Wood ... the desert religions are irreversibly destined to oblivion, it's only a question of who they will be taking with them.



you are conversing with yourself, do you read the posts you are commenting on.



there is no question you addressed to me, I have been commenting on your 5th law for atheist ... but feel free to repeat it if there is one ...



in the above, theistic in a generic manner would apply to whoever calibrates the moral compass - that would include an atheist.

Oh shit! I apologise. You're right. That wasn't you. I can only plead confusion, since I was carrying on, like, three conversations at once in this thread. I confused your conversation with Westwall's. My apologies.

 

[Czernobog]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

 

[K9Buck]

Czernobog is on a crusade to prove there is no creator and nothing beyond our existence here. He becomes insulting when one of his arguments is successfully challenged.

 

[Czernobog]

Czernobog is on a crusade to prove there is no creator and nothing beyond our existence here. He becomes insulting when one of his arguments is successfully challenged.

Really? When did that happen? I must have missed that. It certainly hasn't been done by you. So far all you have done is engage in ad hominems against me. I guess that really is the last weapon available to the irrational.

 

[Correll]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

3. Scientific theories are never to be considered beyond challenge. That is not science that is, ironically, faith.

 

[BulletProof]

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

You can see that Atheists hate Christians by how they mock Christians and how they want the government to discriminate against Christians.

Atheists are amoral. They present a semblance of morality, but that's only in self-interest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

You can see that Atheists hate Christians by how they mock Christians and how they want the government to discriminate against Christians.

Atheists are amoral. They present a semblance of morality, but that's only in self-interest.

I'm an atheist, and I dont hate you. I think you are an uneducated, anti-Semitic, vulgar, backwards little puke...but I don't hate you.

 

[Czernobog]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

You confuse disliking, and distrust ingredients the religion with disliking the person. Isn't it you guys who say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner,"? Or, are you suggesting that's Bulls hit when you say that?

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

3. Scientific theories are never to be considered beyond challenge. That is not science that is, ironically, faith.[/QUOTE]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians

You're confusing disliking, and distrusting the religion with disliking the adherents. Aren't you guys the ones who say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."? Or, are you suggesting that's bullshit when you say it?

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

That is demonstrably not true. There are numerous studies on the inherent moral impulses among pre-verbal infants. And, even if that were not the case, wouldn't that mean that all babies are atheists until they are indoctrinated by religion? Thanks for confirming that.

3. Scientific theories are never to be considered beyond challenge. That is not science that is, ironically, faith.

Never suggested it shouldn't be. However those challenges should come from tested, verifiable scientific experiments falsifying the science, not from religious pseudo-science attempting to further a religious agenda over science.

 

[Czernobog]

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

You can see that Atheists hate Christians by how they mock Christians and how they want the government to discriminate against Christians.

Atheists are amoral. They present a semblance of morality, but that's only in self-interest.

I never mock Christians. I mock Christianity. Not my fault you can't tell the difference.

 

[Czernobog]

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

You can see that Atheists hate Christians by how they mock Christians and how they want the government to discriminate against Christians.

Atheists are amoral. They present a semblance of morality, but that's only in self-interest.

I'm an atheist, and I dont hate you. I think you are an uneducated, anti-Semitic, vulgar, backwards little puke...but I don't hate you.

Well...in Fort Fun Indiana 's defence, while that might be a bit harsh, BulletProof does make a point of demonstrating his rather healthy dislike for Jews.

 

[Correll]

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians.

You confuse disliking, and distrust ingredients the religion with disliking the person. Isn't it you guys who say, "Hate the sin, love the sinner,"? Or, are you suggesting that's Bulls hit when you say that?

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

3. Scientific theories are never to be considered beyond challenge. That is not science that is, ironically, faith.

1. Atheists Do not:
   1. Hate God - There is no God.
      
   2. Worship Satan - There is no Satan.
      
   3. Hate Christians - Christians were all born atheists, and then had religion forced upon them.
      
   4. Eat Babies - There are no words for for the kind of deranged and deplorable imagination that thought this up.
      
   5. Lack morals - Every person has a sense of right and wrong regardless of whether they have a book of fairy tales to tell them what right and wrong is.
2. Creationists like to ask, "How do you know the Big Bang happened? Were you there?" Yeah....right. Because I'm sure you were right there picking up shells while toddling along the bottom of the Red Sea, as the water was standing as two walls, waiting for you to cross, right?
   
   
3. “Evolution is just a theory” demonstrates an almost misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. The non-scientific word theory refers to a guess or conjecture, a contemplation or speculation. In science, this latter definition is actually called a hypothesis. The two terms are not interchangeable.
   
   
4. As is the case with justice, it is the burden of the party making an assertive claim to offer proof of said claim. As in a criminal trial by jury, the prosecution needs to offer objective evidence that events took place a certain way. The job of the defence is to show why the arguments of the prosecution are not valid. In such a court situation, the prosecution could never say “Well, this book says that such and such happened on the night of July 15th, therefore it is true.” The referenced book would immediately be questioned along the lines of who the author was, what their intentions and motivations were, when it was written, whether the writers were credible and in their right minds, etc. Since this horse shit doesn’t work in a trial, why do we suffer it to work for explanations of the entire universe? When science makes a claim, it is substantiated with plenty of objective evidence, yet when a religion claims something, the only justification is “well, there must be a God because we have sunsets.” Ah, of course, why didn’t we silly scientists think of that? And “You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is the coward’s shifting of the burden of proof.
   
   
5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

These are just a few things that most atheists can agree on. And I, personally, don' think a single one of them is unreasonable.

3. It's pretty obvious from this site, that a lot of your atheists hate Christians

You're confusing disliking, and distrusting the religion with disliking the adherents. Aren't you guys the ones who say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner."? Or, are you suggesting that's bullshit when you say it?[/QUOTE]


Again. THe behavior of some of your fellows, is obviously hatred. Any denial of this is not credible and only serves to undermine your credibility.

5. People do not have a sense of right and wrong until it is taught to them.

That is demonstrably not true. There are numerous studies on the inherent moral impulses among pre-verbal infants. And, even if that were not the case, wouldn't that mean that all babies are atheists until they are indoctrinated by religion? Thanks for confirming that.[/QUOTE]


Not having an opinion is not the same as sharing your opinion.

You might be satisfied with the moral structure that an untutored 1 year old would come up with by him or her self.


I hope for more from people.

3. Scientific theories are never to be considered beyond challenge. That is not science that is, ironically, faith.

Never suggested it shouldn't be. However those challenges should come from tested, verifiable scientific experiments falsifying the science, not from religious pseudo-science attempting to further a religious agenda over science.[/QUOTE]


Mmm, again, I think you are not representative of your side in this debate.

 

[Czernobog]

Again. THe behavior of some of your fellows, is obviously hatred. Any denial of this is not credible and only serves to undermine your credibility.

Care to cite some examples of what you consider hatred towards a person, rather than the religion?

Not having an opinion is not the same as sharing your opinion.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You might be satisfied with the moral structure that an untutored 1 year old would come up with by him or her self.


I hope for more from people.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You didn't say they didn't have fully formed moral structure. You said they had none. As I demonstrated, that is demonstrably not true. And, again, you seem to be confirming that there are no theists, until they are brainwashed into religion. Thanks for the confirmation.

Mmm, again, I think you are not representative of your side in this debate.

Again, care to cite some examples?

 

[Correll]

Again. THe behavior of some of your fellows, is obviously hatred. Any denial of this is not credible and only serves to undermine your credibility.

Care to cite some examples of what you consider hatred towards a person, rather than the religion?

Not having an opinion is not the same as sharing your opinion.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You might be satisfied with the moral structure that an untutored 1 year old would come up with by him or her self.


I hope for more from people.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You didn't say they didn't have fully formed moral structure. You said they had none. As I demonstrated, that is demonstrably not true. And, again, you seem to be confirming that there are no theists, until they are brainwashed into religion. Thanks for the confirmation.

Mmm, again, I think you are not representative of your side in this debate.

Again, care to cite some examples?

I'm not feeling the motivation to look up past examples of lefties hating Christians. It is hard for me to credit that you need that.


Fair point about me moving the goal posts. As your link says there is some instinctual component to morality. But, morality is far more than just that. Your line between "theists" and those who are merely raised to a cultural right and wrong seems unsupported by anything other than your personal animosity.

 

[Czernobog]

Again. THe behavior of some of your fellows, is obviously hatred. Any denial of this is not credible and only serves to undermine your credibility.

Care to cite some examples of what you consider hatred towards a person, rather than the religion?

Not having an opinion is not the same as sharing your opinion.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You might be satisfied with the moral structure that an untutored 1 year old would come up with by him or her self.


I hope for more from people.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You didn't say they didn't have fully formed moral structure. You said they had none. As I demonstrated, that is demonstrably not true. And, again, you seem to be confirming that there are no theists, until they are brainwashed into religion. Thanks for the confirmation.

Mmm, again, I think you are not representative of your side in this debate.

Again, care to cite some examples?

I'm not feeling the motivation to look up past examples of lefties hating Christians. It is hard for me to credit that you need that.


Fair point about me moving the goal posts. As your link says there is some instinctual component to morality. But, morality is far more than just that. Your line between "theists" and those who are merely raised to a cultural right and wrong seems unsupported by anything other than your personal animosity.

Well, to be honest, rational atheism is rather new as a movement. Now this isn't to say that it is new as a philosophy. Nor is it to say that atheism, in a way, has never been implemented. However, the example used is typically the Collective government of the USSR. The rationalist would argue, however, that Collectivism doesn't abolish God; rather it replaces God with the State. The State becomes the provider, the protector, and the arbiter of morality. Is this not the role that theists have assigned to God? So, collectivism doesn't so much replace theism with atheism; rather it replaces God with the State. Unfortunately, many people who have written about Communism fail to see the distinction, so all they see is the dictates against theism in the laws, and they assume that it was an atheist society. Which, I suppose, technically it was. That didn't make it a non-religious society.

Rational Atheism as a movement has really only been growing for about the last 30 years, or so. So, you're right. There isn't a whole lot of evidence that Rational Atheism will do a better job of imparting cultural morals than religion did. But, hey, we've given religion several thousand years to get it right. Since they have spent that entire time failing so spectacularly, is there any reason not to give Rational Atheism a chance to find out.

Most rational atheists have, as a core of their moral code, "Don't be cruel". That's it. The Golden rule, "Do not unto another what you would not have done unto you". By the way, contrary to popular opinion, that's not a Christian philosophy. It was borrowed by Jesus from a number of earlier sources, some religious, some not. But, you see, this brings up another point of Rational Atheism. The rational atheist doesn't discard every thought in the Bible just because it happens to be in the Bible. The rational Atheist simply discounts the religious, mystical mumbo jumbo bullshit that theists think makes the Bible "special". We treat the Bible as any other book of morality - we take what makes sense, and is useful, and discard the rest.

 

[Correll]

Again. THe behavior of some of your fellows, is obviously hatred. Any denial of this is not credible and only serves to undermine your credibility.

Care to cite some examples of what you consider hatred towards a person, rather than the religion?

Not having an opinion is not the same as sharing your opinion.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You might be satisfied with the moral structure that an untutored 1 year old would come up with by him or her self.


I hope for more from people.

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

You didn't say they didn't have fully formed moral structure. You said they had none. As I demonstrated, that is demonstrably not true. And, again, you seem to be confirming that there are no theists, until they are brainwashed into religion. Thanks for the confirmation.

Mmm, again, I think you are not representative of your side in this debate.

Again, care to cite some examples?

I'm not feeling the motivation to look up past examples of lefties hating Christians. It is hard for me to credit that you need that.


Fair point about me moving the goal posts. As your link says there is some instinctual component to morality. But, morality is far more than just that. Your line between "theists" and those who are merely raised to a cultural right and wrong seems unsupported by anything other than your personal animosity.

Well, to be honest, rational atheism is rather new as a movement. Now this isn't to say that it is new as a philosophy. Nor is it to say that atheism, in a way, has never been implemented. However, the example used is typically the Collective government of the USSR. The rationalist would argue, however, that Collectivism doesn't abolish God; rather it replaces God with the State. The State becomes the provider, the protector, and the arbiter of morality. Is this not the role that theists have assigned to God? So, collectivism doesn't so much replace theism with atheism; rather it replaces God with the State. Unfortunately, many people who have written about Communism fail to see the distinction, so all they see is the dictates against theism in the laws, and they assume that it was an atheist society. Which, I suppose, technically it was. That didn't make it a non-religious society.

Rational Atheism as a movement has really only been growing for about the last 30 years, or so. So, you're right. There isn't a whole lot of evidence that Rational Atheism will do a better job of imparting cultural morals than religion did. But, hey, we've given religion several thousand years to get it right. Since they have spent that entire time failing so spectacularly, is there any reason not to give Rational Atheism a chance to find out.

Most rational atheists have, as a core of their moral code, "Don't be cruel". That's it. The Golden rule, "Do not unto another what you would not have done unto you". By the way, contrary to popular opinion, that's not a Christian philosophy. It was borrowed by Jesus from a number of earlier sources, some religious, some not. But, you see, this brings up another point of Rational Atheism. The rational atheist doesn't discard every thought in the Bible just because it happens to be in the Bible. The rational Atheist simply discounts the religious, mystical mumbo jumbo bullshit that theists think makes the Bible "special". We treat the Bible as any other book of morality - we take what makes sense, and is useful, and discard the rest.

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foundations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

 

[Czernobog]

Human morality is more complex than "don't be cruel".

Of course it is. "Don't be Cruel" is just where it starts.


That is only ONE of the, at least five major moral foun

dations.


Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia



The Five Foundations[edit]

• Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
• Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
• Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
• Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
• Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

And I would agree with three of those foundations.

Respect Authority. Why? And unconditionally? Unconditional surrender to authority is how the Gas chambers happened. It's how My Lai happened. The justification was "I was just following orders". They were submitting to, and respecting authority. I would submit that authority must constantly be questioned, challenged, and tested. "Does this authority deserve my respect, and submission?"

Sanctity/Purity? Please! I would submit that purity can be a good thing in moderation. Guess what? There are times I enjoy disgusting foods. Have you ever seen how a hot dog is made? Junk food is actually fun, and tasty. As far as actions who gets to be the arbiter of what actions are "impure", or "profane". And, profane to whom?

You see, your five foundations imply the Kantian view that there are moral absolutes. Says who, and who decides what those absolutes are, and by what authority? I subscribe, rather, to moral universalism. R. W. Hepburn once said, "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." In other words, universal concepts can be tested, and objectively determined to be beneficial, or harmful. Theft is harmful. It is demonstrably so. Me stealing your shit harms you. What about homosexuality? Does my getting fucked in the ass by Frank, hurt you? No. Thus "homosexuality is wrong" is not a universal moral principle.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

 

[Czernobog]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

.

the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.

for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.

"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?

no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.

but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.

So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.

evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.

in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.

Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.