What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Diuretic]

Which is why atheists are incapable of keeping an oath, right?

No, atheists have less motivation to keep oaths. That is, if they truly are atheists. If you're trying to position yourself as an atheist, then I regret to inform you that you're not. You worship and pray to Human Knowledge, in spite of the fact that you possess so precious little of it.

How about an affirmation as opposed to an oath?

 

[Diuretic]

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

Even those who are anti-theists or atheists have faith. We as mortal beings must have faith in something, if we want to have productive lives. For one we must have faith in our senses and that what we sense is representative of reality. Those who do not have faith in a deity, replace the need for that faith with something else. Sometimes its Human Knowledge, as is the case with JPuke the "student of reason." Diuretic hasn't really let on what he/she holds as divine but, rest assured, we all privately hold something as divine. Some people just don't want anyone to know what it is for fear of being manipulated. For instance all some would have to do to anger you is denounce your God, or even talk about Him as if He was a fairy tale. Some people don't like giving that power away.

A hold a Hill of Grace shiraz as divine.

 

[Diuretic]

I don't see how. People are people, and people like to try to control others.

True enough and people are also highly obedient. I was wondering though if we are in a state of evolution away from our current state. Speculative thinking that's all.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You leave out another important aspect of the need for a higher authority. It's a very simple one. Why would you vigilantly uphold a contract if you could, with impunity, dishonor that contract and somehow profit from it? More specifically, our military officers (including the commander-in-chief) take an oath before their term of service begins. Upon what does that oath rest? Certainly it does not rest upon the trust between a vast mass of people and one man few of them have ever met or even seen in person. The oath rests on whatever God that officer prays to. The oath is taken on whatever faith the officer holds, and his or her fidelity to that faith is our only assurance that the oath will be upheld. Again, we must have faith that they don't have their fingers crossed behind their back. God (of whatever flavor) has been the keeper of our faith throughout the years, and has proven to be effective as long as people's belief remained strong. Of course, a few defectors in high places could easily take advantage of that belief, but I'll get back to that in a minute. Most monotheists believe that none of their ill deeds will escape His sight and so even when they are solitary and in reality absolutely free, they are expected to honor their commitments or be punished automatically and ruthlessly by an unseen, omnipresent observer. And so they often do honor their contracts.

Now back to the defectors. In most monarchies, the monarch rules by a divine right or a mandate from heaven or some other connection to a deity. The deity is still nominally above the ruler, but rather than being equal with the people in the eyes of the deity, the ruler was chosen by the deity to be His ambassador to the people, usually because of some innate quality that elevates the chosen above others. You can see how such a position might be exploited, since the deity doesn't often speak in the common language and so the people must look to the monarch for His mandate. If God creates all men equal, then such a problem (ideally) does not arise. You could say that-through 5 millennium of bloody revolt and "nasty, brutish and short" lives-God has told us that all men are created equal. I call it cultural evolution and I believe that it is part of human nature, but that's just me.

I take your point that some people need to think a creator is watching them to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. But I wasn't arguing from a deterrent position, I was really thinking of it as a sort of encouragement.

But as I said, I take your point that having a God around makes the job of persuaders much easier. Ya can't take on omniscience, it gets you every time.

The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Isn't it cute? Why they're vastly more intelligent that the theists... they can do what is otherwise absolutely uncalled for; what is wholly absurd... why they adhere to that which serves no purpose what so ever...

LOL... Classic!

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

A hold a Hill of Grace shiraz as divine.

So those who felt that the Anti-theist was capable of sustaining her own emphatically stated position... will simply have to try and get through the pain of this bitter disappointment.

It turns out that the notion of "Atheist Morality" amounts to little more than yet another vacuous platitude... which is common to the sub-intellect.

Let the record reflect that this exchange simply proves that Anti-theism is in effect: Anti-morality... and there's just no more to it, than that...

 

[JBeukema]

yes... hide from the truth because you can't refute

Your posts are a great example of why the Founders believed that even with a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights the right to bear arms was necessary. The World History had shown them that there were criminal scumbags , such as yourself, who required hot lead for re-direction.

Dumb asses like you believe that you have the right to murder, maim and disappear those who stand in your way.


Mossberg 590 - Da' Natural Rights Enforcer

.

Do cite where I said any such thing, liar

 

[JBeukema]

I'm I the only one who finds humor in how hard PI tries to claim victory while simultaneously going out of his way to avoid acknowledging the rebuttals put forth?

 

[Intense]

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Isn't it cute? Why they're vastly more intelligent that the theists... they can do what is otherwise absolutely uncalled for; what is wholly absurd... why they adhere to that which serves no purpose what so ever...

LOL... Classic!

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

A hold a Hill of Grace shiraz as divine.

So those who felt that the Anti-theist was capable of sustaining her own emphatically stated position... will simply have to try and get through the pain of this bitter disappointment.

It turns out that the notion of "Atheist Morality" amounts to little more than yet another vacuous platitude... which is common to the sub-intellect.

Let the record reflect that this exchange simply proves that Anti-theism is in effect: Anti-morality... and there's just no more to it, than that...

One step forward, two steps back. Diuretic, you regress.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well such is the nature of the Progressive...

 

[Diuretic]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

 

[JBeukema]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

I take your point that some people need to think a creator is watching them to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow.

he Non-Morality of Theism


I find that Abrahamic- primarily Christian and neo christian- individuals oft tell far more than they realize. Take, for instance, a common argument used by many such theists to argue the 'goodness' of religion. This argument usually takes the form of 'how can one be good without god?', 'where do your morals come from?' or, perhaps most frighteningly, 'I cannot see people being good without god.'

What is so telling about these words? Well, basically, what these people are arguing is that they cannot imagine anyone being 'good' without god- more specifically, that they cannot see how anyone can be moral or upright without the fear of hell. Buddhists make a similar claim regarding Karma and reincarnation. Now, think about what they're saying here. They cannot see how anyone... including themselves... can be good... good being defined, as clear by the context as honest and not bringing harm... without fear of [eternal] punishment.

Now, society has long recognized that some people will only be deterred from undesirable actions by the fear of punishment. This is why executions have historically been quite public and we in America make it well known that criminal behavior results in incarceration. However, most people will admit that such persons are a minority and that most people will try to be 'good' of their own accord, per their own conscience. Indeed, altruism is only natural, as it and the expectation of reciprocation have historically been good not only for the individual, but for humanity as a whole. For a more in-depth examination of these, do a Google search on the moral instinct.

These theists, however, make a different claim. Not only do they claim that such persons... persons who will only act in an acceptable matter if they fear a great enough punishment... are the majority, they claim that every single person is motivated to be good, honest, or altruistic purely out of fear pf punishment if they are caught doing something wrong. Every person. Including themselves. Not only this, but most common forms of punishment are not enough o keep them in line. Fear of incarceration of even execution is not enough to keep these people in line. Only fear of an eternity of indescribable suffering is enough to motivate them.


These people admit, through their arguments, that they are either amoral or immoral. For those not familiar with these terms, amorality is the lack or a personal sense of morality. Immorality describes one who acts without regard to morality, where amorality implies a total lack of a moral guide in the first place. Either of these scenarios should be quite frightening when one realized that these non-moral individuals, who either lack altogether any moral guidelines or would not be limited by them anyway are the very people who seek to not only claim a moral high ground, but who would then seek to push their twisted views of their so-called morality... the mere law of an ancient culture, which is founded on no moral or ethical code, as we have just discussed, into the public arena to influence our own laws. They are also the ones who wish to see these views instilled in children.

This reality should be very unsettling to any thinking, rational person with a vested interest in their own well being or that of their children, their society, their nation, or humanity as a whole. Remember that the non-morality of Abrahamism has been seen in the past in the form of genocides, inquisitions, and witch burnings. This is not mere speculation or philosophy. The results of such twisted views have been seen time and again over the past six thousand years of theist influence. While we most oft encounter these arguments when dealing with Christians in the West, this same problem is seen manifest in all theistic religions that claim to take a sense of morality... indeed a misnomer, as they are unable to tell morality from mere law... from ancient texts and are willing to act I accordance to the alleged will of their delusions without regard to any sense of morality or ethics or any care for their fellow Man.

This is perhaps the biggest reason we must oppose theism and the thinking that oft accompanies it, if we are ever going to see the existence of a more just society.

someone quote that, since the cowards are hiding from the light that JB shines

 

[rubberhead]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

I hope I didn't come across as saying that. I think that's only true in the case of someone who is inherently immoral. If someone respects morality and naturally holds true to their word would not have to adjust their behavior to stay off of the eternal naughty list of the omniscient Santa. Of course unless they unknowingly disobeyed one of the myriad of absurd or outdated fiats that various deities have issued over the eons.

 

[Diuretic]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

I hope I didn't come across as saying that. I think that's only true in the case of someone who is inherently immoral. If someone respects morality and naturally holds true to their word would not have to adjust their behavior to stay off of the eternal naughty list of the omniscient Santa. Of course unless they unknowingly disobeyed one of the myriad of absurd or outdated fiats that various deities have issued over the eons.

Nah it was Pub

I'll say this though, it's better being a human now than it was a couple of thousand years ago. You reckon those gods back then were tough or what!

 

[rubberhead]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

I hope I didn't come across as saying that. I think that's only true in the case of someone who is inherently immoral. If someone respects morality and naturally holds true to their word would not have to adjust their behavior to stay off of the eternal naughty list of the omniscient Santa. Of course unless they unknowingly disobeyed one of the myriad of absurd or outdated fiats that various deities have issued over the eons.

Nah it was Pub

I'll say this though, it's better being a human now than it was a couple of thousand years ago. You reckon those gods back then were tough or what!

Yah, God was a lot more "hands on" back then I s'pose.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I take your point that some people need to think a creator is watching them to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. But I wasn't arguing from a deterrent position, I was really thinking of it as a sort of encouragement.

But as I said, I take your point that having a God around makes the job of persuaders much easier. Ya can't take on omniscience, it gets you every time.

The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Isn't it cute? Why they're vastly more intelligent than the theists... they can do what is otherwise absolutely uncalled for; what is wholly absurd... why they adhere to that which serves no purpose what so ever... using their own stated reasoning...

LOL... Classic!

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace... thus any good that you managed; any 'bad' that you advanced... will be as if it never occured...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, for the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

A hold a Hill of Grace shiraz as divine.

So those who felt that the Anti-theist was capable of sustaining her own emphatically stated position... will simply have to try and get through the pain of this bitter disappointment.

It turns out that the notion of "Atheist Morality" amounts to little more than yet another vacuous platitude... which is common to the sub-intellect.

Let the record reflect that this exchange simply proves that Anti-theism is in effect: Anti-morality... and there's just no more to it, than that...

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

The only one who is confused, as is usually the case; is the anti-theist who asserts that Morality, defined in the commonly accepted Western sense... is distinct from the Deity.

The thing about debate on a message board is that the debate is a contest of the written word. So while it is commonly practiced as if the record of such has flashed into the ether; as it would in an oral version of same... the written debate doesn't provide a particularly sound platform for fallacious appeals to popularity.

Now I think we can all agree that it's not politically correct to assert that morality is distinct and relegated exclusive to theism... but such a deceptive notion tends to loose its grip where the assertion is embedded in a QUESTION; a question which asks the anti-theist to simply explain their anti-theist position with regard to what purpose anti-theist morality is designed to serve.

Thus where the anti-theist refuses to respond... and where such leans on vaccuous platitudes and empty cliches; it becomes self evident that; again, as is nearly always the case, the standing 'Politically Correct' notion is found to be resting on a vaporous illusion... and that in point of fact, the concepts of Anti-theism and Morality are diametrically oppossing, wholly distinct points of view.


So I ask you ONCE MORE... and purely to demonstrate your failure; to humiliate you and to discredit your entire anti-theist ideology... your religion:

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace... thus any good that you managed; any 'bad' that you advanced... will be as if it never occured...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, for the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

My goodness... yet on the front end, they SEEM so SURE of themselves...

LOL... I should copy-right these pearls...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

...

 

[frazzledgear]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

Religious belief is not necessary to have an internal moral code. But in general it is true that for atheists, this moral code is built on constantly shifting sands. And you can't deny that. That is because the nonreligious tend to include possible personal benefit in that determination and on what they FEEL. And what they feel today can be different from what they feel tomorrow. If the benefit equation changes, it changes their morality as well. In addition since they believe there are no consequences for changing their moral code to suit themselves instead of adhering to the one laid out by a higher authority, they are far more likely to constantly alter what they deem to be moral to suit themselves.

It is why the religious are far less likely to favor abortion on demand -no morality challenge for them to realize that killing unwanted immature human beings because the existence of their life is inconvenient changes nothing and is merely the most lethal form of age discrimination. For the liberal, if they can't SEE that immature human, it makes it easier to deny its shared humanity and insist that the stage of maturity determines whether another human gets to keep his life or not. As proof of that is the fact that some liberals are already advocating the "right" of parents to have their already born but handicapped child killed. That shifting moral code now moving towards saying that only the "perfect" have a right to keep their life. Which is not much different from how the Nazis got started about who did and did not have a right to keep their life. And NO, Hitler was NOT a religious man but ridiculed the religious. He was born to Christian parents but that sure doesn't mean he was a Christian himself -because he wasn't. He believed in no higher authority than man. Preferably himself.

It is why the religious are far less likely to favor embryonic stem cell research. The notion that we can or should create, kill and then harvest cells from an immature human life, as if it were a CROP so that another but older human might benefit -is not only immoral but actually a form of cannibalism.

No constantly shifting morality challenge there for the religious as well. I would stand to benefit if my parents would kick the bucket since I stand to inherit all their money -assuming they don't "waste" it on themselves first. That potential benefit doesn't endow me with any special "right" to whack them any more than I have the right to whack an immature human life before they "waste" their life on themself instead of me.

 

[rubberhead]

Morality facilitates cooperation which maximizes well-being. That does not depend on God. The purpose of life-in my view-is to continue life, to pass it on to the next generation better than we received it. This also does not depend on God. It depends on our love for our ancestors and our descendants. I am not saying that I think God is dead, or even that I do not believe that there is some force (in fact many forces) greater than myself. If, at any point, the human race were to proclaim itself master of those forces it would surely be the final trumpet of the end times. The greatest feature of God is to inspire humility in the highest levels of our hierarchy, and hope in the lowest. The worst feature of God is His perpetual wars with other Gods and the horrible travesties His followers blindly commit in His name. I think there is a compromise some where in there.

 

[rubberhead]

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

Religious belief is not necessary to have an internal moral code. But in general it is true that for atheists, this moral code is built on constantly shifting sands. And you can't deny that. That is because the nonreligious tend to include possible personal benefit in that determination and on what they FEEL. And what they feel today can be different from what they feel tomorrow. If the benefit equation changes, it changes their morality as well. In addition since they believe there are no consequences for changing their moral code to suit themselves instead of adhering to the one laid out by a higher authority, they are far more likely to constantly alter what they deem to be moral to suit themselves.

It is why the religious are far less likely to favor embryonic stem cell research. The notion that we can or should create, kill and then harvest cells from an immature human life, as if it were a CROP so that another but older human might benefit -is not only immoral but actually a form of cannibalism.

It is certainly true that our morality is based on shifting sands. It's true for every religious orientation. For example if the only child of any man were terminally ill and a doctor told him that using cells harvested from a miscarried fetus (that was essentially medical waste at that point) could save his child, what do you think he would do? This is a highly specialized and simplified example, but I don't think the man would be wrong to go forward with the procedure. In fact, I think God would be wrong for prohibiting it. Do you think that burial services should be held for undeveloped miscarriages? Should we have tiny coffins for dead fetuses whose sex is still indeterminate? I'm not saying we should be growing human babies in laboratories for the purpose of slaying them to scoop out the parts we want and throw away the rest, but how many miscarriages and stillborns could be used to save other lives rather than thrown out like garbage? It's kind of a moot point now, because I think scientists are finding other sources for stem cells, so it is mostly a political smoke screen nowadays.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Morality facilitates cooperation which maximizes well-being. That does not depend on God.

I'll say... because that's a fairly nonsensical definition of Morality. If I bust you upside your head, I've facilitated your cooperation. If as a government power, I tax activity which I want to discourage and subsidize activity which I want to encourage... I facilitate cooperation... If I'm a sweet little piece of ass, I lead you to believe that you're subject to get some of that ass, if you cooperate... I've facilitated your cooperation. If you're a black man whose moved into the wrong neighborhood, and I put a cross in your front yard and light it on fire... that is a method of facilitating your cooperation... If you're a terrorists which has been detained for the purposes of culling life saving information which you possess, and I strap your brown ass to my inverted bench, pour water over your covered face as I squeeze the air from your lungs... that is one way of facilitating your cooperation...

Now another word for facilitating cooperation is Coercion... the use of force to compel cooperation. And all that requires is power...

So I don't think that 'morality' really fits here... As morality is little more than the ethos which determines right from wrong... virtue from vice... Now anti-theism rejects theism as a CONCEPT... the rejection of such tends to rule out ethical judgments common to the ethos inherent in such...

The purpose of life-in my view-is to continue life, to pass it on to the next generation better than we received it.

Super... But Humanity is doomed... it's potential for the species to surive is zero. So what's that do to your purpose?

This also does not depend on God.

Whuh?

God? You mean this depends upon God existing?

It depends on our love for our ancestors and our descendants.

Well that's nice and all, but given that our ancestors; as well as our progeny are doomed to come and go without notice... on a universal scale... and that such will bear absolutely no trace in a tick of the universal clock, it's not much in the absence of God and eternal life.

I am not saying that I think God is dead, or even that I do not believe that there is some force (in fact many forces) greater than myself. If, at any point, the human race were to proclaim itself master of those forces it would surely be the final trumpet of the end times. The greatest feature of God is to inspire humility in the highest levels of our hierarchy, and hope in the lowest. The worst feature of God is His perpetual wars with other Gods and the horrible travesties His followers blindly commit in His name. I think there is a compromise some where in there.

'His perpetual wars with other Gods...' do whuh? What wars are those? People happen... that they routinely fail to recognize their responsibilities inherent in their human rights, doesn't fall to God's account.

And failing to recognize those responsibilities often aligns right up to the rejection of those responsibilities through the denial of the authority on which those rights rests and to whom one is held to account for their maintaining their responsibilities.

Perhaps you need to pick a side and get on it...