Any atheists here?

[PixelPusher]

So morality boils down to selfishness, motivated by social acceptance, sex, and money.

No.

[Don Quixote]

I don't base my ethical and moral values on the Bible, so there really isn't anything I care to "object" to. But since you value ABSOLUTE morals so much, where do you derive you ABSOLUTE certainty over which Bronze Age cutlural mores you're allowed to dismiss out of hand? Remember now, you're basing your morality on ABSOLUTE STANDARDS OF MORALITY, so it's pretty important you get it right.

Well, first, let me say that you probably do base your ethics and morals on the Bible more than you would realize and admit. Western Civilization owes its foundation largely to biblically-derived principles. You don't worship multiple Gods, you believe the universe can be observed and measured, you value others as your equals, you believe in the fundamental worth of all humans. Unless you don't? These things would never have happened in the East or in the Islamic world without being imported from Christendom.

Second, I'm not sure which Bronze Age mores you are saying I'm just dismissing. If you could be more clear, that would help greatly. If you're referring to pagan fertility practices, which often involved temple pros ution, lots of blood, and even child sacrifice, then yes, I would reject them.

Lastly, I don't mean to say that I myself absolutely know with certainty the right thing in every situation. What I'm saying is that, despite having minor differences in moral positions (perhaps), we still basically operate off the premise that there is A morality out there somewhere to which we ought to strive. I say, you stole my $$. You say, no I didn't. The hidden premise here is, that stealing is wrong. Note you did not say, I don't accept your morals. Etc.

[baseline bum]

So morality boils down to selfishness, motivated by social acceptance, sex, and money.

No, it would boil down more to genes that cause individuals to cooperate and have compassion for each other having more chances to replicate and be passed down through generations.

[Don Quixote]

I don't base my ethical and moral values on the Bible, so there really isn't anything I care to "object" to.

I'm not I understand you right. Are you admitting that you don't really object to immoral things that don't directly affect you? Clarify please.

[baseline bum]

No.

Someone probably threw that gorilla a bible one day.

[PixelPusher]

Well, first, let me say that you probably do base your ethics and morals on the Bible more than you would realize and admit. Western Civilization owes its foundation largely to biblically-derived principles. You don't worship multiple Gods, you believe the universe can be observed and measured, you value others as your equals, you believe in the fundamental worth of all humans. Unless you don't? These things would never have happened in the East or in the Islamic world without being imported from Christendom.

I guess this is what results from deriving your knowledge of non-western cultures and history from a pamphlet in the church lobby.

[Don Quixote]

No, it would boil down more to genes that cause individuals to cooperate and have compassion for each other having more chances to replicate and be passed down through generations.

Ah, Dawkins again. I heard Daniel Dennett speak on this a couple of years ago. He debated Alister McGrath, who I think bet him. And William Lane Craig absolutely stole the show the next day on this very topic.

Morality coming down to genes would not get you any closer to you telling me that I OUGHT or OUGHT not do something.

Follow me: let's say I'm going to go cheat on my wife. Let's say I get away with it. No one knows, no one tells anyone else. It's all consentual, and no laws are broken. So is this right? On what grounds would you tell me, NO, Quixote, stop it, what are you doing??

My system is simpler and more realistic. God hates it because he values marriage. So it's clearly wrong in the Christian system and pretty much any theistic system. But how can the atheist tell me, yep, it's wrong? I'd love to know.

[MiamiHeat]

that is very sad. that is the type of moronic simpletons we have to deal with when talking to religious people.

they actually think we need god to have any sense of morals.

[Don Quixote]

I guess this is what results from deriving your knowledge of non-western cultures and history from a pamphlet in the church lobby.

Wow. That was slanderous, and rude.

For your information, I studied some on the Ancient Near East in grad school. I have a good knowledge of Old Testament cultures and religion, know some Hebrew, and have grappled seriously with many of the exegetical and ethical issues of the Bible. I take my profession and studies seriously and try to treat all sides fairly.

I have afforded you respect and I ask that you do the same to me.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not I understand you right. Are you admitting that you don't really object to immoral things that don't directly affect you? Clarify please.

Yeah, I didn't clarify it well enough. I mean I don't hold the Bible sacred, and therefore I don't need to cherry-pick from it for support. Obviously there are things I would object to, like a God who gets pissed at King Saul's a half-assed attempt at genocide when He explicitly asked him to kill EVERYTHING, including the draft animals.

[baseline bum]

Ah, Dawkins again. I heard Daniel Dennett speak on this a couple of years ago. He debated Alister McGrath, who I think bet him. And William Lane Craig absolutely stole the show the next day on this very topic.

Morality coming down to genes would not get you any closer to you telling me that I OUGHT or OUGHT not do something.

Follow me: let's say I'm going to go cheat on my wife. Let's say I get away with it. No one knows, no one tells anyone else. It's all consentual, and no laws are broken. So is this right? On what grounds would you tell me, NO, Quixote, stop it, what are you doing??

Why do you keep going to this ridiculous argument? I obviously wouldn't cheat on my wife because:

1) I'd hate to hurt her
2) I'd hate to be the person being cheated on

My system is simpler and more realistic. God hates it because he values marriage. So it's clearly wrong in the Christian system and pretty much any theistic system. But how can the atheist tell me, yep, it's wrong? I'd love to know.

Your system is in no way simple. You invent an infinite and incomprehensible god that apparently comes from nowhere and attribute everything to him. Your idea seems to be that it's much more likely the watchmaker was created randomly out of nothing as opposed to the watch. Also, why are you speaking for god? How do you know he hates gay unions if we can't take OT law that condemns it in the context of thousands of years ago literally?

[Don Quixote]

Someone probably threw that gorilla a bible one day.

I wasn't aware that the gorilla was interviewed after the rescue. Did he give his reasons for doing what he did?

I don't deny that animals can learn behaviors that we consider good. I say, great!

But still unanswered, from the atheist perspective, is on what grounds we can say that this rescue of the kid is good? Was it your kid? What if the kid was slow and would be better off, as the eugenics crowd said, being exterminated for the good of humanity? Yet you join me in saying that this rescue was a good thing.

I don't see how you can say such a thing without importing "human life as highly valuable" from my system.

Lastly, on your "genetic" explanation for morals, how can you say that Hitler was wrong? Maybe bad for alot of people, maybe not genetically profitable, but wrong? But how can the atheists (most of whom reject relative morality, which I recommend you do) say this? They're great at pointing out moral flaws in others, but have no rational grounding on which to base their (often correct) morals in the first place. Who says genocide is wrong? Idi Amin had nothing against it. Who says flying jets into buildings is wrong? It isn't to the jihadists. So it can't be relative. You may SAY it's relative, unless you're the one being sinned against.

[MiamiHeat]

How ironic is it that Don Quixote calls me slanderous when he said humanity isn't capable of morality and righteousness if not for God.


Sorry, we don't take your kind of crazy here.

[baseline bum]

Who says genocide is wrong?

Definitely not Yahweh.

[Don Quixote]

Why do you keep going to this ridiculous argument? I obviously wouldn't cheat on my wife because:

1) I'd hate to hurt her
2) I'd hate to be the person being cheated on



Your system is in no way simple. You invent an infinite and incomprehensible god that apparently comes from nowhere and attribute everything to him. Your idea seems to be that it's much more likely the watchmaker was created randomly out of nothing as opposed to the watch. Also, why are you speaking for god? How do you know he hates gay unions if we can't take OT law that condemns it in the context of thousands of years ago literally?

Two comments. (1) Your reasons are from self-interest, not true morality. The best you can do is say, I wouldn't want it to happen to me. True enough, but remember my conditions. She doesn't find out, and (let's assume) she's faithful. So she wouldn't be hurt. YOU might be upset at yourself. But why feel guilt if there's nothing to be guilty about? Is not guilt a valid feeling for breaking an absolute law -- that you shouldn't break promises, vows, commit adultery, etc? You OUGHT to feel guilt over this. Once again, Dawkins (and you) have smuggled in an absolutist concept of morality into your system. Don't be ashamed of it. Rock it man!

And furthermore, my (proposed) adultery is MINE, not yours. It doesn't affect you. It's my decision, my wife, and my affair (pun intended). On what grounds can you say, don't do it, man? The best you can do is, you wouldn't want it to happen to you. Hardly the basis for real morals. How could respond to an ethical crisis on the other side of the world? You can't. Doesn't affect you.

(2) I didn't invent God. I do join theists in affirming that he is the ultimate source of everything. It is, at the least, a reasonable position. I hope I have proven that I am not a dunderhead like Dawkins, that fundamentalist, thinks we all are. The gay question is another issue and goes into Bible interpretation. I am quite competent in that area but I don't think you are really interested in that right now. (It's quite off topic.) Suffice it to say that I indeed take OT law seriously, moreso that most evangelicals, but I attempt to apply it in light of (a) its universal principles, and (b) its original setting.

[PixelPusher]

Wow. That was slanderous, and rude.

For your information, I studied some on the Ancient Near East in grad school. I have a good knowledge of Old Testament cultures and religion, know some Hebrew, and have grappled seriously with many of the exegetical and ethical issues of the Bible. I take my profession and studies seriously and try to treat all sides fairly.

I have afforded you respect and I ask that you do the same to me.

There is nothing fair or informed in you claim that non-western and poly-theistic cultures didn't (or didn't prior to Christianity) value human life and or believe the universe could be observed and measured. Since they weren't covered in you narrow field of study, I guess that's...not suprising.

I am curious if at any point during your Western Civ and Ancient Near East studies you ever came across the writings of a couple of enes (from the pre-Christian, polytheistic culture of Ancient Greece) by the name of Plato and Aristotle. I'd find it hard to believe that you didn't, since generations of Early Church monks and scribes took the time, care and attention to read, translate and re-copy the writings these philosophers...to the point that their writings ceased to be a mere exercise in Ancient Greek transcription and were incorporated into Christian theology.

So I guess if you can make an arrogant, dismissive claim that anything "good" about Islam is solely derivative of prior Christianity, then someone else can claim that anything scientific or philosophically high-minded about Christianity derived solely from prior enistic philosophy.

But I wouldn't be that obtuse, because that would be mere historicism.

[Don Quixote]

How ironic is it that Don Quixote calls me slanderous when he said humanity isn't capable of morality and righteousness if not for God.


Sorry, we don't take your kind of crazy here.

I didn't call you anything. I don't even know you.

And I didn't say humanity is incapable of some morality without God. Indeed, many atheists are quite moral, moreso than some Christians. My objection lies in their philosophers' seeming inability to explain the rational basis for their morality. Genes? No, that might influence what we actually do, a little, but can't explain what is actually right and wrong. Social conditioning? Same problem. My point is that, unlike the theist, Dawkins and his ilk have major problems telling anyone that such-and-such is WRONG (as opposed to unprofitable, or inconvenient, or messy) with any degree of conviction.

Nietzsche realized this and it drove him mad.

And as far as crazy, I don't give a flip what you think of me. You want to know crazy? The feelings we have of meaning in our lives, when humanism tells us that all we are is molecules, ultimately. How can we have hope and meaning in life when we're just glorified worm food? That, my troll friend, is crazy.

[MiamiHeat]

lol..

dogs, monkeys, types of birds, all go crazy without interaction. they are social creatures. not all animals are social creatures.

ok, sometimes, the social creature creates a bond with a certain member of their species. when that partner dies, the bird stops eating, the dog becomes depressed, the monkey mourns. the gorilla mother, when faced with her dead baby, refuses to let anyone take the corpse. she clings to it.

so, to go further, from this, death = bad.

when someone kills a loved one = bad.

so murder = bad

there is your morality.

seriously, your questions = ridiculous.

[DAF86]

And I didn't say humanity is incapable of some morality without God. Indeed, many atheists are quite moral, moreso than some Christians. My objection lies in their philosophers' seeming inability to explain the rational basis for their morality. Genes? No, that might influence what we actually do, a little, but can't explain what is actually right and wrong. Social conditioning? Same problem. My point is that, unlike the theist, Dawkins and his ilk have major problems telling anyone that such-and-such is WRONG (as opposed to unprofitable, or inconvenient, or messy) with any degree of conviction.

Nietzsche realized this and it drove him mad.

And as far as crazy, I don't give a flip what you think of me. You want to know crazy? The feelings we have of meaning in our lives, when humanism tells us that all we are is molecules, ultimately. How can we have hope and meaning in life when we're just glorified worm food? That, my troll friend, is crazy.

Don't do to others what you don't want others do to you

[MiamiHeat]

is don quixote trolling us for responses?

[Don Quixote]

There is nothing fair or informed in you claim that non-western and poly-theistic cultures didn't (or didn't prior to Christianity) value human life and or believe the universe could be observed and measured. Since they weren't covered in you narrow field of study, I guess that's...not suprising.

I am curious if at any point during your Western Civ and Ancient Near East studies you ever came across the writings of a couple of enes (from the pre-Christian, polytheistic culture of Ancient Greece) by the name of Plato and Aristotle. I'd find it hard to believe that you didn't, since generations of Early Church monks and scribes took the time, care and attention to read, translate and re-copy the writings these philosophers...to the point that their writings ceased to be a mere exercise in Ancient Greek transcription and were incorporated into Christian theology.

So I guess if you can make an arrogant, dismissive claim that anything "good" about Islam is solely derivative of prior Christianity, then someone else can claim that anything scientific or philosophically high-minded about Christianity derived solely from prior enistic philosophy.

But I wouldn't be that obtuse, because that would be mere historicism.

Yep, I'm narrow. And I didn't say exactly say that Eastern cultures didn't value life, etc. I AM saying that Western democracy could not have developed in the Islamic world, although science most surely did. At least during the medieval period. Today, that's a different story. Likewise, the view that the universe is orderly and can be reliably observed, (the foundation of science and modern history) could not have developed in a Hindu or Buddhist culture, with their relative disinterest in the created world. It was the West that overthrew kings, developed capitalism, and (unfortunately) led to Darwinism, socialism, communism (again, the East would never have done this). So you are more indebted to Christendom than you realize.

Second ... I have heard of Plato and Aristotle. I am well aware that the church borrowed concepts from many of the enists in order to explain theology to the Greek-speaking world. John in particular draws from the Greek notion of the logos, although modifying it somewhat. I'm not sure what of them you think I am dismissing. I may disagree with aspects of it, but I would try not to merely dismiss them. I know the early Fathers didn't.

Lastly, I in fact appreciate the contributions made by Islam, particularly during medieval times. In fact, the Islamic world was far ahead of Europe until well after Discovery. Today ... it's a different story. Like I said before, Islam and democracy don't play well together, and that's going to be a tough situation for the West in coming decades. But I don't say that EVERYTHING good in Islam is derived solely from Christianity or Judaism. It has unique contributions, too.

[PixelPusher]

I wasn't aware that the gorilla was interviewed after the rescue. Did he give his reasons for doing what he did?

I don't deny that animals can learn behaviors that we consider good. I say, great!

But still unanswered, from the atheist perspective, is on what grounds we can say that this rescue of the kid is good? Was it your kid? What if the kid was slow and would be better off, as the eugenics crowd said, being exterminated for the good of humanity? Yet you join me in saying that this rescue was a good thing.

I don't see how you can say such a thing without importing "human life as highly valuable" from my system.

Lastly, on your "genetic" explanation for morals, how can you say that Hitler was wrong? Maybe bad for alot of people, maybe not genetically profitable, but wrong? But how can the atheists (most of whom reject relative morality, which I recommend you do) say this? They're great at pointing out moral flaws in others, but have no rational grounding on which to base their (often correct) morals in the first place. Who says genocide is wrong? Idi Amin had nothing against it. Who says flying jets into buildings is wrong? It isn't to the jihadists. So it can't be relative. You may SAY it's relative, unless you're the one being sinned against.

What's so difficult about moral intuition for you to understand? Nobody "taught" that gorilla to show care for a strange child, it was simply part and parcel of her collection of instincts. The same holds true for us. You seem to think our "natural" state is made up exclusively of "bad" or "sinful" instincts (greed, sloth, malice, etc.) and anything good (compassion, empathy, etc.) is some "extra" that doesn't come with the base package, and requires a supernatural upgrade.

It doesn't. They're all part of the package. More often than not, they conflict with each other, hence our collective conscious angst about ourselves.

[Don Quixote]

I'm asking the wrong people. I'll try somewhere else. Thanks anyway.

[Don Quixote]

What's so difficult about moral intuition for you to understand? Nobody "taught" that gorilla to show care for a strange child, it was simply part and parcel of her collection of instincts. The same holds true for us. You seem to think our "natural" state is made up exclusively of "bad" or "sinful" instincts (greed, sloth, malice, etc.) and anything good (compassion, empathy, etc.) is some "extra" that doesn't come with the base package, and requires a supernatural upgrade.

It doesn't. They're all part of the package. More often than not, they conflict with each other, hence our collective concious angst about ourselves.

That's not even a small part of the question. I'm not at all convinced that what a gorilla did was even "moral." You seem to say no, and I agree. Morality is a uniquely human thing.

My question, then, is, how can the atheist reliably say what parts of this "package" are right and which parts are wrong? You say killing others without sufficient cause is wrong. Fine. I say it's okay. Or, I say, no, unless they deserve it. (Laker fans deserve it.) How are you going to tell me one way or another that you're right and I'm wrong? Can't I just as well say, get away from me with your morals, you fundamentalist? Quit ramming your views down my throat. My point here is, I fully ascknowledge that we struggle within ourselves. I'm cool with that. My question is, how can you sort them out?

On what basis can you ascribe to humans the value that you clearly have in them? If they're just molecules and such, that is? I can, rather easily. But how can you?

[MiamiHeat]

I just explained murder and you ignored it.

dogs, monkeys, types of birds, all go crazy without interaction. they are social creatures. not all animals are social creatures.

ok, sometimes, the social creature creates a bond with a certain member of their species. when that partner dies, the bird stops eating, the dog becomes depressed, the monkey mourns. the gorilla mother, when faced with her dead baby, refuses to let anyone take the corpse. she clings to it.

so, to go further, from this, death = bad.

when someone kills a loved one = death = bad.

so murder = bad

there is your moral compass on murder.