Where does your morals/ethics come from?

[tdh26]

see what we've done? We had a perfectly good philosophical discussion and we had to bring religion into it

It's inevitable.

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two? They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth. Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak. That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around. The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

[Jolly Sapper]

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two?

This sounds like you're assuming that anybody that doesn't believe in YOUR particular interpretation of God is an atheist.  Which isn't really atheism as it allows for me to believe in any supernatural deity.  I'm not sure that you can have a "wider" definition of atheism as the definition of atheism is pretty specific, there's no vagary to play semantics with.

They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

First, cool beans!  A theist that doesn't like the social contract theory.. *high five to you*... Second, there is no way to actually PROVE that the laws (of which many are ignored in the KJvB) you take from your bible are actually "objective" or even original.  Its one thing to want to "believe" that there are certain behaviors that are always wrong ( I do for instance, as I don't like racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, involuntary genital mutilation and feel these are always wrong regardless of the norms of a society) but there really is nothing to prove that my beliefs are based on some universal objective truth.  You can't have it both ways.  Just because you do something its the objectively based "right" thing to do but if somebody does something else that a large number of people agree is "wrong" then the person who did the wrong thing is being a moral relativist.

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

If something is physically possible, its within the laws of nature.  If I am able to exercise free will, or I believe I exercise free will, then my free will is falls inside the laws of nature not outside of them.

By the way, as somebody that lives on a farm, sheep aren't the dumbest or most stubborn of animals.

[mrwynd]

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist.

I would label Atheist as someone who denies the existence of a god, for me my atheism denies the existence of anything "supernatural". I don't believe anything exists outside of nature, we simply put "supernatural" onto anything we cannot easily explain. Science in all of it's forms has dispelled this "supernatural" view in so many places, yet people cling to things not yet fully understood and label them "supernatural".

Your more general view seems to label "pagans" or "heretics" as the same as atheists. I'm sorry but that offends me, I find other supernatural views as silly as Christianity.

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.

This is rather backwards. We create laws based on observation. We see what stars, planets and everything else in space does and we create laws to understand why they do such things. To instead label it as "God did it" destroys the complexity and wonder we find in our universe.

Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

If we have free will, then god gave us the choice to either follow him and live forever, or not and suffer in pain and anguish for all eternity in hell. He then gives no definitive proof of his existence, no miracles to show us he exists. If he is all knowing, is outside of space and time, and is everywhere at once, he already knows what choices we will make. Therefore he creates 70% of mankind to suffer and die for all eternity......how does god love us again?

The bible displays a very selfish, easily offended, and sadistic god whom you are expected to fear. If god created us in his image it would explain a lot, but then god wouldn't be perfect. The bible gives a god that is very far from perfect.

[Loffler]

I'm not sure that you can have a "wider" definition of atheism as the definition of atheism is pretty specific, there's no vagary to play semantics with.

Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

[Asmodean]

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours.

Yes. 2+2 really is 7, I know. Atheism is lack of a belief in god(s) Atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). It's that simple.

Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist.

And what if out of tens and hundreds of thousands of gods out there, one endorses exactly that philosophy?

They are just making it up as they want or want to believe.

So do you, more likely than not. Or maybe someone did it for you, so you wouldn't have to strain yourself. but then you have to take your book literally. Every word of it.

Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.

As long as he believed in god's existence, he was a theist. Period.

If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

"Objective truth"..?  

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.

You stood the facts up on their head here. The relations between matter and energy are described by laws of physics. Those laws are something we define in order to more accurately describe the universe around us.

We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth.

So you can do something the laws of physics claim impossible? Can you jump up and stay in the air unaided? Or turn water (H2O) into the same amount of ethanol (C2H5OH)? Without using other atoms than those already in your glass?

Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak.

Your god allegedly created us in its image. Thus it's just as stupid and weak.

That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around.

No. Obviously, you've never even seen a sheep.

The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

We don't need them to be happy and content.

Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

Ok... Let's play. Just back up your claims so they don't seem so utterly hollow.

[mrwynd]

a definition I found on the internet for "objective truth" is: "This is an unbiased truth. It is often used to mean Ultimate Truth. Compare with Subjective Truth."

I believe the meaning tdh26 was trying to make with that is there's an "absolute truth" to religion, Christianity in particular believe their faith is based on an absolute truth. I used to argue this point when I was a Christian. When you're on the outside this is an obvious problem. If you base what you believe to be irrefutable truth on faith, you've placed fact where there is no fact. A fact must have evidence that is repeatable and observable. It's impossible to claim truth from faith.

[Loffler]

see what we've done? We had a perfectly good philosophical discussion and we had to bring religion into it

It's inevitable.

No doubt my definition of athieism is much wider than yours. Someone or some group that acts in a way completely contrary to a God like belief or philosophy, I would nearly lable as an atheist. Whats the difference between the two? They are just making it up as they want or want to believe. Hitler may have talked about God, or even professed it, but he did not act in accordance to any of it.
If you don't have an objective truth outside of yourself to follow, then nothing those regimes did were wrong. It was just their "social contract".

Imagine if the stars in the heavens decided not to follow the laws of nature? You would have chaos in the universe. But they don't have the ability not to obey the laws.
We do. Its called "Free Will". (That's why you can choose to deny his existance) When we don't follow the laws of nature (Gods commandments) we have chaos upon the earth. Yes, terrible things have happened in the name of God but only because we are stupid and weak. That's why he called us sheep. One of the dumbest and stubborn of animals around. The commandments are not to oppress and demean us, but the way to be happy and content while we're here.

Boy, this is going to get me in trouble around here! Let the games begin!

Here's the short version of everyone else's response to you. Your whole post depends on already believing in God, so it's meaningless to someone who doesn't.

[tdh26]

Yes. 2+2 really is 7, I know. Atheism is lack of a belief in god(s) Atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). It's that simple.

Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

Objective truth"..?

An objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.

You stood the facts up on their head here. The relations between matter and energy are described by laws of physics. Those laws are something we define in order to more accurately describe the universe around us.

I should have said 'laws of physics' instead of 'laws of nature'. We don't define the laws of physics, only try to explain them and give them a definition so we can understand them. They are what they are.

So you can do something the laws of physics claim impossible? Can you jump up and stay in the air unaided? Or turn water (H2O) into the same amount of ethanol (C2H5OH)? Without using other atoms than those already in your glass?

I wasn't infering "Free Will" means we can cancel the laws of physics. "Free Will" implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.

Your god allegedly created us in its image. Thus it's just as stupid and weak.

Actualy, He created us perfect, but we screwed it up in the garden on Eden through sin, which is just us refusing to live by his commandments.

He then gives no definitive proof of his existance, no miracles to show us he exists. If he is all knowing, is outside of space and time, and is everywhere at once, he already knows what choices we will make. Therefore he creates 70% of mankind to suffer and die for all eternity......how does god love us again?

This is it in a nut shell! You see the universe and just see random happenings or such. I see miracles all the time and proof of his existance. Just look at a tree. How complex! You try to create one. Ever take an anatomy class? The human body is so complex it's truely mind boggling. Doctors have to specilize in just one small part of it and then they don't know very much. All this is suppose to to just have happened on it's own. Humans know so little about this universe but we think we're so smart.
God loves us so much because he gave a "Free Will" so we could make our own choices. He knows what our choices will be but WE make them and those choices have consequences.
I know, this isn't proof of a God in your eyes, but it's the basis for me and we all have to start somewhere!

By the way, as somebody that lives on a farm, sheep aren't the dumbest or most stubborn of animals.

I said "One of". This comes from my own discussions with people who raise them.

And the beat goes on.....

[Asmodean]

An objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.

Thank you for clarifying. Your god is disqualified from the "objective truth" though - if anything god said or did was an objective truth, by your definition, everyone would agree to it/follow it.

I should have said 'laws of physics' instead of 'laws of nature'. We don't define the laws of physics, only try to explain them and give them a definition so we can understand them. They are what they are.

Relations between matter and energy are what they are. We use laws of physics, which we define, to explain these relations. This is arguing over semantics though so I'll leave it be. The original point, however, was that the stars can not "decide" to not abide by the laws of physics any more than you can decide to jump up and stay in the air un-aided. It is about relations between matter and energy and unless you do all your equasions, and do them right, you can jump all you want, but every time you'll fall down. Thus, creating your "chaos" is impossible.

I wasn't infering "Free Will" means we can cancel the laws of physics. "Free Will" implies that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices.

No, free will implies that my actions are mine alone.

Actualy, He created us perfect, but we screwed it up in the garden on Eden through sin, which is just us refusing to live by his commandments.

Thus, god is a sinner. Or a poor mechanic. Or just a lazy f***. Basically, it is as flawed as we are. In any case, definitely not worth wasting our time on.

[Loffler]

Actually even atheists manage to come up with oddly specific definitions. Some even seem to believe atheists have to believe God is impossible or definitely nonexistent, when actually an atheists need only lack belief, regardless of what he thinks God's odds are.

Why did you quote me without responding? Did you forget?

[mrwynd]

This is the exact point I was making before, "it's too complex, so it must have been created" takes all the complexity and wonder out of the thing you describe. If our eye was engineered, why do we have part of a 3rd eyelid that most animals have developed? Why do mammals that have been thrust into a new environment (australia) have a developed 3rd eyelid while the mammals not in these environments have a less developed 3rd eyelid? Did god just decide well....I'll give humans the remnants of this 3rd eyelid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

Just because our minds haven't evolved to the point that we can understand everything all at once doesn't mean it's not there. If scientists had accepted religious thought as truth we would never have questioned why electrons work as both particles and waves. Therefore we would never have computers or any electronics. We don't have to be able to make a tree ourselves to understand how it is created in nature and to say god created it without questioning how it exists leaves us ignorant.

There's one big question to the "need for creation". If everything is too complex to exist on it's own and must be created, what created god? It's a silly argument to say things we see cannot possibly exist on their own and assume something so complex that has never been seen simply exists for all time, indeed without time. The burden of proof lies on you to show your God's existence. We can give you tangible proof as to how things got here, where's yours? There's exactly just as much proof and scripture to show Allah, Zeus or Poseidon exists as your god. Indeed if everything must be created, why not Zeus?

[atheist2308]

First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

[tdh26]

First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

As I've said in an earlier post, If you believe in God, but in no way live it, you might as well be an athiest. There is very little difference. You are both doing the same thing in life.
Why does the question "where do we get our morals from?" make you laugh? Do you not have any standards to go by or base them on?
As for religion killing more people... that's debateable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquistions.

[Jolly Sapper]

Do you not have any standards to go by or base them on?

I think everybody that's responded to your OP stated where they get their morality from, but it didn't conform to your expectations that morality can only come from a totally objective source.

As for religion killing more people... that's debateable in the sense of my first sentence. Name a religion that's says in it's doctrine: "Go kill people" (beside islam) The crusades were more about defensive actions than anything, and don't get me started about the distortions made about the inquistions.

I thought the old testament had God tell his loyal followers to go kill all sortsa of people, who was it that ran around smoting folks with the jawbone of an ass?

[Loffler]

First of all let me say this, 98% of all prisoners in the U.S. that are in for murder, rape and so on believe in god. The other 2%, just 2%, are non-believers, atheist and so on. And your asking us (atheist) where do we get our morals from? Don't make me laugh. If you were to study the history of all religions you would see that religion has killed more people than any other thing in history, and it still happens to this day. So, really, YOU should be the one telling us where you get your morals, because the way I see it we are not the ones how need to be questioned.

As I've said in an earlier post, If you believe in God, but in no way live it, you might as well be an athiest. There is very little difference. You are both doing the same thing in life.

There is no difference to a third party. But an atheist doesn't believe in God, and a theist does.

If someone acts like a Christian, but doesn't believe in God, are they a Christian?