Godless morality

[Enlightened777]

Great question choice. I have been pondering the same question and have come up with a few ideas that make sense. Our morals were decided for us we are taught what is right and what is wrong. But what if one family excludes one of those things like murder. If they do not instill murder being wrong, and instead instill it to be right, the reverse situation comes out. As vicious as it sounds, that would be a form of freewill. Freedom in its literal meaning would mean that we are free to do as we please without all the social boundaries. Thus meaning there is no difference between right and wrong, leaving he person to decide that for themselves.

[Titan]

Yes.

Excellent, we have made progress, I'll end up coming back to this periodically to make some points about humanity not having any value.

Yet curiously it is what I have said to you all along ... I suppose it is progress though that you may have finally got it.

I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

If mankind is just matter + time + chance then we are ultimately meaningless because nothing has value in the universe. The implications of this are astronomical as personal well-being, happiness, megalomania and eroto-mania are all that matters which means that genocide isn't wrong as much as it is "someone else's perspective." You don't take comfort or displeasure in knowing that if you were alive 200 years ago you would be arguing for slavery without the slightest qualm, because it was what your portion of society believed in. Knowing that time is all that separates the you now from the genocidal, baby-sacrificing you that would have been alive and happy in an Assyrian society 3500 or so years ago makes the whole proposition of arguing for ethics rather odd. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "progressive" because a progressive implies a progression TO something, but from an atheistic perspective there is nothing that is better or worse than anything else (in the grand scheme of things) so it isn't a progression (nothing you should argue for) but simply a movement along a linear playing field.

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Christianity is just another belief system with nothing specific to recommend it or make its essential claims more worthwhile than those of any other.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. From a perspective of prophecies, answers, influential power, etc.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre
Etc

Only in the mind of a theist! The concept of there being a god on the hand does have real implications. Try to step out of your limited theistic world for one moment and imagine what it would do to science if the explanation "God dun it" were accepted as valid for 1 or more questions currently under investigation by the scientific community. Given the former point can you name 1 event that is specifically worthy of such an explanation? That we should stop investigating because that explanation is entirely adequate for the question it supposedly answers?

Step out of your limited atheistic framework here... Evangelical Christians (as portrayed in the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) are encouraged to study science and broaden our understanding of the world. Some questions seriously have a much bigger point coming across: what began it all and which huge assumption for the beginning fits better with our observations of existence. I think we should ALWAYS investigate every aspect of existence, study science fervently and keep an open-mind. But that ever present question of "where did "stuff" come from?" is always there and has not even gotten close to becoming solved.

I note with interest that you didn't answer the question

So your point was?

You mean like I already mentioned Newton? And yes, I still reckon these would be secular individuals if they were modern thinkers.

Based on what? Do you realize how much of Newtonian theory was based on Christian influences...such as the number 7

Which has precisely what to with Newtonian physics (which is pretty much all Newton is remembered for)?

It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

Nothing I've ever claimed.

Argue against it then. What if the majority of society suddenly turned and decided slavery was alright...what would you do?

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

[Titan]

DennisK

In listing the barbarous acts in the bible, I was just trying to show that there were many. I don't wish to bring these up in another thread or here because I can't stand reading dissected responses. If you view that as a cop out on my part, I'm sorry. If you could lump them together and defend them, it would be great. I'm not a skilled forum reader and it is very difficult to read your fragmented comments. Not to mention, they usually require that you read the entire thread in one sitting. I'm an ADD boy. Can't do it.

I am confident I can answer all of them. But I would welcome a more ADD oriented discussion on MSN, Google Chat, AIM or Skype.

In regards to the Iliad, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as I only know a bit of the mythology and only ASSuMEd how it was used. What I was trying to touch on was that both books were highly regarded as the truth in their time. Would you not agree? The Iliad and Odyssey have been discredited by almost all (except the nut jobs). The bible will follow suit not because there is a better book of religion out there, but because free thought is less and less persecuted.

Plato and Aristotle both present evidence that the Greeks were not that confident in their gods...that it was more of a necessary spirituality then a mental spirituality. I believe the Bible is VERY different from all the other religions and I would be happy to prove it to you.

Do you believe the new testament trumps the old? If so, how can you justify this if the OT was 'god's word'? Was god wrong? If not, how can you discount all the atrocities by today's ethical standards?

The New Testament does not trump the old in the way the Quran's newer passages nullify and override the old ones. The issue is that Christ sets up a kingdom based on grace and the natural implications alter the relationship God and man can have. It is complex and I can go through a TON of specific examples and say "this is why the resurrection of Christ alters the way mankind must obey this law in particular" if you want.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

I have repeatedly and CLEARLY said atheism carries no philosophy, no value ... what do you want? Blood?

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre

In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

I've never denied the act that there are scientists who are Christian and who do some bloody good scientific work and no I have to disagree that Christian investigate all aspects of their existence, by virtue of their belief in their god they do not do so.

Yes, the miracle I referenced for Dennis, or was it Sophus. Where our family friend learned English in one night while sleeping...a fact which is attested to by people who know her. Or one that occurred near where I was, one of the students at the international school was speaking English to a Javanese man and the man heard Javanese, as if it was being spoken fluently. I can go into greater depth on either one of these. You can investigate, I don't want to dissuade you from that, but I believe that the Christian answer is far more plausible.

And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

I haven't dodged the issue, I gave you a brief overview of why I consider it wrong ... in simple terms it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

Why is not wanting it done to you make it wrong? It is actually irrelevant, all that matters is whether it is actually taking place. If you can do onto someone else and benefit without drawback and they will never do the same to you it would seem that the thing should be good in your mind.

I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

So your point was?

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit)

Good for you!! If it is without the god bit, your ethical system is unashamedly Greek! Judeo/Christian ethics are non existant, besides giving "faith" intrinsic moral value.
As examplified here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2174.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Good for you!! If it is without the god bit, your ethical system is unashamedly Greek! Judeo/Christian ethics are non existant, besides giving "faith" intrinsic moral value.
As examplified here: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2174.

Oh!

Kyu

[Sophus]

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

Ha ha. Love how you say "As I recall." I suffer the same frustrations with Titan. I agree with what you have to say Kyuuketsuki. Brilliant theists and deists of the past, such as Voltaire, would most likely be atheists in todays world where there is so much more evidence and explanations in psychology and sciences for why God doesn't exist.

[Zarathustra]

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

Ha ha. Love how you say "As I recall." I suffer the same frustrations with Titan. I agree with what you have to say Kyuuketsuki. Brilliant theists and deists of the past, such as Voltaire, would most likely be atheists in todays world where there is so much more evidence and explanations in psychology and sciences for why God doesn't exist.

:hail:  :eek:

Psychology and sociology does however provide evidence why gods are merely cultural constructs. And philosophy and history clearly provides evidence that no religion qualifies as an explanatory system.

[Titan]

I wanted you to use certain words...although technically it was me saying them for you. I wanted you to say that there was no value system in that there are incredible implications we can draw from that.

I have repeatedly and CLEARLY said atheism carries no philosophy, no value ... what do you want? Blood?

I wanted those words because you will inevitably say that the Bible is immoral (which you already have) a proposition that even an atheist cannot hold on to.

Mankind, life, whatever you want to call it is meaningless except within context of the meaning we give ourselves. I take no POV on what I might have thought I was doing x years ago except that in some respects I consider myself lucky to be alive today, in others I don't (would have preferred to live then). In cultural terms no, there is no such thing as progressive ...,w e are merely different and from our POV better or more civilised. I've grown up in this culture which is inherently rights based and I consider that a good thing for me, for my family, for most people ... why would I not want to argue for such a system? For the record I believe a benevolent dictatorship would be a better system of government.

But understanding that we are ultimately meaningless should tell us that the meaning we give ourselves is also meaningless. Unless you want to cut off rationalism at a certain point, you have to come to such conclusions. Furthermore, since you recognize that there is no such thing as progression and that your views are simply the result of the current civilization then how do you justify it from a logical standpoint? Knowing where we came from helps us know who we are. But you know that who we are is just a fabrication. You know that "what works for you" is not important in the grand scheme of things. So why WOULD you argue for your system of ethics? Why not just adopt someone elses, ally yourself with them and produce kids in a more unified world?

Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

1. Why does survival carry meaning? You breath to keep on breathing and you call that meaningful?
2. Why does wishing to see your child survive to adulthood carry meaning? It doesn't benefit you in the slightest.
3. Why do the arts carry meaning? They are only transitory representations of a transitory society which is part of a transitory race in a transitory universe.
4. I do not doubt that there are many atheists who firmly believe that they have meaning. I am saying that they have no rational reason to believe that.
5. The problem you refuse to address with your own morality is that you recognize that they are societal. If they are societal then they will not last, if they will not last then why do you not desire to influence society to create a set of morals and ethics that benefit you more than anyone else?

Of course you do or you wouldn't be able to set yourself on an intellectual pedestal and believe that you are right and others are wrong. What prophecies? You mean the self-fulfilling ones within your bible? Colour me unimpressed.

How about the ones concerning say:
Egypt never ruling over another nation
Daniel predicted four great kingdoms prior to Christ
The prophecies concerning the fall of Tyre

In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

I completely disagree, let's look at a specific one concerning any of those three.

I've never denied the act that there are scientists who are Christian and who do some bloody good scientific work and no I have to disagree that Christian investigate all aspects of their existence, by virtue of their belief in their god they do not do so.

Yes, the miracle I referenced for Dennis, or was it Sophus. Where our family friend learned English in one night while sleeping...a fact which is attested to by people who know her. Or one that occurred near where I was, one of the students at the international school was speaking English to a Javanese man and the man heard Javanese, as if it was being spoken fluently. I can go into greater depth on either one of these. You can investigate, I don't want to dissuade you from that, but I believe that the Christian answer is far more plausible.

And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

So the woman was supposed to go to sleep not knowing the language with a person standing there measuring her brain (even though she had no idea this was supposed to occur) and go to sleep? Again, this isn't just my word, that is why I requested that you come to Indonesia, to meet these people. I don't think you should believe me, I want you to go to a country that has things like this occurring far more often then you realize. Can you arguably say, side track, that you hold no assumptions?

Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

Again, I said please open this up in another forum because I can answer them. Essentially, rape is NEVER right. All life belongs to God, not to us, therefore he isn't committing an injustice by taking back what is his, he doesn't owe us anything. Slavery in the Bible was used as a form of debt repayment. If a family could not repay a loan they owed then they would become a slave for a temporary period in order to work off the debt. These things are quite easy to answer if you are willing to actually listen.

I haven't dodged the issue, I gave you a brief overview of why I consider it wrong ... in simple terms it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

Why is not wanting it done to you make it wrong? It is actually irrelevant, all that matters is whether it is actually taking place. If you can do onto someone else and benefit without drawback and they will never do the same to you it would seem that the thing should be good in your mind.

I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

You have not answered that question. Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices. Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

So your point was?

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position. It just puts a halt to debate because you want to claim a fantastical scenario to support your opinions. Utterly pointless really.

It made an indelible impact on his scientific ventures. Unless you are saying that the physicist part of Newton would become an atheist but the other parts of him would remain a theist.

No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

Why should I argue against something I don't claim, don't believe in? Get real man.

Because it is more rational to be a slave owner than not (if there is no system of value behind everything). Justify why you are not actively trying to turn society towards being more beneficial for your children in that form.

Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

[PipeBox]

Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

Not my argument, but that is loaded.  

[Zarathustra]

Titan, please stop! You are continously claiming formal knowledge about a subject, that you obviously know very little about!
You are going nowhere with your mindless jibberish:

Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices.

As I showed you and others in this thread, his views are strictly greek! This is a fact! Well established in the philosophical community, which you claim to know so well!

Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

What the f#$k are you babbling about??? I must ask again: Have you EVER read any atheist philosophers' workings on ethics?
Why are you stating this to be someone else's viewpoint, when it's really just your own?

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.
But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position.

Actually, while researching for something else, I found out there is: In his early years Voltaire vrote a number of "fan" letters to Newton and Hume expressing great admiration in their work, and stating clearly that he felt sorry that he wouldn't be able to say such things in France, since he would most certainly be persecuted by the church for it! Furthermore when he got old, he explicitly vrote in a number of letters, that he was adamant that christian dogma should be replaced by philosophical enlightenment in schools. He also fought with the problem of evil all his life, without ever finding a solution he could agree with!

Again you're acting like you know, Titan...

Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

STOP!!! You are claiming to know stuff that you don't!!! I'm not even gonna comment on this absurd idiocy except explain to you that there are actually 13 intervals on the note.scale - not 7.

Why can't you just stop making strawmen, and argue with something you actually know? Please... It's so much more interesting that way  

[Faithless]

Believe it or not, I've actually read this entire thread over the last couple of days (I've been gone for awhile so this was quite interesting to come back to).

Titan, at first I was quite interested in what you had to say.  It seemed to me that you were intelligent and genuinely wanted to know about the different viewpoints of atheists.  Unfortunately, as this thread (and others) has continued ON and ON and ON, it has become quite apparent to me that what you are really trying to do is just another version of the same old theistic arguing that atheists have no morals or decency because we don't allow ourselves to be taken in by a larger-than-life supernatural being that only exists in the minds of you and others like you.  The fact that we actually think for ourselves seems to be the thing that most theists have the hardest time accepting.

Kyu and PipeBox (you guys are awesome!) and others have done what I consider to be an exemplary and extremely patient job of trying to explain to you the very things you continue to ask.  But you don't want to listen.  What you want to do is parse out little tiny irrelevant statements from entire paragraphs eloquently expounding on the views of atheists, and then nitpick them to death over and over and over again.  Then, after the seventh or eighth time of not getting the answer that you want, you just restate it in terms that you like.  Alternatively, you just ignore what you don't like.  This is especially noticeable regarding specific questions asked of you that you conveniently never answer.  Your tactic of asking other people to make many other threads about many other topics, however, is a new one that I haven't seen before, so I do commend you on that.

In an effort to finally give you a statement that you can take to the bank, let me state flatly and unequivocally that There is no such thing as a general, commonly held atheistic philosophy.  Period.  Please stop trying to shove a philosophy down our throats because WE DON'T HAVE ONE.

I have two final pieces of advice:  

1.  If you are truly interested in getting into the mind of an atheist to find out what makes us tick, just read the many wonderful and illuminating threads on this forum.  You can get quite an insight into the basics of atheism and freethought by just reading and absorbing what we have to say, and the kinds of things we talk about.

2.  Before you come back here to try to nitpick us to death, READ THE FRIKKIN BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER.  Believe it or not, most of us here have actually read the entire Bible, and know whereof we speak.  I don't think you do.  

And just for the record, yes, Richard Dawkins most decidedly has read every word of the Bible, and he definitely knows his Biblical history.  I would also suggest that you actually read The God Delusion.  That way you would know exactly what he said, and how he backed it up.  Then you could try to find your own arguments against him.  After all, didn't you say that Christians and Christian scientists are always questioning everything?  Here's a good place to start.

Lastly, I will not be drawn further into this discussion with you.  I am not one of the "nice" atheists around here.  I do not have the patience that some others have.  I find your arguments to be the basic standard fare we've all come to expect from theists.  That is to say, unintelligent, poorly researched, circular, and disingenuous.  You do dress them up a bit better than some, but you are unfortunately no different.

Carry on.

[rlrose328]

Faithless, you are like a breath of fresh air.  This is what I've felt about Titan from the very beginning:

What you want to do is parse out little tiny irrelevant statements from entire paragraphs eloquently expounding on the views of atheists, and then nitpick them to death over and over and over again. Then, after the seventh or eighth time of not getting the answer that you want, you just restate it in terms that you like. Alternatively, you just ignore what you don't like. This is especially noticeable regarding specific questions asked of you that you conveniently never answer. Your tactic of asking other people to make many other threads about many other topics, however, is a new one that I haven't seen before, so I do commend you on that.

I fought that on another thread and finally gave up because no matter how many times I said the same thing, Titan would turn it all around so that my words no longer had any meaning.

Thank you for posting.  

[Kyuuketsuki]

I wanted those words because you will inevitably say that the Bible is immoral (which you already have) a proposition that even an atheist cannot hold on to.

The bible is a work of fiction as far as I'm concerned BUT it IS held up by some as a moral guide so therefore, in that context, it is entirely fair to state that it is immoral.

Why is any meaning we give to ourselves meaningless? Does not survival carry meaning? Does not the wish to see your children survive to adulthood and become useful to your society carry meaning? Does not art (literature, TV, movies, music) carry meaning? Does not wanting to be the best you can and wanting the best for others carry meaning? And if you say no I think Buddhist's might have something to say about that as well as the millions of atheists living meaningful and purposeful lives in the world today. I DO adopt someone else system of ethics (my social and cultural group and essentially my morality, my ethical system is unashamedly Judeo/Christian but without the god bit) I simply do not always agree with it and will oppose it if it makes no sense to me.

1. Why does survival carry meaning? You breath to keep on breathing and you call that meaningful?
2. Why does wishing to see your child survive to adulthood carry meaning? It doesn't benefit you in the slightest.

I hope you're not a parent, I really do. You genuinely can't understand why the wish to survive, to have your children survive you, might be meaningful?

3. Why do the arts carry meaning? They are only transitory representations of a transitory society which is part of a transitory race in a transitory universe.

Because they attempt to explain the world we live in through a lens filtered by poetry, beauty, fear, joy, love, hate, war, peace and more besides.

4. I do not doubt that there are many atheists who firmly believe that they have meaning. I am saying that they have no rational reason to believe that.

In which case I am going to ask you to prove why your cartoon caricature god gives your life meaning.
 

5. The problem you refuse to address with your own morality is that you recognize that they are societal. If they are societal then they will not last, if they will not last then why do you not desire to influence society to create a set of morals and ethics that benefit you more than anyone else?

And as I have repeatedly explained to you IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER THEY HAVE PERMANENCY, WE TREAT THEM AS IF THEY DO!

In the 1820-'s Egypt conquered and ruled Sudan, Tyre still exists and Daniel also said "The stone became 'a great mountain' that 'filled the whole earth.' which could only be possible on a flat, disc-shaped earth. Indeed the truest thing Daniel ever said about his visions was that "no one could ever understand them" ... these kind of visions need radical interpretation so, unless you're going to come up with specifics, gimme a break with this prophecy garbage!

I completely disagree, let's look at a specific one concerning any of those three.

Of course you would since you refuse to acknowledge any problems with your bible ... fine pick one.

And I am going to accept that someone learned English in one night without the aid of technology or hypnosis or whatever and with no proper testing conditions based on exactly what evidence? Your word? Yeah right.

So the woman was supposed to go to sleep not knowing the language with a person standing there measuring her brain (even though she had no idea this was supposed to occur) and go to sleep? Again, this isn't just my word, that is why I requested that you come to Indonesia, to meet these people. I don't think you should believe me, I want you to go to a country that has things like this occurring far more often then you realize. Can you arguably say, side track, that you hold no assumptions?

Meeting them would do no good, how would I tell if they were telling the truth? No, I would need a reference to a report in a reputable journal of science where it has the opportunity to be peer-reviewed but let's start with basics, how about an internet page to this whacky claim?

Of course I assume things, what I don't do is claim an assumption to be fact or base my philosophy on it.

Because I believe it is what the Creator of the universe desires and therefore I should follow. My value system isn't based on my desires, as you want to push me towards. Doing onto others as you would have them do onto you is flawed from an atheistic perspective because you aren't sure that they will do onto you as you would do onto them. Lying isn't that difficult. You could harm two people and get them to turn on each other rather than you. If you could do that would that be okay in your mind?

So why don't you (presumably) believe that genocide, slavery, rape and many other things beside are correct? They're all fine in the bible.

Again, I said please open this up in another forum because I can answer them. Essentially, rape is NEVER right. All life belongs to God, not to us, therefore he isn't committing an injustice by taking back what is his, he doesn't owe us anything. Slavery in the Bible was used as a form of debt repayment. If a family could not repay a loan they owed then they would become a slave for a temporary period in order to work off the debt. These things are quite easy to answer if you are willing to actually listen.

If you want to open this up elsewhere please do so ... I am not interested in taking this discussion elsewhere as it is entirely on topic IMO.

If rape is never right then your bible which portrays it as acceptable behaviour is CLEARLY wrong!

If slavery is wrong now and your bible portrays it as debt repayment then it is CLEARLY wrong now!

I am listening but all I am hearing is naïve and unsupportable rubbish coming back at me.

I've just explained that and constantly asking, quite frankly, stupid picky little questions is neither big nor clever.

You have not answered that question. Your views are strictly Judeo-Christian but you try to back it up with a utilitarianism that you deny. The problem is that your utilitarian dogma falls flat on its face when faced with real moral choices. Again I ask you, why is something wrong if you know you can get away with it for your entire life?

YES I HAVE!!!!!!!

I repeat, it is wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me, my family, my friends or my nation. In essence it's a rights based argument ... rights are not automatic and in order to "possess" certain rights one must grant those same rights to others, indeed I consider it my responsibility to do so.

If you can get away with it for your entire life then good luck to you but just because we can behave like animals DOES NOT mean we have to, DOES NOT mean we cannot aspire to being better and DOES NOT mean we cannot stop others from behaving in a fashion we consider to be unacceptable.

It DOES NOT require an ultimate moral arbiter to adopt that stance and it is not only not unreasonable to do so, morals (being a system of ethics that have evolved culturally to help societies function better) are efficient, they work.

As I recall that I believed that the majority of theistic scientists from our past would likely have been secularists had they been born today.

But it is irrelevant because there is no evidence for such a position. It just puts a halt to debate because you want to claim a fantastical scenario to support your opinions. Utterly pointless really.

I'm not claiming I have evidence, I made it absolutely clear it was my opinion.

No, I'm saying quite clearly, that I believe that someone as clever as Newton, were he alive today, would probably be non religious. You still haven't explained the relevance of this 7 thing.

Atheism is still getting destroyed in the philosophical community. It cannot answer so many things. It has been having trouble since Chesterton took on Clarence Darrow in a debate and annihilated him. Have you ever wondered why there are seven notes? A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Not more nor less?

I sincerely doubt that atheism is being destroyed in the philosophical community and not only because it carries no philosophical implications but also because there are several well known atheist philosophers who are quite obviously not aware that there is such a problem for their views.  ... I would want far more evidence that your unsupported claim that this is so before accepting it.

Because I don't think it is more rational to enslave others for reason repeatedly stated ... IOW I don't accept your logic that it is more rational to be a slave owner.

Less work with no real tax on your book. How about we do this, let us assume you are a slave owner and that society supports that. I will give reasons why you should continue to enslave them you try to give reasons why it is morally repulsive, based on atheism. Then we will do the same thing with Christianity and see which philosophy gives us the better answer.

And I repeat that I don't accept that logic because I would not want my family or friends enslaved and I would implicitly have to accept that as OK if I did, because the morale of a free community is MUCH, MUCH better that that in an enslaved community (you can clearly see that in simple terms at work when employers step hard on their employees and rule them by fear. Happy, satisfied people, with goals, ambitions and good remuneration work harder, work better and are more loyal.

This isn't rocket science!

Kyu

[wazzz]

Simple Question
why there is no morale in Atheism may there is but when i see
people talking about killing is allowed cos u're an atheist or stuff like that it freaks me out        so tell me guys where ur rules come from.?? is it law cos if it's law mmm most of the main laws came from the ideas in frensh revolution or religion mostly?
so what u think