Moral Without God?

[The True Scotsman]

When theists ask, "How can you be moral without God?", aren't they really asking, "How can you be moral without religion?" It seems to me that those who ask this question often refer to their holy books and characters within the texts as the source of their own morality (such as Jesus). If we look at the example of Deists, where do they get their morals from? Clearly not from an involved and loving god (in their world view). So then, from other sources, as do atheists (per their world view). Just a musing. Thoughts?

[hgc]

When theists ask, "How can you be moral without God?", aren't they really asking, "How can you be moral without religion?" It seems to me that those who ask this question often refer to their holy books and characters within the texts as the source of their own morality (such as Jesus). If we look at the example of Deists, where do they get their morals from? Clearly not from an involved and loving god (in their world view). So then, from other sources, as do atheists (per their world view). Just a musing. Thoughts?


And if you try to tell a religious theist that his is religion and his god are two different things, then right away you're divergent on the premises.

[MattusMaximus]

Ask them this: "Why do you think religion is required for morality? It clearly isn't in my case." The fact that moral nonbelievers exist is the most powerful argument you have at your disposal.

[Fnord]

And if you try to tell a religious theist that his is religion and his god are two different things, then right away you're divergent on the premises.
Really?

I've been trying to push push a similar assertion that Faith and Religion are two different things; so it does not take a tremendous effort of reason to add God to that assertion. But why stop there?

"The Bible, the Church, God, Faith in God, Religion of the Faith, and Praise, Worship and Evangelizing are all distinctly different from each other."

[hgc]

Really?

I've been trying to push push a similar assertion that Faith and Religion are two different things; so it does not take a tremendous effort of reason to add God to that assertion. But why stop there?

"The Bible, the Church, God, Faith in God, Religion of the Faith, and Praise, Worship and Evangelizing are all distinctly different from each other."


OK, not all religious theists. It does appear that there is a wide prevalence of defining *true* faith in terms of adherence to doctrine, holy texts (localized interpretation thereof) and, in many cases, the direct instructions of a charismatic cleric. These are the infrastructure of the religion, and many believers do not make, nor are capable of making, the fine distinctions that you do.

[Mister Earl]

Usually I'll turn it around on whichever theist springs that one on me. I'd say something like, "Me? I do good things because I like doing good things. I'm more worried about you (whatever denomination). You do good things because if you don't, you go to hell. It's scary that you have to be coerced into being good."

[bokonon]

Most honest believers recognize that it's possible to live a moral life without believing in a deity. Sure, there are some provincial believers who don't realize they've ever met an atheist in real life, but even most of them would realize that religion and belief in God don't guarantee goodness.

The more common objection, I've found, is that without God there is no transcendent morality. "Good" becomes little more than personal preference, and while they might trust their own moral compass, they're concerned that most people will not be so trustworthy.

As someone who believes there is no universal lawgiver (we're obviously not discussing the laws of physics here), I think the believers are also guided by personal preferences, they are just wrapping it in a layer of "argument from authority." Certainly when it comes to the "people of the book" and the Abrahamic religions, with the exception of Orthodox Jews and Muslim theocracies, most people don't act as though they're bound by what is written. The people I'm most likely to be affected by, fundamentalist Christians, ignore vast sections of text in their Holy Bible, picking and choosing based on the same personal preferences that guide my own life.

[C_Felix]

Faithless
Music by Lee and Lifeson
Lyrics by Peart

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjlM_qT9ufg

I've got my own moral compass to steer by
A guiding star beats a spirit in the sky
And all the preaching voices -
Empty vessels ring so loud
As they move among the crowd
Fools and thieves are well disguised
In the temple and market place

Like a stone in the river
Against the floods of spring
I will quietly resist

Like the willows in the wind
Or the cliffs along the ocean
I will quietly resist

I don't have faith in faith
I don't believe in belief
You can call me faithless
I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that's faith enough for me

I've got my own spirit level for balance
To tell if my choice is leaning up or down
And all the shouting voices
Try to throw me off my course
Some by sermon, some by force
Fools and thieves are dangerous
In the temple and market place

Like a forest bows to winter
Beneath the deep white silence
I will quietly resist

Like a flower in the desert
That only blooms at night
I will quietly resist

[OhMan]

It is because they think God is the basis for objective morality. That is, morality not based on the subjective human mind. Morality that is not mere opinion, but something concrete and absolute; something universal, eternal and unchanging.

So both deists and theists would say that God is the source of objective morality, though deists wouldn't have any grounds to say what exactly that objective morality is. Rape could be moral for all they know, since a deistic God doesn't rely on any holy texts inspired by a deity telling them what is wrong or right.

[hgc]

It is because they think God is the basis for objective morality. That is, morality not based on the subjective human mind. Morality that is not mere opinion, but something concrete and absolute; something universal, eternal and unchanging.

So both deists and theists would say that God is the source of objective morality, though deists wouldn't have any grounds to say what exactly that objective morality is. Rape could be moral for all they know, since a deistic God doesn't rely on any holy texts inspired by a deity telling them what is wrong or right.


I don't think deists, generally, would think that morality comes from the divine. Their deity isn't so involved. But then there are many shades of deism.

[OhMan]

Yeh I guess that's true, I don't think I've ever met a deist so I wouldn't really know.

Hey, I just thought of another one!
Objective morality is just subjective morality dressed in a cheap tuxedo! :P

[Cavemonster]

Frankly, I don't have any use for morality.
I craft my actions purely selfishly.

However, since I am a social animal, living within a society and having emotional connections to other social animals, that very often involves acting in the immediate interest of others and against my own immediate interests. No morality required.

[Fnord]

OK, not all religious theists. It does appear that there is a wide prevalence of defining *true* faith in terms of adherence to doctrine, holy texts (localized interpretation thereof) and, in many cases, the direct instructions of a charismatic cleric. These are the infrastructure of the religion, and many believers do not make, nor are capable of making, the fine distinctions that you do.
Not many of those folks you refer to (fellow Theists of mine) seem open to such ideas, even when presented by an elder of their church. They seem to view every aspect of their personal religion - themselves included - as one big God-wad, and any discussion of them as individual items is tantamount to heresy.

This seems to carry over into their inclination to back up any one Bible verse with any other Bible verse, and then treat you like a spawn of Satan himself if you don't "get it" right away.

God, how I hate religion!

[MattusMaximus]

For such questions of morality, I simply love engaging Abrahamic monotheists with the classical Euthyphro dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)...

1. Is God good & moral because God chooses to be so?

2. Or is everything that God does by default good & moral?

The standard way of arguing this is that if the monotheist says "yes" to #1, then they are acknowledging that there is a standard of morality (i.e. "good") higher than God. Thus, for those of us who can access that transcendent morality on our own, why not just cut out the middle man? It also calls into question the omnipotence of God, because God is then subject to standards.

If the monotheist says "yes" to #2, then they risk running down the rabbit hole of the problem of evil in spades. One can come up with all manner of horrendous things that such a God could do (slaughtering innocent babies, etc) and the monotheist would have to conclude they are worshiping a monster. If the monotheist states that we cannot judge God so because "we cannot know the mind of God", then they've also created a problem for themselves: if one is to retreat behind that defense, then why claim at all that one knows God is kind & loving in the first place?

There are, of course, other ways to respond - see my link above for more on that. I've had a lot of fun with the Euthyphro dilemma over the years :)

[Halfcentaur]

Beyond a few of the ten commandments, most of the behavior and lessons I've found in the bible are often not moral according the standards of morality we have today. If someone claims their morals come from their religion, ask them to explain all the immoral acts and behavior by God and the parables of the bible, or many of the other religions on this Earth. Without cherry picking, you're left with contradictions. It's clear morality is something innate in humanity, or else there would be no dilemma to solve when looking at the behavior of the biblical god. There would be no reason to come up with excuses like god working in mysterious ways, or the old testament being an older time when things were somehow morally different, or any of the other special pleads necessary to account for. The moral compass is one of human behavior, and without it, we'd never succeed in living in groups.

[The True Scotsman]

For such questions of morality, I simply love engaging Abrahamic monotheists with the classical Euthyphro dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)...

1. Is God good & moral because God chooses to be so?

2. Or is everything that God does by default good & moral?

The standard way of arguing this is that if the monotheist says "yes" to #1, then they are acknowledging that there is a standard of morality (i.e. "good") higher than God. Thus, for those of us who can access that transcendent morality on our own, why not just cut out the middle man? It also calls into question the omnipotence of God, because God is then subject to standards.

If the monotheist says "yes" to #2, then they risk running down the rabbit hole of the problem of evil in spades. One can come up with all manner of horrendous things that such a God could do (slaughtering innocent babies, etc) and the monotheist would have to conclude they are worshiping a monster. If the monotheist states that we cannot judge God so because "we cannot know the mind of God", then they've also created a problem for themselves: if one is to retreat behind that defense, then why claim at all that one knows God is kind & loving in the first place?

There are, of course, other ways to respond - see my link above for more on that. I've had a lot of fun with the Euthyphro dilemma over the years :)

Yes, I'm already familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma (10 points for Socrates/Plato), but what I was really interested in when asking the OP question is whether theists (and perhaps I should make the distinction of theists who observe a religion) mean to ask "how can you be moral without a god who tells you what to do and is involved in human affairs (ie. religion (or perhaps just Abrahamic religions))?" when they ask "how can you be moral without God?" (Wow, perhaps I'm changing the original question a bit in this post, but oh well).

[OhMan]

What do you guys think of the false dilemma response to the Euthyphro dilemma? It is the only response I know that dodges the skewer of both horns. I believe it is also the most popular response by contemporary apologists.

[The True Scotsman]

Frankly, I don't have any use for morality.
I craft my actions purely selfishly.

However, since I am a social animal, living within a society and having emotional connections to other social animals, that very often involves acting in the immediate interest of others and against my own immediate interests. No morality required.

Well, perhaps that turns over some interpretations of morality, but not all. I, and probably many rational atheists, recognize that many actions which are considered moral are motivated by self-interests, but still refer to the set of actions as morality.

[The True Scotsman]

What do you guys think of the false dilemma response to the Euthyphro dilemma? It is the only response I know that dodges the skewer of both horns. I believe it is also the most popular response by contemporary apologists.

How to they propose that this is a false dilemma (out of interest)?

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, I'm already familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma (10 points for Socrates/Plato), but what I was really interested in when asking the OP question is whether theists (and perhaps I should make the distinction of theists who observe a religion) mean to ask "how can you be moral without a god who tells you what to do and is involved in human affairs (ie. religion (or perhaps just Abrahamic religions))?" when they ask "how can you be moral without God?" (Wow, perhaps I'm changing the original question a bit in this post, but oh well).

I would answer this question by asking these people why they would worship a genocidal being (i.e. the Flood)? As someone said previously, just point out some of the crazy, sadistic things God or godly people do in the Bible, and ask if that is supposed to be some kind of template for goodness & morality.

My favorite is the story of the prophet Elisha calling bears to maul & kill children - http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Elisha - in 2 Kings 2:23 - 2:25. That seems pretty damn immoral to me.

[MattusMaximus]

How to they propose that this is a false dilemma (out of interest)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#False-dilemma_response

They basically play word games and redefine God to be the very embodiment of Good - God is Good and vice versa. But in my mind they still have the same problem as earlier: it's somehow good that innocent children & babies were drowned as 250,000 people died in the Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago? That's a pretty perverse answer, if you ask me.

[The True Scotsman]

I would answer this question by asking these people why they would worship a genocidal being (i.e. the Flood)? As someone said previously, just point out some of the crazy, sadistic things God or godly people do in the Bible, and ask if that is supposed to be some kind of template for goodness & morality.

My favorite is the story of the prophet Elisha calling bears to maul & kill children - http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Elisha - in 2 Kings 2:23 - 2:25. That seems pretty damn immoral to me.

I don't know. I still like the Adam and Eve story the best.

My interpretation of it:
God: "I'm God and I made everything...I'm bored, let's make humans...Don't eat from this tree humans...Damnit, they ate from the tree...STUPID HUMANS!!!"

Additional dialogue that should have been included:
Larry (just some guy): "Why didn't you just not make the tree?"
God: "Because I wanted to see if they would obey me."
Larry: "But, didn't you know that they wouldn't even before you made them?"
God: "Shut up Larry"

ETA: I forgot to add the best part.

God: "...I will now punish all of humanity for the mistakes of two insolent humans."

[Foster Zygote]

Faithless

There's another cool song on Snakes & Arrows that probably makes the cut, too:

"The Way The Wind Blows"

Now it's come to this
It's like we're back in the Dark Ages
From the Middle East to the Middle West
It's a world of superstition

Now it's come to this
Wide-eyed armies of the faithful
From the Middle East to the Middle West
Pray, and pass the ammunition

So many people think that way
You gotta watch what you say
To them and them, and others too
Who don't seem to see to things the way you do

We can only grow the way the wind blows
on a bare and weathered shore
We can only bow to the here and now
In our elemental war

We can only go the way the wind blows
We can only bow to the here and now
Or be broken down blow by blow

Now it's come to this
Hollow speeches of mass deception
From the Middle East to the Middle West
Like crusaders in a holy alliance

Now it's come to this
Like we're back in the dark ages
From the Middle East to the Middle West
It's a plague that resists all science

It seems to leave them partly blind
And they leave no child behind
While evil spirits haunt their sleep
While shepherds bless and count their sheep

Like the solitary pine
On a bare wind blasted shore
We can only grow the way the wind blows

[The True Scotsman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma#False-dilemma_response

They basically play word games and redefine God to be the very embodiment of Good - God is Good and vice versa. But in my mind they still have the same problem as earlier: it's somehow good that innocent children & babies were drowned as 250,000 people died in the Indian Ocean tsunami a few years ago? That's a pretty perverse answer, if you ask me.

Wow, that's a pretty terrible response. It doesn't even seem like a real attempt to answer the question. They're basically negating the term "good" say that it is not a separate thing from God. Still, like you said, this doesn't get around the dilemma. It more or less chooses option two (ie things are good because God commands them).

[Cavemonster]

Well, perhaps that turns over some interpretations of morality, but not all. I, and probably many rational atheists, recognize that many actions which are considered moral are motivated by self-interests, but still refer to the set of actions as morality.

The thing is that morality as it is widely used, lumps together self-interest with arbitrary cultural habits, personal and group preference and a few other random sources of behavior modification, then pretends they are all part of the same thing in any meaningful or useful way.

I've never seen a debate of "what is moral" come to any useful outcome, because one of the key terms goes essentially undefined.

Look around the JREF at any thread with a topic containing an explicit or implied "should". Whether it's abortion, hate crime laws, child pornography, or whatever. The use of normative, moral statements creates a logical barrier.

[MattusMaximus]

Wow, that's a pretty terrible response. It doesn't even seem like a real attempt to answer the question. They're basically negating the term "good" say that it is not a separate thing from God. Still, like you said, this doesn't get around the dilemma. It more or less chooses option two (ie things are good because God commands them).

Or, as I like to say rather snarkily, they are simply adding an "o" and hoping that the rest of us don't notice ;)

[AkuManiMani]

When theists ask, "How can you be moral without God?", aren't they really asking, "How can you be moral without religion?" It seems to me that those who ask this question often refer to their holy books and characters within the texts as the source of their own morality (such as Jesus). If we look at the example of Deists, where do they get their morals from? Clearly not from an involved and loving god (in their world view). So then, from other sources, as do atheists (per their world view). Just a musing. Thoughts?

IMO, the mark of a good person is their natural ability to discern what is good without needing to have it dictated to them.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Yes, I'm already familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma (10 points for Socrates/Plato), but what I was really interested in when asking the OP question is whether theists (and perhaps I should make the distinction of theists who observe a religion) mean to ask "how can you be moral without a god who tells you what to do and is involved in human affairs (ie. religion (or perhaps just Abrahamic religions))?" when they ask "how can you be moral without God?" (Wow, perhaps I'm changing the original question a bit in this post, but oh well).

That breaks down to this:

Do theists mean to ask
"How can you be moral without a god who tells you what to do and is involved in human affairs”
when they ask
“How can you be moral without God?"

I would say, “Yes.” Yes, they do. The only difference in the questions is extrapolating “God” to mean “a god who tells you what to do and is involved in human affairs” and I can’t think what else a person asking the question “How can you be moral without God?" would mean by “God”.

So what is the question? :confused:

[marplots]

I don't accept the premise that morality is added to what it means to be human rather than a part of being human in the first place.

I suppose, if you want to give religion credit for adding to my storehouse of morality, I would have to find those things which I wouldn't otherwise take as moral that are found in the texts. In this light, sacrificing an animal to God would fit as a moral act that is taught and maybe tithing as a percentage deal. I can't give credit for any rules that I had going in.

[Gawdzilla]

It's amusing that the religious tell us that we can be moral only when faced with the threat of eternal damnation. I really do believe that's true for them.

My own rule has always been "Don't do unto others and hopefully they won't do unto me."

(And, of course, there's the promise of a solid ass kicking if they do.)

[The True Scotsman]

The thing is that morality as it is widely used, lumps together self-interest with arbitrary cultural habits, personal and group preference and a few other random sources of behavior modification, then pretends they are all part of the same thing in any meaningful or useful way.

Hmm...well, as I see it, most of what we call morality is based on group preference and motivated by self-interest. An example of this would be stealing. We prefer that members of our group don't steal from us and so we come to a general agreement that we will not steal from each other, because it is more in our self-interest to not be stolen from than to not steal (I'm discounting empathy, but think that plays a part as well). Later this gets put into law where by there are punishments for stealing.

As far as cultural habits (or manners I'll suppose), I'm a little less sure of that. Personally, I'd rather not throw them in with morality, though I know some insist on it.

I've never seen a debate of "what is moral" come to any useful outcome, because one of the key terms goes essentially undefined.

Look around the JREF at any thread with a topic containing an explicit or implied "should". Whether it's abortion, hate crime laws, child pornography, or whatever. The use of normative, moral statements creates a logical barrier.

What key terms do you normally see going undefined in debates about morality?

[Cavemonster]

Hmm...well, as I see it, most of what we call morality is based on group preference and motivated by self-interest.
...

As far as cultural habits (or manners I'll suppose), I'm a little less sure of that. Personally, I'd rather not throw them in with morality, though I know some insist on it.


Your personal preferences aside, those cultural habits are absolutely a part of the discussion of morality and a part of what society as a whole lumps into the definition (without thinking to differentiate)

For instance, where is the extended self interest in the lives of fetuses? And yet this often becomes a "moral" discussion based on the axiom that "killing is wrong" and proceeding to argue about whether fetuses "should" be counted under that axiom. It isn't at all a discussion of self interest the way it is carried out by most people involved.


What key terms do you normally see going undefined in debates about morality?

Every normative phrase.
Moral
Right
Wrong
Should
Shouldn't
Ought
Must
Rights (Aside from legal or emergent biological)

[the PC apeman]

The problem I keep running into when it comes to meta-ethics (defining the terms used to discuss morality) is folks can't help but argue for what these terms "should" mean rather than make a case for what they do mean. That sends the debate into a spiral.

[Fnord]

I dunno ... it seems to me that life, liberty (a.k.a.: choice), and the pursuit of happiness (not necessarily happiness itself) are the three most 'moral' aspects of being human. We must respect the lives, choices, and interests of others as long as they do not infringe on our own if we want anyone to respect ours in return.

Maybe this is too simplistic - certainly, it needs more thought - but it also seems (to me) to be an effective philosophical basis for determining the difference between 'moral' and 'immoral'.

[Cavemonster]

I dunno ... it seems to me that life, liberty (a.k.a.: choice), and the pursuit of happiness (not necessarily happiness itself) are the three most 'moral' aspects of being human. We must respect the lives, choices, and interests of others as long as they do not infringe on our own if we want anyone to respect ours in return.

Maybe this is too simplistic - certainly, it needs more thought - but it also seems (to me) to be an effective philosophical basis for determining the difference between 'moral' and 'immoral'.

Assuming that the purpose of language is to share ideas clearly, it boggles me that everybody likes to use the word moral at all, starting with the caveat that to them it means X, when they know perfectly well that to others it means Y,Z, Q etc etc.

Why assign the notion of natural rights, as you've just expressed, to a set of words that for many people means unbudgingly, either the guidelines of their creator as outlined in a book, or their gut feeling of what is natural, or traditional behavior as it has always been.

It seems to go against the purpose of language.

If, when you say "moral" or "right" you mean that which is in line with natural rights, why don't you just say what you mean? You can argue that the word "moral" is shorter, but when you are guaranteed to have to clarify your definition, and it is guaranteed that in most debates your conversational partner will insist on a different definition, then you haven't saved much time, have you?

[the PC apeman]

Assuming that the purpose of language is to share ideas clearly, it boggles me that everybody likes to use the word moral at all, starting with the caveat that to them it means X, when they know perfectly well that to others it means Y,Z, Q etc etc.

Why assign the notion of natural rights, as you've just expressed, to a set of words that for many people means unbudgingly, either the guidelines of their creator as outlined in a book, or their gut feeling of what is natural, or traditional behavior as it has always been.

It seems to go against the purpose of language.

If, when you say "moral" or "right" you mean that which is in line with natural rights, why don't you just say what you mean? You can argue that the word "moral" is shorter, but when you are guaranteed to have to clarify your definition, and it is guaranteed that in most debates your conversational partner will insist on a different definition, then you haven't saved much time, have you?
Interesting. Well put.

[Gawdzilla]

I'm wondering why the subject line wasn't "Moral without one or more gods that may or may not exist but for whom any evidences is woefully lacking."

[Fnord]

... Why assign the notion of natural rights, as you've just expressed, to a set of words that for many people means unbudgingly, either the guidelines of their creator as outlined in a book, or their gut feeling of what is natural, or traditional behavior as it has always been. It seems to go against the purpose of language.
Why derail a discussion of morality by nit-picking language?

May as well debate the meaning of 'meaning'...

[154]

I'm wondering why the subject line wasn't "Moral without one or more gods that may or may not exist but for whom any evidences is woefully lacking."

Because your so-deep cliches are not required, new, entertaining or clever?

[Mister Agenda]

That's not new? I never heard it before. Agree on not required and not deep, but it seems just a little bit entertaining and clever to me. Subjectively speaking, of course.

[Thunder]

why do I need to believe in "God" in order to choose to be a moral person?

I choose to be a moral person because I believe it is the right thing to do, I believe in the possibility of karma, and I want others to treat me good. Plus I live in a society, where we must all learn to get along otherwise society will fall apart.

Do I need to be rewarded in order to be a nice person? No. That's a selfish reason to be nice to other folks, if you ask me.

If you are going to be good to other people, do it because you feel it is right, not because you expect or hope for a reward for it later on.

If someone is nice to me because they think that doing such actions will get them a reward in the afterlife, I'd rather they just leave me alone. Be altruistic or go away.

[Gawdzilla]

Because your so-deep cliches are not required, new, entertaining or clever?

Nope. You never get one right. That must be depressing.

[Cavemonster]

Why derail a discussion of morality by nit-picking language?

May as well debate the meaning of 'meaning'...

That's not a nit-pick. Agreement on the central terms of a discussion is crucial to communication and understanding. Not a derail but an essential.

If you and I were talking about dogs, it wouldn't be a nit pick to point out that one of us is thinking of four legged mammals and the other considers the word to describe a kind of woolen cap.

I'm not suggesting a debate of the meaning of the word moral. If you had read my post, you'd know I am actually suggesting the exact opposite of that, to avoid the tiresome debates of what falls into a category that each participant defines differently by actually using your own clear definition instead of that muddy category.

[MattusMaximus]

That's not a nit-pick. Agreement on the central terms of a discussion is crucial to communication and understanding. Not a derail but an essential.

Agreed. This is why it is so important in discussions of the existence of God to have a clear definition of "God" in the first place.

[Gawdzilla]

Agreed. This is why it is so important in discussions of the existence of God to have a clear definition of "God" in the first place.

This! We can't determine the color of my car until we confirm I have one. Giving away that first step is a major mistake IMNSHO. My hex-wife once demanded that I allow her starting position that there is a god when we were debating whether or not he exists. :boggled:

[Fnord]

Agreed. This is why it is so important in discussions of the existence of God to have a clear definition of "God" in the first place.
Well, if you had actually read what I had posted in the first place...
I dunno ... it seems to me that life, liberty (a.k.a.: choice), and the pursuit of happiness (not necessarily happiness itself) are the three most 'moral' aspects of being human. We must respect the lives, choices, and interests of others as long as they do not infringe on our own if we want anyone to respect ours in return.

Maybe this is too simplistic - certainly, it needs more thought - but it also seems (to me) to be an effective philosophical basis for determining the difference between 'moral' and 'immoral'.
... you would see that I made no mention of God; nor did I try to define Him.

What does morality have to do with God anyway?

[Kensington Bailey]

When theists ask, "How can you be moral without God?", aren't they really asking, "How can you be moral without religion?" It seems to me that those who ask this question often refer to their holy books and characters within the texts as the source of their own morality (such as Jesus). If we look at the example of Deists, where do they get their morals from? Clearly not from an involved and loving god (in their world view). So then, from other sources, as do atheists (per their world view). Just a musing. Thoughts?

If religion is a belief, then it is a choice.
If it is a choice, then a decision must be made using some criterion.
If the decision is about morality, one cannot claim the benefit of the decision as the criterion for the decision.
Therefore, one must have a moral criterion prior to accepting what is claimed to be a greater, or other set of criteria.
Thus, how can one accept gods laws on reason alone, or without the benefit of belief?
Answer: momma's knee, or, a miracle.

[MattusMaximus]

What does morality have to do with God anyway?

In my opinion, nothing. But theists would probably disagree. Hence this thread.

[Fnord]

In my opinion, nothing. But theists would probably disagree. Hence this thread.
I am also a Theist, and I still don't see a direct causal connection between the God of the Bible and morality, unless it's along the lines of "Thou shalt not doest as I hast done; thou shalt go forth and doest as I hath spaken unto you!"

[Beerina]

The god of the Bible is immoral. Who creates billions of people, then tortures most of 'em for ever and ever?

Dawkins once rightly pointed out this god is the most evil fictional character of all time. I point out He only just barely misses being the most evil character possible because some slim minority will not be tortured for ever.



So, assuming God exists, and is as described in the Bible, that thing has no business defining morality. Anything regurgitated out of its mouth should be rejected out of hand.

[Pythonic]

I believe morality is diminished once a god enters the picture in any form. Morality must originate from the individual for no other reason than that individual believes it is right.

This is based on comments after it was revealed through Mother Theresa's letters that she not only questioned her faith but felt no presence of Jesus at all. The reply from her supporters was that this was evidence of the purity in what she did. I realized that by removing god from the equation altogether made her actions that much more sincere.

So, wouldn't that apply to all moral behavior?

[Fnord]

... Morality must originate from the individual for no other reason than that individual believes it is right...
That leads to subjective moralism, where one's own beliefs justify their actions -- That is, no progress from religionism at all.
So, wouldn't that apply to all moral behavior?
It could, as long as no one takes up the subjective moralism of "Kill all those who disagree".

[hgc]

I believe morality is diminished once a god enters the picture in any form. Morality must originate from the individual for no other reason than that individual believes it is right.
...


It doesn't originate from the individual as much as from society. After all, it's for community cohesiveness that morality exists to start with.

[Gawdzilla]

It doesn't originate from the individual as much as from society. After all, it's for community cohesiveness that morality exists to start with.

Morals allow you to live with yourself.
Ethics allow you to live with other people.

[marplots]

That leads to subjective moralism, where one's own beliefs justify their actions -- That is, no progress from religionism at all.

I don't see the difficulty here. Unless, somehow, the collective wisdom in a religious based morality is anathema to what we would otherwise do. I'm basing my analysis on one axiom: that morality and belief are sub or pre conscious. In other words, there is no rational decision to make, one believes what one believes and cannot willfully change it. This means it isn't, by nature, capricious or random, but rather, that morals are generally in-line with each other across societal norms.

If this is the case, a religion is first judged moral or not and only then adopted or not. And I do think one's own beliefs justify actions and that it can be no other way.

I'm not saying that morality cannot be taught or changed, but just that the idea of some add-on belief meant to support my own moral failings is neither authentic nor common. I suppose a counterexample would be if sociopaths were not, as I suspect, amoral, but rather immoral.

From my perspective, a moral stance may be discovered, but not taken on like some convenient raincoat when the weather turns foul and then laid aside later. It can be subjective without being completely without restriction. Kind of like right or left handedness. I think there is a range on offer and subjectivity has more to do with how different moral reactions are ranked rather than with what is or isn't moral.

[hgc]

I don't see the difficulty here. Unless, somehow, the collective wisdom in a religious based morality is anathema to what we would otherwise do. I'm basing my analysis on one axiom: that morality and belief are sub or pre conscious. In other words, there is no rational decision to make, one believes what one believes and cannot willfully change it. This means it isn't, by nature, capricious or random, but rather, that morals are generally in-line with each other across societal norms.

If this is the case, a religion is first judged moral or not and only then adopted or not. And I do think one's own beliefs justify actions and that it can be no other way.

I'm not saying that morality cannot be taught or changed, but just that the idea of some add-on belief meant to support my own moral failings is neither authentic nor common. I suppose a counterexample would ube if sociopaths were not, as I suspect, amoral, but rather immoral.

From my perspective, a moral stance may be discovered, but not taken on like some convenient raincoat when the weather turns foul and then laid aside later. It can be subjective without being completely without restriction. Kind of like right or left handedness. I think there is a range on offer and subjectivity has more to do with how different moral reactions are ranked rather than with what is or isn't moral.


I don't know about that. Beliefs are basically inscruitable, often even to the believer. Actions and behaviors are palpable, observable, judgible. Religeous and other morality-concerned belief systems may be adopted at will and easily adapted to justify and explain the actions that each believer is inclined to take.

[marplots]

I don't know about that. Beliefs are basically inscruitable, often even to the believer. Actions and behaviors are palpable, observable, judgible. Religeous and other morality-concerned belief systems may be adopted at will and easily adapted to justify and explain the actions that each believer is inclined to take.

I agree with the last part,the adaptation bit and in fact, I think it is essential. The actions based on their beliefs are primary and the religion is bent to that instead of the notion that the person is 'bent' to fit the morality of the religion. I'm making a distinction between custom and morality though.

My problem is that I don't actually practice a religion and have to go by what I think I see in others. I do think it would explain a great deal of both why people abandon a religion (conflict with their "inner" beliefs) and why religions evolve morally (because they depend on outside judges that change what is allowable).

My guess is that someone has studied this already and has a better answer. My opinion lacks any real data to back it up.

[Pythonic]

That leads to subjective moralism, where one's own beliefs justify their actions -- That is, no progress from religionism at all.
".

Even religions are moral relativists (i.e. subjective) despite their attempt to make morality intrinsic by claiming it's God's. But since no two religions, and even within Christianity, can agree on what God's moral codes are exactly it's still in the hands of individuals. Religion does not make morality absolute.

[Pythonic]

It doesn't originate from the individual as much as from society. After all, it's for community cohesiveness that morality exists to start with.

You're missing the point. Is a person moral who is doing it only because society tells them so? Not compared to the person who does it because they truly believe it. You're just substituting God with another external motive. The motive needs to originate with the individual otherwise it's not sincere--they're just doing it for utilitarian reasons.

[hgc]

You're missing the point. Is a person moral who is doing it only because society tells them so? Not compared to the person who does it because they truly believe it. You're just substituting God with another external motive. The motive needs to originate with the individual otherwise it's not sincere--they're just doing it for utilitarian reasons.


I often miss the point, but in this case, I think I well understood. I am simply disagreeing with the point.

I can't know what someone truly believes, and for that reason, I don't care very much. Someone may profess their beliefs to me, but I still have no way of knowing if it's true, or even if they can sort out their own beliefs enough to state them accurately.

On the other hand, a person's actions are evident, and I can judge their morality (or ethics) based on those actions. Everyone is born nearly a tabula rasa in regards to morality, and they are informed about it by society, through language. I say "nearly" because there is certainly some evolutionary wiring for getting along with the rest of the pack. Otherwise, it all comes from externalities.

Now, our disagreement may be just a matter of semantics. :)

[Pythonic]

I often miss the point, but in this case, I think I well understood. I am simply disagreeing with the point.

Now, our disagreement may be just a matter of semantics. :)

Perhaps. But what I'm really getting at is a belief in god, any belief, diminishes one's true intentions. If you want to live by a true moral standard, then you can't be doing it for god. God has no place when it comes to true morality.

[Pythonic]

This! We can't determine the color of my car until we confirm I have one. Giving away that first step is a major mistake IMNSHO. My hex-wife once demanded that I allow her starting position that there is a god when we were debating whether or not he exists. :boggled:

This is not true. I do not need your agreement to prove that your car has a color. There are hundreds of experiments I can run that will all consistently show that your car has the attribute of color. There is not a single experiment I can run that shows the existence of god. Thus, we have to start with what you specifically have in mind when you use the word "god."

[Gawdzilla]

This is not true. I do not need your agreement to prove that your car has a color. There are hundreds of experiments I can run that will all consistently show that your car has the attribute of color. There is not a single experiment I can run that shows the existence of god. Thus, we have to start with what you specifically have in mind when you use the word "god."

And there are endless definitions of "god". It's a personal construct, not an actual entity, so that's not surprising. But you miss my point. Show me a car exists, then we can argue about what color it is. In other words, prove that Yahweh exists, then we can talk about what he did or did not do.

[Mark6]

Ask them this: "Why do you think religion is required for morality? It clearly isn't in my case." The fact that moral nonbelievers exist is the most powerful argument you have at your disposal.
Unless he thinks that moral nonbelievers DO NOT exist. Or a contradiction of terms.

[Gawdzilla]

Unless he thinks that moral nonbelievers DO NOT exist. Or a contradiction of terms.

I have run into people that think it is impossible to be an atheist and moral. I asked them what changed in me when they found out I was an atheist, because none of my behaviors changed due to that revelation. This is when they get angry and stomp off or go off on a new tangent without dealing with that problem.

[Pythonic]

And there are endless definitions of "god". It's a personal construct, not an actual entity, so that's not surprising. But you miss my point. Show me a car exists, then we can argue about what color it is. In other words, prove that Yahweh exists, then we can talk about what he did or did not do.

You're right. I did completely miss your point. But there is ample evidence that can be brought up that strongly suggests that nature lacks any aspect of intentional design. Which implies that Yahweh, defined as the designer of designers, is unlikely.

[Gawdzilla]

You're right. I did completely miss your point. But there is ample evidence that can be brought up that strongly suggests that nature lacks any aspect of intentional design. Which implies that Yahweh, defined as the designer of designers, is unlikely.

Therefore there is no use in talking about what he/she/it can or cannot do, the point is moot.

Most of our discussion on this forum is driven by people wanting to argue, for example, whether or not God created a sign to guide the Magi to the Christ child. Until they prove God even exists what's the use in that debate?

[Pythonic]

I have run into people that think it is impossible to be an atheist and moral. I asked them what changed in me when they found out I was an atheist, because none of my behaviors changed due to that revelation. This is when they get angry and stomp off or go off on a new tangent without dealing with that problem.

You and I are in complete agreement. Religion wants to claim that atheistic morality is based on religion's code and that in a sense we're practicing a bit of religion, too. They contend that while there are variations to that code, codes of morality nonetheless exist in all religions; it is religion's cornerstone, not the atheist's. Thus, they're implying religion is actually responsible for our views of what is moral conduct.

However, I believe these theists are not going back far enough to discover the true origins of moral codes of conduct. Codes arose precisely because living peacefully with each other turned out to be more productive, more desirable than the alternative. Religion may of had a hand in formalizing it and propagating it, but it really evolved for utilitarian reasons not because these codes were some intrinsic property of the universe that religions discovered. Therefore, it could be argued that if the understanding of the value of moral codes existed before religion organized it, that it is actually the cornerstone of humanity not religion.

[hgc]

Perhaps. But what I'm really getting at is a belief in god, any belief, diminishes one's true intentions. If you want to live by a true moral standard, then you can't be doing it for god. God has no place when it comes to true morality.


I see the logic of what you're saying, but I have no reason to conclude that divinely-credited morality is somehow inferior to an atheist's morality. It's because the "true intentions" you think are diminished are insignificant. Morality is as morality does. Intentions are what they are, neither true nor false. Only actions matter. The intentions you think you have, and that you describe to others, may or may not accurately predict your actions. I don't see why someone who (mistakenly) thinks their morality is god-given is somehow less likely to act on their intentions.

So... even though I agree that morality is does not actually come from a non-existent god, I don't think there's any such thing as "true morality" to be sullied by thinking that "God" bestowed it on me.

[Gawdzilla]

Therefore, it could be argued that if the understanding of value of moral codes existed before religion organized it, that it is actually the cornerstone of humanity not religion.
As human society predates religion (unless somebody has evidence otherwise?) I agree. We had to live together long before religion came along. Religion hijacked morals to help justify the parasitism of the priestly class.

[AngelonPig]

It's funny how everybody judges God according to their notion of good. As if they were the creator and God the creature and not the other way around.

And just for kicks, how does someone identifies that beating up a child is wrong? (and for the narrow minded that don't understand the question) Why suffering is bad? Why getting beat up is not a good and moral thing? Who said that pain is a bad thing? From the atheist point of view, these things just ARE. It's just law of physics, or human nature that evolved through millions of years, or physiology, or a pattern created by a gene identified in the human DNA (hey if we mess up with genes, we can create children that feel no pain and then it will be ok to beat them up, right?)...

[Gawdzilla]

It's funny how everybody judges God according to their notion of good. As if they were the creator and God the creature and not the other way around.
Not at all funny when you consider each person makes up their own god.

[AngelonPig]

And didn't anyone learned that the Original Sin was that Humans began to judge things as good or bad according to their standard (which is absurd since they are creatures) and not according to the standard of who created it all, including them?

[AngelonPig]

Not at all funny when you consider each person makes up their own god.

Really?! I thought it was God that made up each person. Oh well...

[Gawdzilla]

Really?! I thought it was God that made up each person. Oh well...

The person is real, the god isn't. Tail doesn't wag dog.

[Gawdzilla]

And didn't anyone learned that the Original Sin was that Humans began to judge things as good or bad according to their standard (which is absurd since they are creatures) and not according to the standard of who created it all, including them?

Before you talk about what god did, you need to prove that god exists/existed.

[Pythonic]

I see the logic of what you're saying, but I have no reason to conclude that divinely-credited morality is somehow inferior to an atheist's morality. It's because the "true intentions" you think are diminished are insignificant. Morality is as morality does. Intentions are what they are, neither true nor false. Only actions matter. The intentions you think you have, and that you describe to others, may or may not accurately predict your actions. I don't see why someone who (mistakenly) thinks their morality is god-given is somehow less likely to act on their intentions.

So... even though I agree that morality is does not actually come from a non-existent god, I don't think there's any such thing as "true morality" to be sullied by thinking that "God" bestowed it on me.

It's not inferior, it's suspect; not trustworthy. It's the same as doing business with a self-interested profiteer who does not actually have your needs at heart. You're right that if it works out for you, no harm. But can we say that the profiteer is really trustworthy? And does it matter if the profiteer makes a buck off a disaster even if no harm is created by the action?

Your argument is trustworthiness does not matter.

[AngelonPig]

Before you talk about what god did, you need to prove that god exists/existed.

Before asking for proof, you need to prove that you exist.

[Gawdzilla]

Before asking for proof, you need to prove that you exist.

Ah, sinking down that well, are we? See you at the bottom.

[Pythonic]

Before asking for proof, you need to prove that you exist.

Well, didn't Descarte show that our doubt means we must exist?

[hgc]

It's not inferior, it's suspect; not trustworthy. It's the same as doing business with a self-interested profiteer who does not actually have your needs at heart. You're right that if it works out for you, no harm. But can we say that the profiteer is really trustworthy? And does it matter if the profiteer makes a buck off a disaster even if no harm is created by the action?

Your argument is trustworthiness does not matter.


No. My argument is that trustworthiness is not impacted by where the person thinks he obtained his morality.

In your analogy, if the self-interested profiteer held to the terms of the bargain that he has struck, then he has demonstrated trustworthiness.

[AngelonPig]

Well, didn't Descarte show that our doubt means we must exist?

First of all, He was wrong. He already knew he existed before the analysis, and the doubt only shows the existence of thought not of himself.

Second, this doesn't apply to this case. Even if he was right he could only prove to himself that he existed, but not to others.

So if a rather obvious fact that someone exists needs no proof, I don't see how a rather obvious fact that God exists needs proof also.

[Gawdzilla]

So if a rather obvious fact that someone exists needs no proof, I don't see how a rather obvious fact that God exists needs proof also.
It's not at all obvious that god exists. Without proof you only have your opinion.

[AngelonPig]

It's not at all obvious that god exists. Without proof you only have your opinion.

What kind of proof do you want?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

As human society predates religion (unless somebody has evidence otherwise?) I agree.

B. F. Skinner's experiments which showed superstitious behaviour in pigeons demonstrates that animals are capable of superstitious behaviour. Neanderthals appear to be the first creatures who buried their dead, often with flowers or tools (like Vikings or ancient Egyptian kings), and maybe in family groupings.

It's far from conclusive, but I would guess that religion and superstitious thought has been around for as long as humans have, and probably longer.

[Gawdzilla]

What kind of proof do you want?
I've never seen a testable proof for god, so you have your work cut out for you. The burden of proof is on you.

[Fnord]

And didn't anyone learned that the Original Sin was that Humans began to judge things as good or bad according to their standard (which is absurd since they are creatures) and not according to the standard of who created it all, including them?
Please provide evidence for both "Original Sin" and "God as Creator".

[Fnord]

What kind of proof do you want?
Since you are the claimant, it is up to you to provide evidence that irrefutably proves the existence of God or an admission on your part that no such proof exists.

[Tippit]

When theists ask, "How can you be moral without God?", aren't they really asking, "How can you be moral without religion?" It seems to me that those who ask this question often refer to their holy books and characters within the texts as the source of their own morality (such as Jesus). If we look at the example of Deists, where do they get their morals from? Clearly not from an involved and loving god (in their world view). So then, from other sources, as do atheists (per their world view). Just a musing. Thoughts?

What they really mean is, how can you be moral without judgement. Everyone is immoral at times, sometimes we face the consequences from other human beings, and sometimes we get away with zero consequences. Human nature dictates that we will tend to be immoral where we can get away with it, and if you don't believe in god, you don't believe in any divine judgement, and you're more likely to engage in that behavior. You may even attempt to justify it, because in your mind, the "immoral" behavior comes with no apparent negative consequences to you.

[AngelonPig]

I've never seen a testable proof for god, so you have your work cut out for you. The burden of proof is on you.

Actually, the burden on proof is on atheists' laps, because as far as I know all major societies and man of intellect never doubted the existence (and in many cases demonstrated the existence) of a deity or an absolute being. So since atheists are claiming something else they should make their case. But since I know their stance is weak, I'll accept the burden of proof.

What do you need?

[hgc]

What they really mean is, how can you be moral without judgement. Everyone is immoral at times, sometimes we face the consequences from other human beings, and sometimes we get away with zero consequences. Human nature dictates that we will tend to be immoral where we can get away with it, and if you don't believe in god, you don't believe in any divine judgement, and you're more likely to engage in that behavior. You may even attempt to justify it, because in your mind, the "immoral" behavior comes with no apparent negative consequences to you.


You'll have a hard time supporting that supposition with evidence, but go ahead and try...

[Gawdzilla]

Actually, the burden on proof is on atheists' laps, because as far as I know all major societies and man of intellect never doubted the existence (and in many cases demonstrated the existence) of a deity or an absolute being. So since atheists are claiming something else they should make their case. But since I know their stance is weak, I'll accept the burden of proof.

What do you need?

You make the claim, that there is a god, you provide the proof. Simple system that stops believers cold every time. So what obvious proof do you have?

[AngelonPig]

Please provide evidence for both "Original Sin" and "God as Creator".

Evidence for Original Sin: You think you know what is good or wrong. According to your standard. Even if you follow the rules of a society, you only do it because, by your standard, that is "right" and "good". All humans are like you. Ask anyone. So since the Original Sin states that Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and for that Man acquired the notion that he could attribute to himself a divine power (to say what is good or bad) and all humans attribute to themselves this notion, the Original Sin is proven by its consequence.

God as a creator: Did you create yourself? Did your parents created themselves? Grandparents? The monkey-like creatures you believe to be your ancestor? Lizards? Fishes? Amoeba? Do you know of anything that creates itself? So there is something that has always been, that originated everything that exists today. You may call it Universe or Big Bang or Energy, but you will eventually come closer to the concept of God. Since you (and all things I mentioned) are a creature, you all must have been created by something. This "Something", from logical necessity, must be simple, an unity, infinite, omnipotent, omnieverything, or else it would fall under logical absurdities. Since these are the attributes of God, and this Something is the creator, ergo God is a creator.

[Gawdzilla]

AngelonPig, your argument from ignorance to "prove" god has been tried before. Good luck rehashing them.

As for original sin, you can't prove that by quoting the babble.

[Fnord]

... as far as I know all major societies and man of intellect never doubted the existence (and in many cases demonstrated the existence) of a deity or an absolute being...
"All"? ... "Never" ... "Demonstrated the existence"? Evidence, please.

Keep in mind that belief proves nothing.

[AngelonPig]

You make the claim, that there is a god, you provide the proof. Simple system that stops believers cold every time. So what obvious proof do you have?

I'm just trying to make this easy for you. But I'm starting to sense that you don't know what to ask for, because you are already inclined to reject anything I offer, i.e., you not believing in God is more of a desire than an actual intelectual stance.

Could you, then, please tell me what you understand when someone says God? It would be pointless for me to start showing proof of God if you think he is a green dwarf that lives under your bed.

[Gawdzilla]

I'm just trying to make this easy for you. But I'm starting to sense that you don't know what to ask for, because you are already inclined to reject anything I offer, i.e., you not believing in God is more of a desire than an actual intelectual stance.
Don't run away, I'm asking for proof, something you should be able to provide if he/she/it exists.
Could you, then, please tell me what you understand when someone says God? It would be pointless for me to start showing proof of God if you think he is a green dwarf that lives under your bed.

Yeah! We have a winner. NOBODY has a good definition of god, because everybody creates their own.

You claim god exists, but you can't even define god. Your case is not looking very strong.

[Fnord]

Evidence for Original Sin: You think you know what is good or wrong. According to your standard. Even if you follow the rules of a society, you only do it because, by your standard, that is "right" and "good". All humans are like you. Ask anyone. So since the Original Sin states that Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and for that Man acquired the notion that he could attribute to himself a divine power (to say what is good or bad) and all humans attribute to themselves this notion, the Original Sin is proven by its consequence.
Please provide evidence for:

- The existence (past or present) of the "Tree of Knowledge"
- That anyone ate from this alleged "Tree of Knowledge"
- That all humans are like me
- That knowledge of good and evil is reserved solely for divine powers
- That this so-called "Original Sin" has any consequence


God as a creator: Did you create yourself? Did your parents created themselves? Grandparents? The monkey-like creatures you believe to be your ancestor? Lizards? Fishes? Amoeba? Do you know of anything that creates itself?
This Argument from Ignorance is invalid, despite its superficial resemblance to extrapolative reasoning.
So there is something that has always been, that originated everything that exists today.
Claim is invalid due to lack of evidence.
You may call it Universe or Big Bang or Energy, but you will eventually come closer to the concept of God.
Please provide evidence for the existence of God as Creator.
Since you (and all things I mentioned) are a creature, you all must have been created by something.
The fusion of human gametes en utero.
This "Something", from logical necessity...
Correction: From the necessity of you mind to believe in something higehr than yourself.
... must be simple, an unity, infinite, omnipotent, omnieverything, or else it would fall under logical absurdities.
Your logic has already failed due to ignorance and extrapolative reasoning beyond the evidence to support.
Since these are the attributes of God...
Connection failed to to presumptive resasoning. Evidence, please?
... and this Something is the creator...
Connection failed to to presumptive resasoning. Evidence, please?
... ergo God is a creator.
Unsubstantiated by available evidence.

Try again.

[AngelonPig]

"All"? ... "Never" ... "Demonstrated the existence"? Evidence, please.

Keep in mind that belief proves nothing.

Look, if you are lazy enough to read or to study, that is your fault, not mine. I'm sorry, but I don't have the power to infuse intelligence in your brain. But I'll take your asking for evidence of obvious and notorious facts, just because you're starting to sense you have no where to hide.

Mesopotamics, Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Greeks, Muslims, hindus, christians (all kinds), pigmees, arican tribes, indians, they all accepted the existence of a deity. For my sake, go read a history book. ANY! And show me a society that did not have a deity.

And please, go read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Albert, St. T. Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Duns Scott, any Scholastic (old and new), Leibniz, Descartes, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Kant, Hegel, Eric Voegelin, Charles Taylor, even Anthony Flew (if you're so lazy).

What else do you need? A tissue to wipe your tears or a crowbar to get you off that sofa and put you in a library?

[Pythonic]

No. My argument is that trustworthiness is not impacted by where the person thinks he obtained his morality.

In your analogy, if the self-interested profiteer held to the terms of the bargain that he has struck, then he has demonstrated trustworthiness.

Not really. For example, I'd rather have my niece babysit my son than have any priest do it simply because I know her intentions. Religion is not trustworthy for many reasons but one is because we know its true interest is in conversion and salvation. This led to the selling of the sacraments and many other abuses of the church. Religion wears a false hypocritical morality precisely because it has a deity that needs to be pleased.

Would you agree that if religion's true intention was to serve humanity and not its god it would better off?

[AngelonPig]

Don't run away, I'm asking for proof, something you should be able to provide if he/she/it exists.


Yeah! We have a winner. NOBODY has a good definition of god, because everybody creates their own.

You claim god exists, but you can't even define god. Your case is not looking very strong.

Oy vey! NOBODY?! Please show me evidence. (or this rule does not apply to you?)

The fact that someone describes a cat in a different way from another person doesn't mean that cats do not exist simply because every person has his own "definition" of cat. You not knowing this strikes me as really amazing.

And the fact that someone has a definition it doesn't mean it's RIGHT!!! Should I describe the Theory of Evolution a stupid idea that has never been proven and that only finds what it wants to or that it states that animanls change when they are forced to do it by the environment or or that it states that when you cross a donkey with a sea cucumber you get an atheist, would you accept this as a definition? And from them on argue that the Theory of Evolution is false because everyone has one?

But Ok. Let's move on to teaching people that never read a book about religion or God (apart from atheist ones of course).

God as I've extracted from most philosophers and theologians (and is the one refered to in most cases) is the Absolute Being, the one which existence and essence are one and the same. The Being that is infinite, eternal and simple.

Do you accept this, or do you created your own "definition" of God?

[Fnord]

Look, if you are lazy enough to read or to study, that is your fault, not mine. I'm sorry, but I don't have the power to infuse intelligence in your brain. But I'll take your asking for evidence of obvious and notorious facts, just because you're starting to sense you have no where to hide.
I've been to seminary, kid. I have read and studied the Bible - in English, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek - and can likely perform an acceptable exegesis on any Biblical verse and principle. I also hold a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering.
Mesopotamics, Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Greeks, Muslims, hindus, christians (all kinds), pigmees, arican tribes, indians, they all accepted the existence of a deity.
Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Just because a belief is popular amongst primitive, ignorant, and superstitious barbarians, that does not validate the idea. Remember, belief proves nothing, even when that belief is shared by millions.
For my sake, go read a history book. ANY! And show me a society that did not have a deity.
Those same societies also practiced witchcraft and believed in numerology, astrology, rhabdomancy and many other forms of "fortune telling" that have no basis in fact, thus proving my assertion that belief proves nothing.
And please, go read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Albert, St. T. Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Duns Scott, any Scholastic (old and new), Leibniz, Descartes, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Kant, Hegel, Eric Voegelin, Charles Taylor, even Anthony Flew (if you're so lazy).
I have. Again, the popularity of a belief does not validate that belief.
What else do you need? A tissue to wipe your tears or a crowbar to get you off that sofa and put you in a library?
Less arrogance and more cooperation from you, kid. And those Ad Hominem attacks won't win your argument, either. It is laziness on your part for relying on fallacious reasoning and assumptions when people are asking for simple proof of claim.

[Fnord]

God as I've extracted from most philosophers and theologians (and is the one refered to in most cases) is the Absolute Being, the one which existence and essence are one and the same. The Being that is infinite, eternal and simple. Do you accept this, or do you created your own "definition" of God?
Your assumption is unacceptable because it lacks evidence to support it. An assertion that starts with an assumption is like a house built on sand; one good flood of reason and the entire house is swept away.

[hgc]

Not really. For example, I'd rather have my niece babysit my son than have any priest do it simply because I know her intentions. Religion is not trustworthy for many reasons but one is because we know its true interest is in conversion and salvation. This led to the selling of the sacraments and many other abuses of the church. Religion wears a false hypocritical morality precisely because it has a deity that needs to be pleased.


This is not about whether religion is trustworthy. It's about whether individuals are trustworthy. I wouldn't disqualify a priest from babysitting just because the church has a pointless mission. Just because the priest thinks his morality is pleasing to his deity doesn't mean that he is hypocritical about that morality. He may be perfectly sincere about it.

[Gawdzilla]

Oy vey! NOBODY?! Please show me evidence. (or this rule does not apply to you?)

The fact that someone describes a cat in a different way from another person doesn't mean that cats do not exist simply because every person has his own "definition" of cat. You not knowing this strikes me as really amazing.

And the fact that someone has a definition it doesn't mean it's RIGHT!!! Should I describe the Theory of Evolution a stupid idea that has never been proven and that only finds what it wants to or that it states that animanls change when they are forced to do it by the environment or or that it states that when you cross a donkey with a sea cucumber you get an atheist, would you accept this as a definition? And from them on argue that the Theory of Evolution is false because everyone has one?

But Ok. Let's move on to teaching people that never read a book about religion or God (apart from atheist ones of course).

God as I've extracted from most philosophers and theologians (and is the one refered to in most cases) is the Absolute Being, the one which existence and essence are one and the same. The Being that is infinite, eternal and simple.

Do you accept this, or do you created your own "definition" of God?

If you know of somebody with a good definition of god, please trot him out. The world has been waiting for him.

[Pythonic]

Oy vey! NOBODY?! Please show me evidence. (or this rule does not apply to you?)

The fact that someone describes a cat in a different way from another person doesn't mean that cats do not exist simply because every person has his own "definition" of cat. You not knowing this strikes me as really amazing.

And the fact that someone has a definition it doesn't mean it's RIGHT!!! Should I describe the Theory of Evolution a stupid idea that has never been proven and that only finds what it wants to or that it states that animanls change when they are forced to do it by the environment or or that it states that when you cross a donkey with a sea cucumber you get an atheist, would you accept this as a definition? And from them on argue that the Theory of Evolution is false because everyone has one?

But Ok. Let's move on to teaching people that never read a book about religion or God (apart from atheist ones of course).

God as I've extracted from most philosophers and theologians (and is the one refered to in most cases) is the Absolute Being, the one which existence and essence are one and the same. The Being that is infinite, eternal and simple.

Do you accept this, or do you created your own "definition" of God?

God is the something to explain the gap in something else that is unexplainable.

[Pythonic]

This is not about whether religion is trustworthy. It's about whether individuals are trustworthy. I wouldn't disqualify a priest from babysitting just because the church has a pointless mission. Just because the priest thinks his morality is pleasing to his deity doesn't mean that he is hypocritical about that morality. He may be perfectly sincere about it.

True. But can you really trust anyone whose interest is really in pleasing their god? I don't think acting in self-interest is the definition of what is moral.

[Fnord]

The "God of Gaps", eh Pyth?

We don't know what started the Big Bang. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know why one passenger out of 138 survived a plane crash. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know why children are born deformed. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know how an electron jumps between states. Ergo: Goddidit!

Perhaps, the "God of Ignorance" might be equally appropriate.

[Gawdzilla]

True. But can you really trust anyone whose interest is really in pleasing their god? I don't think acting in self-interest is the definition of what is moral.

Wasn't Abraham interested in pleasing his god? Isaac wasn't so sure.

[George152]

I have a list of some 5000 gods.
Now tell me, which is/are the true gods and why does any-one know that to be true ?

[AngelonPig]

Please provide evidence for:

- The existence (past or present) of the "Tree of Knowledge"
- That anyone ate from this alleged "Tree of Knowledge"
- That all humans are like me
- That knowledge of good and evil is reserved solely for divine powers
- That this so-called "Original Sin" has any consequence

You do know that the Bible has a metaphorical sense in some parts don't you? I guess not! And that in the order of language, discourse and human limitedness this has a reason to be? Bet not.

If you doubt all humans are like you, just ask them. Send them an email or something.

And well since you did not create anything and you don't know the end result of anything you can't assert if something is good or bad. Simple as that.

The consequence is what I stated. Humans attribute to themselves the idea that they can determine what is good or bad. How is that not obvious?

This Argument from Ignorance is invalid, despite its superficial resemblance to extrapolative reasoning.

How is this ignorance? You don't know if you created yourself? Really? You must be kidding if you want me to explain this, right?!

Claim is invalid due to lack of evidence.
Your ignorance of an argument or the terms it uses is not lack of evidence. It's sheer ignorance. I take you're saying this because you think that the chain of creations goes on to infinity regress? Is that it?

[Please provide evidence for the existence of God as Creator.
te][/quote]

Just did in the post you quoted. What part did you not understand? The part that there is a Creator or the part that the Creator is God?

The fusion of human gametes en utero.
Who created the human gametes? And the utero? Gee...Are you even getting this? How old are you?

Correction: From the necessity of you mind to believe in something higehr than yourself.
Do you want me to logically prove to you this is so? Or you just don't believe in logic? (Which would be easier for me, because all science and question for evidence will go down the drain if you accept this.)

Your logic has already failed due to ignorance and extrapolative reasoning beyond the evidence to support.
You're just repeating atheistic sentences that has no bearing with the present case. Do you at least acknowledge the existence of self evidency?

Connection failed to to presumptive resasoning. Evidence, please?

Connection failed to to presumptive resasoning. Evidence, please?

Do yourself a favor, please stop reading skeptic texts. It is making you dumb. Can you show me evidence that you think? Or evidence of any tenet of science? Or evidence of any principle of science?

Unsubstantiated by available evidence.
You simply do not understand logic. Is that it?!

[hgc]

True. But can you really trust anyone whose interest is really in pleasing their god? I don't think acting in self-interest is the definition of what is moral.


Yes! At least as much as I can trust anyone else. It is human nature to act in self-interest. That's why we have laws and religion and taboo and moral instruction and all sorts of customs that instruct and motivate us to be civilized and act sometimes in community interest. Now, as it happens, the belief systems underpinning religions are based on wrong ideas about how the world works, but that doesn't automatically render the moral instruction contained in religious teachings moot.

[AngelonPig]

I've been to seminary, kid. I have read and studied the Bible - in English, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek - and can likely perform an acceptable exegesis on any Biblical verse and principle. I also hold a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Just because a belief is popular amongst primitive, ignorant, and superstitious barbarians, that does not validate the idea. Remember, belief proves nothing, even when that belief is shared by millions.

Those same societies also practiced witchcraft and believed in numerology, astrology, rhabdomancy and many other forms of "fortune telling" that have no basis in fact, thus proving my assertion that belief proves nothing.

I have. Again, the popularity of a belief does not validate that belief.

Less arrogance and more cooperation from you, kid. And those Ad Hominem attacks won't win your argument, either. It is laziness on your part for relying on fallacious reasoning and assumptions when people are asking for simple proof of claim.

Then those seminaries did you no good. You ask for evidence that major societies had a deity. I named major societies that had deities. How is that not evidence?!

You asked for great philosophers who accepted and/or demonstrated the existence of God. I named philosophers who accepted and/or demonstrated the existence of God. How is that not evidence?

And please go back to college. You clearly do not understand a word I'm saying. The only ignorance that is being shown here is yours. If the Theory of Evolution is well accepted, I should provide evidence that it is wrong. I cannot dodge myself from this task, stupidly repeating "Evidence", "Evidence" and say it is wrong even though I never read any biology book. By that same rule, if the existence of God is well established, atheists should provide the errors instead of pretending the have the higher ground to demand anything while avoiding the task to read about this issues or lacking in capacity to understand them.

The belief that "the popularity of a belief does not validate the belief" does not validate it. No matter how popular it is. And by the way: Does the popularity of a belief invalidates the belief? If not, then your point is just moot.

I'm all for cooperation when people want to have a serious discussion or want to understand things so as to refute them properly. I'm not going to cooperate with people that demands prove of obvious and notorius facts (like major societies have deities), take their ignorance as the pinacle of inteligence and transform the lack of capacity to understand something as a problem of somebody else and not their own.

[Pythonic]

I have a list of some 5000 gods.
Now tell me, which is/are the true gods and why does any-one know that to be true ?

In vino veritas So, Ba'al Hammon is the only true god.

[AngelonPig]

I'm off for New Year's Eve. Glad I could talk to you guys.

Happy New Year to you all!!

I'll come back next year.

[Pythonic]

It's not at all obvious that god exists. Without proof you only have your opinion.

The "God of Gaps", eh Pyth?

We don't know what started the Big Bang. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know why one passenger out of 138 survived a plane crash. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know why children are born deformed. Ergo: Goddidit!
We don't know how an electron jumps between states. Ergo: Goddidit!

Perhaps, the "God of Ignorance" might be equally appropriate.

True! The interesting consequence in this is why is God immune to explanation?

[Skeptic Ginger]

This whole business of morality coming from gods or religion stems from the long history of humans viewing themselves as separate from the animal kingdom.

Only humans use tools. ... Clearly disproved.
Only humans have language. ... Clearly disproved.
Only humans have syntax (complex use of language). ... Recently disproved when human language was taught to infant chimps and bonobos instead of trying to teach adult non-human primates.
Only humans have culture. ... Recently disproved, again by observing great ape societies.
Only humans have morals. ... Disproved when morality was demonstrated in great apes and the evolution of morality more closely investigated.

People are still arguing about the last one claiming somehow the rudimentary morality observed in non-human primates is different. That's the same argument that was made about language claiming animals only learned some stimulus response and really didn't understand language. It was all "Clever Hans" and no "Kanzi".

Now we go through the same refusal to believe morality evolved in the animal kingdom and we are not unique. Philosophy as a science of describing people's underlying operating beliefs makes sense. But I liken philosophy as a science of determining what is or is not moral, to Freud's psychiatric science. It sounded good, had lots of promise, and then we discovered neurobiology.

Morality is derived from the neurobiology of our brains. It's not 'special' any more than deciding which career path you want is a 'special' decision making process. Yes, the neurobiology of our morality is affected by external events and other impacts. So is your choice of careers. So is your choice of mates. You can't fall in love with someone you never meet, and you fall in love because that's biology.

Evidence morality is biologically based:
Evolution of morality can be followed. Moral behaviors can be observed in other animals.
Brain damage to specific areas of the brain can have a major impact on the individual's subsequent morality. Specific neurobiological components of morality have been identified like the sense of empathy.
The development of morality can be consistently observed in stages during child development.
There are many components of morality that are consistent across all cultures.

And finally, there is no viable competing theory as to the origin of morality in humans if morals did not originate in our neurobiology.

[Pythonic]

The reason the burden of proof lies with the believers, and not the other way around, is because it is the believers providing an explanation for why something is the way it is. As an atheist, I'm not providing an answer (which is just too hard for some people to live with). I have answers for some things, but not others. If you provide an answer for those things that I cannot answer, then it is up to you to back your answer. But whatever answers I may provide, rest assured they are backed up and I will not burden the believer with that.

[Mister Agenda]

What they really mean is, how can you be moral without judgement. Everyone is immoral at times, sometimes we face the consequences from other human beings, and sometimes we get away with zero consequences. Human nature dictates that we will tend to be immoral where we can get away with it, and if you don't believe in god, you don't believe in any divine judgement, and you're more likely to engage in that behavior. You may even attempt to justify it, because in your mind, the "immoral" behavior comes with no apparent negative consequences to you.

We're accountable to other people and our consciences. Being accountable to a God that knows everything we do and will punish us horribly if we don't conform to its wishes and reward us wonderfully if we do, sounds like an effective way to get people to behave more morally than the mere threat of censure by other humans who might not catch you in your evil-doing will. But there's a problem. When you hold yourself accountable to an omnipotent being you are less accountable to your fellow humans. If what your supernatural master wants you to do is at odds with the welfare of your fellow humans, that's quite a dilemma: do you piss off the guy who can make you suffer horribly for eternity or the folks who, at worst, can make you endure some temporary horribleness before you're ushered on to your glorious reward? In the long run, adding the supernatural (or any ultimate authority) to the moral mix leads to more problems than it solves.

[Mister Agenda]

Then those seminaries did you no good. You ask for evidence that major societies had a deity. I named major societies that had deities. How is that not evidence?!

You asked for great philosophers who accepted and/or demonstrated the existence of God. I named philosophers who accepted and/or demonstrated the existence of God. How is that not evidence?


You seem to have misunderstood Fnord's challenge. Your claim was that, as far as you know, all major societies and persons of intellect acknowledged one or more deities. Fnord did not claim that no major societies or persons of intellect acknowledged a deity, his point (presumably that you are mistaken in your assessment) is proven if there is a single major society or person of intellect who did not or does not acknowledge a deity. At most you've only provided evidence that you personally are ignorant of any exception to your rule. Speaking of rules, as a rule you can expect sweeping generalizations to be wrong. If you had claimed that most major societies and persons of intellect in history have acknowledged a deity, your comment would probably have passed unremarked and your time could have been spent on defending more pertinent points.

[Pythonic]

The most interesting aspect about the Abrahamic god and morality, at least to me, is they set about to describe a completely hypocritical god that acts immorally but demands different from its subjects through unspeakable threats of violence. And yet religion proclaims that without this threat, the world would go, well, to hell in a hand basket. It's morality at gunpoint.

So, ultimately what believers are claiming is that we require tyranny in order to function. Yet, as religious fervor has declined over the centuries we have not come apart at the seams. In fact, the promises of religion were fulfilled because of its decline.

Based on the progress of history, does religion really serve any purpose anymore?

[Pythonic]

First of all, He was wrong. He already knew he existed before the analysis.

Say what? One knows that one exists, the point is to define how one knows that exactly. This is exactly what believers will not (cannot?) do.

[Fnord]

You do know that the Bible has a metaphorical sense in some parts don't you? I guess not! And that in the order of language, discourse and human limitedness this has a reason to be? Bet not.
I know that religionists - especially the self-anointed prophets - would like everyone to believe that the Bible mixes fact with metaphor. The trouble come in with the disagreement among Biblical experts over which parts are factual and which parts are metaphorical. Basing an assertion on metaphor is as ineffective as basing an assertion on assumption; unless the metaphor (or assumption) itself can be validated as fact it is irrelevant as evidence.
If you doubt all humans are like you, just ask them. Send them an email or something.
I need only look around my workplace to see that we are of different races, ages, genders and ability. Thus, we are not alike.
And well since you did not create anything and you don't know the end result of anything you can't assert if something is good or bad. Simple as that.
Invalid due to Fallacy of Non-Sequitur. Lack of quantitative knowledge does not preclude a lack of qualitative knowledge (and vice-versa).
The consequence is what I stated. Humans attribute to themselves the idea that they can determine what is good or bad. How is that not obvious?
Invalid due to Fallacy of Non-Sequitur. The fact that humans can determine what is good from what is evil is in no way related to an assumed and unproven consequence.
How is this ignorance? You don't know if you created yourself? Really? You must be kidding if you want me to explain this, right?!
I have already stated previously what created me. Had you read this, your attempt to ridicule me would not have been made.
Your ignorance of an argument or the terms it uses is not lack of evidence. It's sheer ignorance. I take you're saying this because you think that the chain of creations goes on to infinity regress? Is that it?
We have repeatedly requested that you provide evidence to support your assertion of God as Creator. You have failed to provide any evidence; only assumptions, personal attacks, fallacious appeals, and arrogance. Please provide evidence for your assertion of God as Creator, or admit that you have none.
Just did in the post you quoted. What part did you not understand? The part that there is a Creator or the part that the Creator is God?
The part where you used assumptions and 'logic' that extrapolates beyond the ability of available evidence to support it as the basis for your so-called 'evidence'.
Who created the human gametes? And the utero?
You tell me. And please provide evidence for your claim, as well.
Gee...Are you even getting this?
Yes, as I have been on both sides of this debate numerous times; and it always comes out the same - the claimant can tender no proof for even the existence of God, much less for the assertion of God as Creator.
How old are you?
53. I have held my EE degree since the early 1980s.
Do you want me to logically prove to you this is so? Or you just don't believe in logic? (Which would be easier for me, because all science and question for evidence will go down the drain if you accept this.)
Oh, I believe in logic ... it is part of my job. I often have to dissect the claims of vendors, lawyers, political bureaucrats, evangelists and other shysters and con artists. The hard part is convincing them that their assertions are transparently wrong in any way, since they are more concerned with being believed than with telling the truth.
You're just repeating atheistic sentences that has no bearing with the present case.
Asking for evidence of assertion is not an inherently Atheistic sentence. All that we want is either evidence to support your assertion, or an admission from you that you have no such evidence to present.
Do you at least acknowledge the existence of self evidency?
I acknowledge the principle of "self-evidency" where things may be measured, when a person is observed to behave in measurable ways, or when the identity of the 'creator' of a thing is obvious. It is not self-evident to claim that God created the universe or anything within it - or even the God exists.
Do yourself a favor, please stop reading skeptic texts. It is making you dumb.
Evidence, please? The acquisition of factual knowledge does not make a person 'dumb'; it is the reliance on assumption, superstition, and religious dogma that makes people 'dumb'.
Can you show me evidence that you think?
Yes. It takes thought to point out your errors of reason and fact, which I (and others) have done so numerous times.
Or evidence of any tenet of science? Or evidence of any principle of science?
Yes. F=ma. Apply a force to a quantity of mass and it will accelerate. A body of mass 'm' subject to a force 'F' undergoes an acceleration 'a' that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body. If mass is in kilograms (kg), force must be in Newtons (N = kg x m/s2) and acceleration in m/s2. So, when a 1N force is applied to a 1kg mass, the mass will accelerate by 1m/s2. This simple experiment can be repeated any number of times and always result in the same answer. Prayer, on the other hand, can be repeated any number of times, and not have a consistently repeatable result (unless you count 'nothing' as a result).
You simply do not understand logic. Is that it?!
I understand logic very well. I also understand science and religion, having been trained at university and seminary in all three.

Now, will you please provide evidence that your assertion of "God as Creator" is valid; or will you finally admit that you have no such evidence at your disposal?

[marplots]

Could you, then, please tell me what you understand when someone says God? It would be pointless for me to start showing proof of God if you think he is a green dwarf that lives under your bed.

I'll take a shot at this, a God that I as an atheist can map onto the descriptions I've heard...

God is internal -- so a mental event.
God observes, judges and advises -- two coupled things here: introspection and conscience.
God seems external -- a type of modeling that I do when I look at myself from another perspective.
God is idealism -- My ability to imagine things that do not exist and instill them with properties extracted as unstained metaphors in the sense of principle, hope and the perfection of an unclarified afterlife in heaven.

That's a God I can buy into and one that exists in the sense that mental events exist -- but no more so.

Does this describe the God you have in mind? Is it a partial description at least?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's the same argument that was made about language claiming animals only learned some stimulus response and really didn't understand language. It was all "Clever Hans" and no "Kanzi".

I'd never heard of Kanzi or that research before. That's very interesting, thanks.

[Gawdzilla]

The better question would be how you can be moral WITH god.

[MattusMaximus]

You're missing the point. Is a person moral who is doing it only because society tells them so? Not compared to the person who does it because they truly believe it. You're just substituting God with another external motive. The motive needs to originate with the individual otherwise it's not sincere--they're just doing it for utilitarian reasons.

I often put the question to people this way, in terms of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations for moral behavior.

Who is more moral: the person who performs a moral action because they are looking for a reward (getting into Heaven) or avoiding punishment (staying out of Hell), or the person who performs a moral action without any regard for reward and/or punishment?

I am amazed at the number of religious believers, specifically Christians, who have never been exposed to this line of questioning and are thus completely stumped by it.

[MattusMaximus]

The better question would be how you can be moral WITH god.

We've got a whole other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=195969) related to that question.

[MattusMaximus]

Unless he thinks that moral nonbelievers DO NOT exist. Or a contradiction of terms.

If this is the case, ask him if he would accept food from a nonbeliever when he's starving to death. Or ask if he would accept a life-saving blood transfusion from a nonbeliever if he needed it. You can think of all manner of variations on this theme...

If he answers "yes" to any such scenario proposed to him, you can rightfully call him a hypocrite.

[MattusMaximus]

I have run into people that think it is impossible to be an atheist and moral. I asked them what changed in me when they found out I was an atheist, because none of my behaviors changed due to that revelation. This is when they get angry and stomp off or go off on a new tangent without dealing with that problem.

At which point I would dump them. Who needs such "friends"?

[MattusMaximus]

And didn't anyone learned that the Original Sin was that Humans began to judge things as good or bad according to their standard (which is absurd since they are creatures) and not according to the standard of who created it all, including them?

Then why is it that so many religious believers cannot agree on what is good in the eyes of God?

For example: 9/11. Some Christians thought it was a good & just punishment from God against the United States for tolerating immoral behavior. Many more Christians got pissed off at the very notion that 9/11 was anything but an act of pure evil.

Want something even more recent & contemporary? How about Fred Phelps?

[MattusMaximus]

Before asking for proof, you need to prove that you exist.

So you're admitting that you are talking with a figment of your imagination? Congratulations, the nice people will be along shortly to take you back to your padded cell :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

So if a rather obvious fact that someone exists needs no proof, I don't see how a rather obvious fact that God exists needs proof also.

Does the same logic apply to unicorns, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy?

[MattusMaximus]

Mesopotamics, Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Greeks, Muslims, hindus, christians (all kinds), pigmees, arican tribes, indians, they all accepted the existence of a deity. For my sake, go read a history book. ANY! And show me a society that did not have a deity.

And please, go read Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Albert, St. T. Aquinas, Francisco Suarez, Duns Scott, any Scholastic (old and new), Leibniz, Descartes, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Kant, Hegel, Eric Voegelin, Charles Taylor, even Anthony Flew (if you're so lazy).

What else do you need? A tissue to wipe your tears or a crowbar to get you off that sofa and put you in a library?

Seems that one of the oldest schools of Vedic thought in ancient India was inherently atheistic: Linky... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Early_Indic_religion)

... Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[69] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy; Samkhya, the oldest philosophical system do not accept God and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[70] The early Mimamsa not only did not accept God but asserted that human action itself was enough to create the necessary circumstances for the enjoyment of its fruits.[71] The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Cārvāka (also called Nastika or Lokaiata) school that originated in India around the 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India, similar to the Greek Cyrenaic school. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority of Vedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism. ...

And that's not even counting the early materialism of Epicurus and other Western thinkers in the ancient Greek tradition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity) Perhaps you need that tissue & crowbar to take the few seconds I took to use Google?

[Marduk]

Mesopotamics, Egyptians, Jews, Romans, Greeks, Muslims, hindus, christians (all kinds), pigmees, arican tribes, indians, they all accepted the existence of a deity.

with the exception of the abrahamic religions those cultures all believed in multiple Gods and Goddesses, are you saying they were all correct ?
:D

[Fnord]

with the exception of the abrahamic religions those cultures all believed in multiple Gods and Goddesses, are you saying they were all correct?
A more logical explanation would be that all cultures go through a primitive stage of development wherein fear and superstition dominate their 'knowledge' of the universe. Fortunately, there are some cultures where experiment, observation, and reason form the foundation of their understanding of how the universe works.

Unfortunately, there are still too many religionists who try to discredit science and reason in favor of their own delusions and fantasies so that they can then exercise authority over the resulting ignorant masses. This is why so many religions seem to emphasize their particular 'holy' writings as the only truth there is -- that is, to provide a means for religious leaders to keep their followers ignorant, so as to make it easier for those leaders to maintain control over those followers. This seems typical of all 'fundamentalist' doctrines, whether Christian, Communist, Hindu, Islamic, Voudon, et cetera.

As long as you can keep your followers dependent on you for all their knowledge and understanding, you can tell them any set of lies that will keep them under your control. This may be why control freaks gravitate toward fundamentalist religions, and/or why religious fundamentalists are afraid of, and hostile toward anyone who can think for themselves.