Why live a moral life?

A religious answer to that is that that's how Sky-Daddy or -Mommy wants it, or that ya get yer own reserved little spot in that cloud up over there. An Atheistic answer would be that it's just a good thing to do.

Why do religious people life a moral life? I'm sure they give many reasons, but I'll bet their only real reason is that they want to be in their religion's version of Heaven for all eternity. Some probably don't care about being good just for the hell of it. They just know that that's how to get into Heaven. They're taking advantage of a bribe.

So why do Atheists live a moral life? They have no incentive to do so; they believe that they're just gonna rot in the ground when they're dead, and that that's the end of it. They have no Sky-Daddy or -Mommy to please, and no Heaven to spend eternity in. But they live a moral life because they believe it's just a good thing to do. They're living moral lives just for the hell of it. They have no need for bribery.

So it seems that the religious, even if they think they're living a moral life only because it's nice, are being selfish in that they just want a spot in that cloud up over there. Atheists, on the other hand, don't think they're gonna be rewarded for their morality for eternity after they're dead, but it doesn't matter to them. They still are gonna live a moral life.

It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot.

Hallelujah!

— Peace, Love, Health, and Happiness to all! Âðelwulf.

Some people need bribery.

Athelwulf: Why live a moral life?
*************
M*W: Humanity has been positive creation in this world, and I believe we are basically good people.

Some people need bribery.

Good point.

Humans live a moral life because it would feel bad if they wouldn't do so. God lives in them. Those who do good only in hope of a reward or in a fear of punishment are no good at all, and they don't believe or follow God. Whatever we do, we do it for our self. In all that we love, we love our self, and when we love our self, we love everything. Because what we think we do not love is only that which we haven't found in our self.

Do not be proud of being wise. Consult with the ignorant as with the wise. The limits of art have not been attained, there is no artist fully equipped with his excellence. Perfect speech is concealed, more than turqoise; yet it is found among the maids at millstones.

Humans live a moral life because it would feel bad if they wouldn't do so.

That's not entirely true.

So why do Atheists live a moral life? .

But they don't.

Look at History. The uncivilized and un-Religious Barbarians have been guilty of the most montrous crimes which pale anything that Religious Institutions ever perpetrated. Then we have the crimes of the Self-Conscious Atheists that source out of the Thinking of the French Age of Enlightenment, whose Doctrines you now echo. They brought us Predatory Capitalism, the Slave Trade, Democratic Revolutions, Socialist Revolutions, Communist Revolutions, Fascism and will bring us Militia Anarchy and Race War.

Arnold Toynbee acknowledges that there is still some Moral Sensitivity within the Stricken and Dying Western Civilization, once known as Christendom, but that it is not a Moral Sense built upon anything but the Moral Inertia of Past Catholic Traditions. If Atheists have any morality, it is only a Morality of built up Momentum... almost a Genetic Memory from generations past who WERE Catholic. But with each subsequent generation its forward impetus is diminished and any and all Moral Inhabitions take on the appearance of vain superstitions. Thus the ostensively Religious Right can advance Greed as a Virtue they had just recently discovered. They have lost their Moral Bearings awash, as they are, in a popular culture that has no reference beyond an amoral Secular Atheism.

But they don't.

Look at History. The uncivilized and un-Religious Barbarians have been guilty of the most montrous crimes which pale anything that Religious Institutions ever perpetrated.
try to show us one war, caused by atheists!, we'll show you tens of thousands, done by religion, it's only when man started to get educated the he started to turn away, from a believe in fantasy figures and idols, and the majority of that education has been in the last three centurys.
atheist are still unfortunately only a small percentage of the people on this planet, therefore unfortunately, can have little or no effect on the world, if in the future more people come to there senses and we can change things, it may be the end of war and killing forever.
so what a complete crock of shit, leo. are you in cloud cuckoo land again, hulcinating again.
you've already been shown you were wrong on this count at the begining of last year.


athelwulf: well said,good post.

So why do Atheists live a moral life?

But they don't.

I do.

Well, I try, at least.

The uncivilized and un-Religious Barbarians have been guilty of the most montrous crimes which pale anything that Religious Institutions ever perpetrated.

Such as . . . ?

And what have the civilized unreligious been guilty of?

athelwulf: well said,good post.

:o Thank you.

Look at History. The uncivilized and un-Religious Barbarians have been guilty of the most montrous crimes which pale anything that Religious Institutions ever perpetrated.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” - Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf

Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. SIX MILLION people murdered by a Catholic because they were Jewish.

Jesus himself was killed by the Jews for opposing religious beliefs. And by crucifixtion, perhaps by one of the most barbaric forms of execution.

Take a look at the Middle East. It seems like every day we hear that another suicide bomber has taken another dozen lives. Are ANY of these suicide bombers atheist? I don't think so.

Richard Butler, who died last year, was the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ Christian, also known as the Aryan Nation. The Aryan Nation promotes white supremacy and racial bigotry, and has been responsible for coutless acts of brutal crimes against blacks and other minorities. All this, of course, while preaching the good word of the Lord.

I think I have made my point. Can you even name one valid occourance perpetrated by atheists that even comes close to any of the above?

I do.

Well, I try, at least.



Such as . . . ?

And what have the civilized unreligious been guilty of?



:o Thank you.

I thank you for puttin Leo straight about the 'blessed' religionists. BUT.....i have to contradict youe somewhat smug view that the sun shines outta athiest arsehole

for example, mecahanistic science has probably caused more damage than any other 'movement' known to man..........why?

because it has no regard for life, for Nature, for other species.
why? cause it sees Nature as 'dead'
why?
cause it through out the ALREADY pseudo idea of 'God'

However, what it fails to know is that all of that mythic condisioning STILl unconsciously influences its mode of operation. for example, the religious desire to return to 'heaven' is prelaced by the modern techno drive to escape t the stars.....the religious idea of 'everlasting life' is replaced by techno means to prolong life, and thus escape death....etc

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” - Adolf Hitler, from Mein Kampf

Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. SIX MILLION people murdered by a Catholic because they were Jewish.

Don't forget the Spanish Inquisition. And look at this site (http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm)!

for example, mecahanistic 'movement' when the industrial revolution happened atheism was still in it's infancy, and man did not understand just what machines would do to the environment, but now we are more educated there are more atheist, so there is now a force around, to try reduce the mechanisation of the planet to try to repair what we have damaged, but you cant just blame atheist for that, you have to blame everybody.

when the industrial revolution happened atheism was still in it's infancy, and man did not understand just what machines would do to the environment, but now we are more educated there are more atheist, so there is now a force around, to try reduce the mechanisation of the planet to try to repair what we have damaged, but you cant just blame atheist for that, you have to blame everybody.

i see it as a patriarchal lineage. i see what came before the materialistic scientific worldview was ALSO mechanistic. ie., the there existed 'mechanical nature' and a supernatrual order--hence the idea of miracles. the 'supeernatural' affecting the 'mechanical nature'

i FEAr this 'putting right' of what's been unprecendtly already done by scientists who are still stuck in materilistic ways of understanding Nature. usually he 'putting right' does yet MORe incalcuable damage, and there is also much exploitation and corruption underlying the MOTIVEs to 'put right'. a really good examle is the biotech means to 'put right'
'3rd world' poverty by pushing GM....!

I thank you for puttin Leo straight about the 'blessed' religionists. BUT.....i have to contradict youe somewhat smug view that the sun shines outta athiest arsehole

for example, mecahanistic science has probably caused more damage than any other 'movement' known to man..........why?

because it has no regard for life, for Nature, for other species.
why? cause it sees Nature as 'dead'
why?
cause it through out the ALREADY pseudo idea of 'God'Mechanistic science has indeed caused more damage than any other movement known to man. But your explanations are simplistic and unconvincing, not to mention anthropomorphic. Mechanistic science proceeds on the basis of attempting to alleviate the lot of ordinary people, to make things easier, to be the tool of humankind. The implementation of technology turned out to be so massively useful that there was a huge explosion in the distribution of this technology and it's not really surprising that the downside of the uncontrolled spread of technology was not really understood at the time.

And how do we know that technology is harmful to the earth? Amazingly enough not by getting on our knees and "communing with Mother Nature" or anything like it. We know about the harmful effects of scientific advance by science. It is science that told us about the hole in the ozone layer, science that told us why that would be a problem. It is science that showed us that Venus is in fact the surprise hottest planet in the solar system, that this is due to a runaway greenhouse effect, and that the same thing could well happen on Earth. No amount of visiting Stonehenge on the equinox dressed in white linen gave anybody the requisite information about the damage we do to our planet.

Science has pointed the way to the solution. The only thing that stops us healing the earth is politics. And the fact that I'm not willing to give my car up.

To Jews, heaven is 'closeness to god'... those who don't believe in god don't get to be near him in the after life...

To Christians, heaven is the kingdom of God... its sort of like citizenship... if you're not a Christian, then you're not getting in.

Entry into the Christian heaven depends on the sect you belong to. Each has its own rules.

Some say that all you have to do is be sorry for you sins at the end of your life and take Jesus into your soul. Others make it very hard to get in... It depends.



Atheists will not get a place in any heaven. They get oblivion. Whether there is a God(s) or not... none of them will give the Atheists anything.

I don't say that to be derisive to atheists, you're welcome to your belief system. But you're certainly not going to get a spot in paradise for defaming God.

at least... not by my earthly logic, which has no real way of knowing the reasoning of a deity.

Atheists will not get a place in any heaven. They get oblivion. Whether there is a God(s) or not... none of them will give the Atheists anything.

I don't say that to be derisive to atheists, you're welcome to your belief system. But you're certainly not going to get a spot in paradise for defaming God.Well, duh! We don't believe in paradise, we believe that eternal oblivion is the common lot of all. Some of us shy away from the concept of eternal life in heaven with revulsion. And if there is a God, I would hope that he would at least give me my due as an honest atheist who defended his beliefs no matter how much they may have diverted from His.

Karmashock: To Jews, heaven is 'closeness to god'... those who don't believe in god don't get to be near him in the after life...

To Christians, heaven is the kingdom of God... its sort of like citizenship... if you're not a Christian, then you're not getting in.

Entry into the Christian heaven depends on the sect you belong to. Each has its own rules.

Some say that all you have to do is be sorry for you sins at the end of your life and take Jesus into your soul. Others make it very hard to get in... It depends.

Atheists will not get a place in any heaven. They get oblivion. Whether there is a God(s) or not... none of them will give the Atheists anything.

I don't say that to be derisive to atheists, you're welcome to your belief system. But you're certainly not going to get a spot in paradise for defaming God.

at least... not by my earthly logic, which has no real way of knowing the reasoning of a deity.
*************
M*W: Please provide proof of an "afterlife." And, while you're at it, provide proof of a "Christian heaven."

Atheists don't want or need a heaven. Life is all we've got. Atheists are probably more genuine and live more honest lives than Christians. We don't seek forgiveness, at least not from some dying demigod savior of myth. We try to live right in the first place.

Can you prove Jesus even existed? As a former Christian, I'm still trying to find out.

You've indicated that there is more than one heaven -- one for Christians and one for each and every sect. Right there it proves to me that there couldn't possibly be anything such as a heaven.

I seriously doubt that you will be getting into anything called "heaven."

And if there is a God, I would hope that he would at least give me my due as an honest atheist who defended his beliefs no matter how much they may have diverted from His.
It's my understanding that you'll get exactly what you want.

Oblivion.

The people that believe in god know that what they profess sounds stupid. They're not idiots... no they're really not. They have faith.

I don't expect you to convert or even respect that... it would be nice however if you understood it.

It's like a dream taken to the point where it becomes reality. Either way, there is a beauty to it unmatched nihilism.
====================

M*W: Please provide proof of an "afterlife." And, while you're at it, provide proof of a "Christian heaven."
You’re missing the point. This is faith. If anything, proof would destroy it… even if I could show you absolute bulletproof evidence of god and heaven, it would ruin it.

The point is that you’re not supposed to know. You’re supposed to believe.

Though if you want to get snarky, prove that you love your parents. Provide absolute proof. How do we know it isn’t an act? How do we know your love isn’t just self-interest? A product of greed and fear?

These are deep deep waters you’re treading in… to treat them to so lightly is to miss their inherent complexity.

Atheists are probably more genuine and live more honest lives than Christians.
I disagree. There is nothing dishonest about believing in God. It is a belief. They aren’t lying or cheating. They’ve chosen to believe in something. That is their choice.

As to atheists, many atheists convert back to religion when they get old or prey to god when they’re dying. If you’d like I can cite a very recent and MAJOR atheist figure that converted back to Christianity recently.

Atheists can claim to be more realistic perhaps… but not honest.

We don't seek forgiveness, at least not from some dying demigod savior of myth. We try to live right in the first place.
Actually, you have no moral code what so ever. Good and evil are meaningless and so is morality. There is no absolute right or wrong. Who is to say that child rape is wrong? Why is wrong? Upon what moral authority do you base that on?


Don’t you see? Your atheist morality is derivative of Christian morality.

Can you prove Jesus even existed? As a former Christian, I'm still trying to find out.
He’s in the Roman records as a troublemaker.

You've indicated that there is more than one heaven -- one for Christians and one for each and every sect. Right there it proves to me that there couldn't possibly be anything such as a heaven.
No, I was just being diplomatic. Most do not recognize the existence of anything but one heaven. However, there are many different sects so they must all use different doors to get into the same place, some of the rules are wrong, or some of the heavens don’t exist.

Or multiple ones exist.

I don’t pretend to know anything… Which is the truly honest thing to say.

I seriously doubt that you will be getting into anything called "heaven."
My one in a trillion chance is better then your chance of zero.

The thing you have to realize about a supreme being is that it can bend reality around its finger like a strand of hair. God can make 1+7 = 23.1 And this will become fact. God can do literally anything, in any order, reverse time, and then do it again. There is no limit. Within such a system no data can be absolute because the nature of the universe is in question.

Science can’t disprove God and only a foolish religious person would try to prove their religion with science.

One is physical and the other is metaphysical. They deal with completely different realms.

Karmashock: It's my understanding that you'll get exactly what you want. Oblivion.

The people that believe in god know that what they profess sounds stupid. They're not idiots... no they're really not. They have faith.

I don't expect you to convert or even respect that... it would be nice however if you understood it.

It's like a dream taken to the point where it becomes reality. Either way, there is a beauty to it unmatched nihilism.
====================

You’re missing the point. This is faith. If anything, proof would destroy it… even if I could show you absolute bulletproof evidence of god and heaven, it would ruin it.

The point is that you’re not supposed to know. You’re supposed to believe.

Though if you want to get snarky, prove that you love your parents. Provide absolute proof. How do we know it isn’t an act? How do we know your love isn’t just self-interest? A product of greed and fear?

These are deep deep waters you’re treading in… to treat them to so lightly is to miss their inherent complexity.

I disagree. There is nothing dishonest about believing in God. It is a belief. They aren’t lying or cheating. They’ve chosen to believe in something. That is their choice.

As to atheists, many atheists convert back to religion when they get old or prey to god when they’re dying. If you’d like I can cite a very recent and MAJOR atheist figure that converted back to Christianity recently.

Atheists can claim to be more realistic perhaps… but not honest.

Actually, you have no moral code what so ever. Good and evil are meaningless and so is morality. There is no absolute right or wrong. Who is to say that child rape is wrong? Why is wrong? Upon what moral authority do you base that on?

Don’t you see? Your atheist morality is derivative of Christian morality.

He’s in the Roman records as a troublemaker.

No, I was just being diplomatic. Most do not recognize the existence of anything but one heaven. However, there are many different sects so they must all use different doors to get into the same place, some of the rules are wrong, or some of the heavens don’t exist.

Or multiple ones exist.

I don’t pretend to know anything… Which is the truly honest thing to say.

My one in a trillion chance is better then your chance of zero.

The thing you have to realize about a supreme being is that it can bend reality around its finger like a strand of hair. God can make 1+7 = 23.1 And this will become fact. God can do literally anything, in any order, reverse time, and then do it again. There is no limit. Within such a system no data can be absolute because the nature of the universe is in question.

Science can’t disprove God and only a foolish religious person would try to prove their religion with science.

One is physical and the other is metaphysical. They deal with completely different realms.
*************
M*W: Science will disprove God. Whatcha gonna do then?

If you’d like I can cite a very recent and MAJOR atheist figure that converted back to Christianity recently.

please do, thank you.

Athelwulf,

Do you believe in heaven?

If you are an atheist, I'd say you don't believe in heaven.

But how then can you say

"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot."

-- this testifies of a belief in heaven.

If you are an atheist and don't believe in heaven, why then say that you might end up there?

read your own post for the answer rosa.

read your own post for the answer rosa.

You're going to give yourself away if you won't be more careful.

it should have said read your own thread(do atheist believe in heaven)
You're going to give yourself away if you won't be more careful.
what does that mean, you've lost me.

please do, thank you.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976

I'm not saying that god exists... I'm saying there is doubt both ways.

karma:
I would also read these sites, it's not so black and white as it may seem, Exactly what Antony Flew has converted to remains unclear. http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania/archives/000996.html
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15067
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/000305.html
it seems he's as religious as einstein( no such thing as a personal god.)

Actually, you have no moral code what so ever. Good and evil are meaningless and so is morality. There is no absolute right or wrong. Who is to say that child rape is wrong? Why is wrong? Upon what moral authority do you base that on?


Don’t you see? Your atheist morality is derivative of Christian morality.There is a difference, if atheists do not derive their moral code from God or the Bible. Judaeao-Christian morals come via the Bible, via Moses, via God, but they derive ultimately from the underpinning moral absolute of not hurting or harming or otherwise depriving of their Natural right to health wealth and happiness one's fellow human beings.

Christians are told the rules when they learn the Bible story - "God said this" and "God said that" and you automatically "get" why they're good rules - or at least the obvious ones about not killing, stealing, lying etc. But the Bible story is simply the means by which these moral truths are instilled in children to begin with. But it doesn't have to be that way. We don't have to teach our children to love their neighbour, not to lie, not to kill, but also to hate and abominate gays and other people who are "not like us".

karma:
I would also read these sites, it's not so black and white as it may seem, Exactly what Antony Flew has converted to remains unclear. http://mt.ektopos.com/parablemania/archives/000996.html
http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15067
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/000305.html
it seems he's as religious as einstein( no such thing as a personal god.)
He believes that the universe was designed by a supreme being.

Karmashock, no-one doubts that people do falter when approaching death, as you mentioned. I would not say that I myself would be proof against such backsliding.

I was surprised someone asked for that reference because I first heard about that guy right here at sciforums, though it got mentioned on BBC Radio 4 the next day, I think.

"including in debates with an atheist-turned-Christian named C. S. Lewis". "An" atheist-turned-Christian named C.S. Lewis? One would have hoped Lewis was better known than that, particularly in Christian circles - after all, he created the (Christ-allegory) Chronicles of Narnia, and his surprise late marriage to a cancer victim was the subject of a recent film (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0108101/combined). (1993 - my mistake, not that recent, my god where did the time go!?). Although, an apologetics site included the following quote: "Lewis had become an atheist in his teens, but underwent a dramatic conversion in 1931, largely under the influence of discussions with a fellow Oxford medievalist named J.R.R. Tolkien."A fellow oxford medievalist named J.R.R. Tolkien. I wonder if he's related to any other Tolkiens! :eyeroll:

At any rate, the central core of what Anthony Flew has gone through is illustrated by the following quote from the pfm.org link.But he’s now been forced to face the evidence. It comes from the Intelligent Design movement, led by Dr. Phillip Johnson and particularly the work of Michael Behe, the Lehigh biochemist who has proven the “irreducible complexity” of the human cell structure. Though eighty-one years old, Flew has not let his thinking fossilize, but has faithfully followed his own dictum to “go where the evidence leads.”Behe's so-called evidence is misleading and falls prey to what Richard Dawkins called "the Argument from Personal Incredulity". Just because an 81-year old philosopher has been convinced by Behe does not necessarily mean that Behe's arguments are anything like foolproof, as a cursory glance at the low rating reviews of his book on amazon.co.uk will confirm.

Incidentally, preacher there was a recent Horizon programme on BBC2 here in the UK about Einstein in which they practically declared he was a fully paid up believer in God, (although not a practising Jew). Yes, he talked about God all the time when expressing his opposition to the quantum paradigm, but they made it sound like he was a sincere religious believer - a misrepresentation, I believe.

and I concur silas I saw that as well.
as I said to karma, had no believe in a personal god.

and karma did you actually read, the info on those sites, it says he believes more in the possiblity that there is I D in the universe, not a god/gods he states he has no believe in the gods of any of the religion.

Well first of all I don't believe in an after life.

But I'm somewhat of a joker! so here it goes;

If there is such a thing as an after life, I would have to get a pretty damn good offer to live with such boring sob's for all eternity.

Heaven may just be an empty place. As no one has ever been so freaking perfect! and Jessus is just siting there waiting for some hones christian to still arrive; Good luck Jessus you'll be waitin a long time. Specially when Alla is overthere in the other corner of heaven getting all them muslims that fight jihad for their 15 virgins. :D

Sattan is throwing one hell of a party; Many christians don't even know they are in hell thinking they are in heaven they are been fooled just as easily as this administration with the Devil's advocate been president. G.W. Devils advocate. (http://www.bushisantichrist.com/)

Yea the Devil knows how to manupalate and coherse Hell's media to keep them poor suckers fooled for centuries.

Thus for us athiest jessus may just give us a deal we can't refuse;

http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images/BrandoHalo_thumb.jpg
;)
Hey if Brando is there it can't be all that bad!. Right?.

LOL..LOL..
Godless.

and I concur silas I saw that as well.
as I said to karma, had no believe in a personal god.

and karma did you actually read, the info on those sites, it says he believes more in the possiblity that there is I D in the universe, not a god/gods he states he has no believe in the gods of any of the religion.
Intelligent Design in the creation and nature of the universe is about as close as you can get to supreme beings and Gods.

He’s not saying that this god is the Christian god or any other human oriented god… merely that the universe is very very conveniently organized.


Again, I’m not saying he’s right. I’m just saying you don’t know.

There is doubt. Therefore, both sides are a matter of faith.


Do you want to have faith that there is no god or that there is a god? The choice is yours.

The uncivilized and un-Religious Barbarians have been guilty of the most montrous crimes which pale anything that Religious Institutions ever perpetrated.

That made me really confused. What do you mean with un-religious barbarians? :confused:

Do you mean those up the north of europe many centuries ago? Those who the christians said where "barbarians"... Well they of course, like everyone else at that time, had a religion.

Say one barbarian tribe that didn't have religion.

Just because they doesnt belong to one of the world religions they aren't "unreligious".

Karmashock,

It's my understanding that you'll get exactly what you want.

Oblivion.

Atheists don’t particularly want oblivion; they simply accept the somewhat overwhelming evidence that that is what happens when you die. Believing in fantasies doesn’t help you avoid oblivion.

The people that believe in god know that what they profess sounds stupid. They're not idiots... no they're really not. They have faith.

But faith is simply believing something is true without any evidence – that is entirely stupid and idiotic.

I don't expect you to convert or even respect that... it would be nice however if you understood it.

I believe most atheists here understand these issues quite well.

It's like a dream taken to the point where it becomes reality.

No, it remains a fantasy that religionists have mistaken as reality.

You’re missing the point. This is faith. If anything, proof would destroy it… even if I could show you absolute bulletproof evidence of god and heaven, it would ruin it.

Well of course. That’s why religion is factually baseless and useless.

Though if you want to get snarky, prove that you love your parents. Provide absolute proof. How do we know it isn’t an act? How do we know your love isn’t just self-interest? A product of greed and fear?

You are confusing the issues of deliberate deception with the fantasy delusions of religious belief. They aren’t comparable.

There is nothing dishonest about believing in God. It is a belief. They aren’t lying or cheating. They’ve chosen to believe in something. That is their choice.

Agreed, but that in no way indicates whether what they believe is true.

As to atheists, many atheists convert back to religion when they get old or prey to god when they’re dying.

What is the source of your statistics? It seems more likely that those who have never given religion much thought start to consider the issues as death approaches. The idea that death is not permanent is the primary common factor in virtually every religion and the reason why religions exist. This is our inherent survival instinct kicking in and the difficulty of accepting inevitable non-existence. Those who identify themselves as atheists tend to have given the issues serious consideration and are more likely to accept the obvious inevitability of non-existence.

He’s in the Roman records as a troublemaker.

No he isn’t. What’s your proof?

The thing you have to realize about a supreme being is that it can bend reality around its finger like a strand of hair. God can make 1+7 = 23.1 And this will become fact. God can do literally anything, in any order, reverse time, and then do it again. There is no limit. Within such a system no data can be absolute because the nature of the universe is in question.

And why is this anything other than a nonsense fantasy?

Science can’t disprove God and only a foolish religious person would try to prove their religion with science.

Perhaps what is more important is that no one can show that a god or gods actually exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist. Trying to show that a fantasy is a fantasy is a rather futile endeavor and certainly of no interest to science.

One is physical and the other is metaphysical.

No – one is indeed known and physical, while the other exists only as an imaginative concept.

They deal with completely different realms.

No – we only know of one realm, whatever else you believe is just creative fiction.

Please don’t bold your text indiscriminately. Bold some selectively or none at all.
Karmashock,
Atheists don’t particularly want oblivion; they simply accept the somewhat overwhelming evidence that that is what happens when you die. Believing in fantasies doesn’t help you avoid oblivion.
There is no evidence of the kind. There is simply no evidence of anything… one way or the other.
But faith is simply believing something is true without any evidence – that is entirely stupid and idiotic.
as stupid as unconditional love… and yet that is considered by most to be beautiful.

To have faith in the idea of God and such a universe is not stupid.
I believe most atheists here understand these issues quite well.
My experience is that they don’t think much about this sort of thing at all.
No, it remains a fantasy that religionists have mistaken as reality.
your opinion.
Well of course. That’s why religion is factually baseless and useless.
Factually baseless perhaps, but hardly useless.
You are confusing the issues of deliberate deception with the fantasy delusions of religious belief. They aren’t comparable.
Quite comparable. Prove with science that you love your parents. Give me numbers that quantify that love. Is it 32.1223 (Love units)/(human emotional constant)?

God is beyond science.
Agreed, but that in no way indicates whether what they believe is true.
So? It’s faith and belief. We’re talking about world views, identities, cultural psychology, etc. Truth has less to do with it, then whether said beliefs are beneficial regardless.

Furthermore, you don’t know that god doesn’t exist and cannot know that. It is also probable that any god would hide his existence on the grounds that people wouldn’t have faith if they knew.
Those who identify themselves as atheists tend to have given the issues serious consideration and are more likely to accept the obvious inevitability of non-existence.
No, they tend to just go along with the crowd. Atheism is considered modern and no one likes to think of themselves as outmoded. As such, they just ‘say’ they are and don’t give it much thought.

Put a gun to their head and give them a chance to pray… I doubt many atheists would say there is nothing to pray to.
No he isn’t. What’s your proof?
yes he is, look it up.

It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man. Whether he was the son of God too or not is debatable.
And why is this anything other than a nonsense fantasy?
Why must it be a nonsense fantasy? You can’t prove either with science. Science has no ability to touch this… It can’t prove or disprove it.

Science is and has always been an agnostic.

If you’re an atheist, then science isn’t with you anymore then it’s with the passionately religious.
Perhaps what is more important is that no one can show that a god or gods actually exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist. Trying to show that a fantasy is a fantasy is a rather futile endeavor and certainly of no interest to science.
No more profound that that Science cannot prove they don’t exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist.

Science has no opinion on God.
No – one is indeed known and physical, while the other exists only as an imaginative concept.
You can’t prove that.
No – we only know of one realm, whatever else you believe is just creative fiction.
Again, science won’t back that up. This is largely why Flew said he was no longer an atheist. Science just couldn’t show that it knew enough about the universe to say such things.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Religion requires "blind faith" - believing it to be true without the evidence to support it.

This is illogical and irrational.
Thus it can be deemed "stupid" if that is how one defines stupidity

as stupid as unconditional love… and yet that is considered by most to be beautiful.
This is a strawman fallacy - as being beautiful does not prevent one from being stupid.
Unconditional love is often seen as stupid - no matter how "beautiful" one sees it.



To have faith in the idea of God and such a universe is not stupid.Yes it is, if you define "stupid" as being irrational and illogical.
Atheist believe in exactly the same physical universe - and some lead far better lives (judged by society as a whole) than those who purport to be religious.
Why, then, would you need to believe in an unprovable mystical being that is as real as an invisibile, undetectable Green Dragon sitting on my shoulder right now?

Religion is a matter of subtle brainwashing and need.
The former starts when your parents wheel you off to church and your school teaches you about "religion". The latter comes in when you use the ideas of religion as a crutch for problems in your life - whatever they may be - perhaps to give your life meaning, direction, comfort etc.


Quite comparable. Prove with science that you love your parents. Give me numbers that quantify that love. Is it 32.1223 (Love units)/(human emotional constant)?
In order to prove something you have to define it.
Please define "love" and we'll start from there.
If you find you can't define it then please don't ask people to prove it exists.
Can you define "God"?


So? It’s faith and belief. We’re talking about world views, identities, cultural psychology, etc. Truth has less to do with it, then whether said beliefs are beneficial regardless.
Logical fallacy.
No-one is arguing against the beneficial effects that believing in a religion can have on the individual or the society.
It is widely used as a guiding force in someone's life, or a crutch in time of despair. It can help enforce common sense by getting people to believe in something through fear.
The benefits are wide.
But this is no evidence for the existence or otherwise of God, or for heaven etc.
If believing in God is the only way that some people can get through life then I'm happy for them.

Furthermore, you don’t know that god doesn’t exist and cannot know that.
An appeal to ignorance.
It is not science's aim to disprove any god exists.
If there is evidence to prove something then science will accept it.

It is also probable that any god would hide his existence on the grounds that people wouldn’t have faith if they knew.
:confused: :bugeye: You're serious, aren't you??
Not only do you believe in an unprovable deity, you are now assigning traits to him to satisfy your own belief.
Probable? Compared to what?


Atheism is considered modern and no one likes to think of themselves as outmoded. As such, they just ‘say’ they are and don’t give it much thought.
Please. Atheism? Modern?
It is not Atheism that is modern it is the ability for people to think for themselves that is modern without fear of reprisals.
Atheism is still a minority thorughout the world.
Don't confuse Apathy with Atheism.


Put a gun to their head and give them a chance to pray… I doubt many atheists would say there is nothing to pray to.
Don't confuse prayer with an outward showing of hope.
I can watch a soccer match and "pray" that they score the penalty.
That is merely an outward sign of "hope" - not belief in a God.
I would certainly "pray" if someone was about to shoot me - but it would be nothing more than hoping they don't.


It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man. Whether he was the son of God too or not is debatable. :eek: So now you're questioning your own religious beliefs that Jesus was the son of your God? (I'm guessing at your religion as Christian).

Why must it be a nonsense fantasy? You can’t prove either with science. Science has no ability to touch this… It can’t prove or disprove it.Thus it is a nonsense fantasy.
Thus it is illogical and irrational.

Science is and has always been an agnostic.
I thought science was nothing more than the search for fact.
To assign a religious persuasion to it is utterly meaningless.

If you’re an atheist, then science isn’t with you anymore then it’s with the passionately religious.
...
No more profound that that Science cannot prove they don’t exist, have existed, might exist, or could exist.
...
Science has no opinion on God.
Science does have an opinion of God - that it is an unprovable concept and thus meaningless. God is not a theory as theories must be either provable or disprovable.
It is not science's task to disprove the existence of something - rather those that believe in it to prove its existence.
And then why believe in something that will forever be unprovable.

The answer is that Atheists DON'T need to believe in anything else. Religious people DO, or at worst too lazy to think outside of their brainwashing from birth.


I am atheist.
I believe in what science (the scientific method) will tell me.
It can not tell me, ever, that an unprovable being exists.
I thus do not believe it does.

I am a Christian.
I believe in what science knows.
It cannot tell me, ever, that God doesn't exist.
I thus do not disbelieve that he does.

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists.

Intelligent Design in the creation and nature of the universe is about as close as you can get to supreme [beings and gods.however I dont believe in I D, to me it makes no senses, the scientific world is split, on the subject.

Creation science/Intelligent Design is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science/Intelligent Design is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science/Intelligent Design differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.

I am a Christian.
I believe in what science knows.
It cannot tell me, ever, that God doesn't exist. and never would it try, it would be stupid." he that asserts a thing, has to prove a thing."
I thus do not disbelieve that he does. do you mean, "I thus do not disbelieve that he does'nt".

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists.
Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.

Okay - then what you're really saying is that religion has a positive effect on society - whether as an individual or by giving the governing body a means to control.

And this is the reason for which it was created in the first instance.

I don't think too many people will disagree that religion serves a purpose and can be beneficial - but it is purely psychological in benefit. And this certainly does not offer any evidence for the existence of god.

Why not have a non-deist religion?
Surely that would be preferable - in that it wouldn't rely on the unprovable?

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...This is the reason that religion was created by MAN - in order to control MAN - to bribe him through reward and fear to behave himself.

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist.Not disputed by me. I merely hold that the concept of theism is unscientific, irrational and illogic. The rewards are there for all to see - but so is other forms of brainwashing.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.And this proves God?
Again, noone's disputing the obvious benefits of religion - although there are also drawbacks - as seen throughout history - but why theism? Why a belief in something that will never be proven?


Hypothetically, if I could offer you an alternative to Christianity that offered all of the same benefits but without the need to believe in an unprovable deity, would you still hold to your religion?

Hypothetically, if I took away all of the benefits of your religion, would you still hold to it?

None deist religions aren't as strong. Therefore the values aren't as strong. Therefore the effects are less.

it's like dietGod... Same great taste but less filling... do as you will.


All I'm doing is defend religion from the perspective that god doesn't exist. I DO believe God exists.


There is nothing illogical about doing something that works. As to science, that's about empiricism... and empiricism doesn't say you need to understand it. It says things can be good just because they are.


I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT YOU CAN"T PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD! YOU"RE MISSING THE WHOLE POINT!


Hypothetically, perhaps but I would be more tempted to violate the moral rules.

Hypothetically, probably not.

But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists. ”

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.

A religious answer to that is that that's how Sky-Daddy or -Mommy wants it, or that ya get yer own reserved little spot in that cloud up over there. An Atheistic answer would be that it's just a good thing to do.

Why do religious people life a moral life? I'm sure they give many reasons, but I'll bet their only real reason is that they want to be in their religion's version of Heaven for all eternity. Some probably don't care about being good just for the hell of it. They just know that that's how to get into Heaven. They're taking advantage of a bribe.

Athelwulf, not to expect anything is what Jesus said. You can argue this point if you want, but the facts are the notion of grace avoids this thought, at least for the long term. But sometimes, and this shouldn't happen to option, you will attempt to rationalize doing something wrong, and in the spur of the moment it's useful to accept purely on benefits of following God.

In answer to the hypothetical question about swapping for a non-Theistic religion, Karmashock said Hypothetically, perhaps but I would be more tempted to violate the moral rules.This means that you hold back from committing sins because it's part of a rule book that you have been trained to follow. I won't presuppose your reason for doing so - maybe you do it because you're scared of hellfire, or maybe you do it simply because you love God, and God set up the rules, and you can't show that you love God if you break his rules (irrespective of ending up in Hell).

But an atheist, faced with a moral choice does without either the fear of extreme agony for eternity or the need to demonstrate love to some Father- (or Mother-)figure. At the basis of all morality is the basic question, "Does this action I contemplate cause harm to someone else?" Those are the only moral choices that really matter. And in fact the choice is generally made (in either direction) by reference to that question rather than, well, "WWJD?" by people of faith as well as people without faith. Everything is a matter of weight, of pros and cons.

On the lowest level, lets say you have the opportunity to commit adultery. The reason that adultery is bad is not because God has ordained that Man and Woman shall be as One, and that consequently adulterers are stoned to death or otherwise censured. Adultery is bad because it causes pain to the innocent party or parties. It can lead to the break up of marriage which is frequently almost intolerably painful to the children involved. A religious person who only considered the rules might consider that it's worth while a risk to take - risking eternal damnation but possibly escaping that by demonstrating sufficient repentance and penance after the fact. An atheist does not have any such get-out-of-jail-free clause only has the genuine moral issues of "who is going to get hurt?" Of course, in reality I don't believe that religious people (or at least the vast majority of them) consider God as their first priority either. If they succumb, possibly they think about God and what He might think afterwards - but in the process of succumbing they were really balancing the same moral choices as the atheist (who's no less likely to succumb, by the way, in case you think I'm making the case that all atheists are moral paragons).

Moral choices get harder and surely more frequent, the more authority you have. If you have people's lives in your hand, moral choices come up all the time - and again, I believe that religious people and atheists make those choices based on the same balances, though phrased slightly differently "what is the best outcome for the most people?" A religiouis person could absolve themselves from responsibility by highlighting some clause in Leviticus or whatever that might be interpreted as not wilfully depriving someone of their living. But they don't - like the atheist they have to base their decision on the ultimate good, regardless of what God has to say on the issue. If making someone redundant helps the company weather a bad patch and avoid bankruptcy, then clearly the majority of people have been considered over and above the needs of the individual.

If you get to Presidential level, there is scarcely a decision you can make that won't have a bad impact on some level. From The American PresidentAide: What you did tonight was very presidential.
The President: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.No doubt George W. Bush prayed to God for guidance when making similar decisions, but the answers he got boiled down to balancing political gain for his people against the lives of 100,000 Iraqis. I personally have no doubt that his decision was wrong in view of the consequences to life, but maybe that would not square with God's viewpoint. Maybe there is a God who does answer prayers, and God told him what to do. That would put me in direct conflict with God because I feel my position is more moral than His. That doesn't mean I'm right. But it does mean that some morals that supposedly come from God or the Bible, I find morally reprehensible.

(additional note - I disagree with GWB's decision, but I'm not claiming he committed an absolute moral wrong when he made it. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that kind of decision.)

It’s common information. No major archeological society disagrees with this point. Jesus was a real man.

Sorry, you're wrong.

so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.
Merely that societies need identities that cold soulless nihilism can't give them. Such systems have societies that fall apart. There is no group identity and so people just act in their own best interest. This has much the same effect as every cell in your body deciding to do what is personally best for it. You'd cease to be a human being after about 2 minutes.

You need something to hold society together... if you look at what neocons do, all of it reinforces social and cultural identity. You may and likely do disagree with said policies, but at least with this prism you might begin to understand them. For well over 50 years there has been a growing feelings that the very core of this civilization has been unraveling. The above actions are being taken to rewind the system and perhaps even make it self winding into the future.

The point is that you must at all times avoid extremes. Extremes are nearly always bad. a society with no professed identity, if taken to an extreme, has no group identity and ceases to be a group. On the flip side, a society with too strong an identity become a mere puppet to that vision and so cannot adapt, grow, or innovate. Humans are attracted to absolutes for some reason, but it almost always leads to our ruin.

We must thread the needle. I think most of the comments that have been made in this forum are correct, but only to an extent. As nearly any social property approaches the absolute, it becomes increasingly unstable and destructive. I can't at the moment think of anything that is good in the absolute.


the philosophers of the west call this moderation... the philosophers of the east call it balance. Call it what you will, absolutes are nearly always to be avoided.
============================
In answer to the hypothetical question about swapping for a non-Theistic religion, Karmashock said This means that you hold back from committing sins because it's part of a rule book that you have been trained to follow. I won't presuppose your reason for doing so - maybe you do it because you're scared of hellfire, or maybe you do it simply because you love God, and God set up the rules, and you can't show that you love God if you break his rules (irrespective of ending up in Hell).

I'm just being honest. These systems were reinforced over time because they were seen as necessary to preserving that code. True hegemony doesn't need force, it has something more powerful... obedience.


The simple fact is that societies are more moral under said systems. Despite your bold statements about your own untouchable morality, the simple fact is that societies as a whole do not work that way. So whether you really are that moral or not is irrelevant. Religion isn't made for you or any one man. It is for whole civilizations or if you believe then it is for all humanity. Either way it presents a powerful moral code that is not easily violated without generating guilt or fear in the minds of the society as a whole. Over all this is fine as the rules being set down aren't the sort of things you want people to violate anyway. Don't murder people, don't steal, don't make a nuisance of yourself.

It's all rather basic and whether god handed it down or not it's a very good way to fill a specific aspect of any society.

(additional note - I disagree with GWB's decision, but I'm not claiming he committed an absolute moral wrong when he made it. I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that kind of decision.)
what exactly do you mean?
==============================
Sorry, you're wrong.
You must be in possession of special information, because most historical scholars agree that he was a real person. They don't say he was the Son of God or performed any miracles, but they do concede that he was a real person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I don't know why you have a hard time conceding this point... it proves nothing against the atheist cause one way or the other. :)

Love and peace, Karmashock.

That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"

The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.... We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Why I Am Not A Christian"

The real enemy is dogma. Religion, certainly the Christian one anyway, reinforces dogmatic certainty, groupthink, persecution of outsiders. The balance sheet for the overall effect of these dark superstitions is overwhelmingly negative.

You must be in possession of special information, because most historical scholars agree that he was a real person. They don't say he was the Son of God or performed any miracles, but they do concede that he was a real person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I don't know why you have a hard time conceding this point... it proves nothing against the atheist cause one way or the other

I think you missed what I said 'You're wrong' to. The claim was that "no major archaeological society disagrees with this point [that jesus was a real person]". That is not factual.

That some Historians assume a real jesus might have existed, doesn't negate my disagreement with the posters claim.

The site you link to states: "The primary source of historical knowledge about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels, as many historians believe them to have originated from sources written within living memory of Jesus. Evidence for a historical Jesus is also provided by the Epistles, especially those by Paul."

This is very much akin to saying that something is true because it says it is. By this same token one could claim anything existed, from bigfoot to Thor.

However, people can believe as they wish, I was just pointing out that there's error with the posters quote.

K?

It's nice to see that my thread is a hit. :)

Karmashock,

Atheists will not get a place in any heaven. They get oblivion. Whether there is a God(s) or not... none of them will give the Atheists anything.

True, but that doesn't mean we're not perhaps the most deserving.

I don't say that to be derisive to atheists, you're welcome to your belief system. But you're certainly not going to get a spot in paradise for defaming God.

Do you know what "defame" means? Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)'s definition for "defame (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defame)" says, "To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel."

Water,

Athelwulf,

Do you believe in heaven?

If you are an atheist, I'd say you don't believe in heaven.

But how then can you say

"It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot."

-- this testifies of a belief in heaven.

If you are an atheist and don't believe in heaven, why then say that you might end up there?

I don't believe in Heaven. It's just a food-for-thought, matter-of-fact thing that popped into my head. The whole post was in a "Let's-just-assume-Heaven-exists-for-a-moment" tone. I hope it was noticeable.

Okinrus,

Athelwulf, not to expect anything is what Jesus said. You can argue this point if you want, but the facts are the notion of grace avoids this thought, at least for the long term. But sometimes, and this shouldn't happen to option, you will attempt to rationalize doing something wrong, and in the spur of the moment it's useful to accept purely on benefits of following God.

Mind rephrasing that so I can understand what ye'r going on about?

“
But then the question becomes "Why believe?"
And "Why should others believe?"

Try and answer those without starting from the assumption that God exists.

Makes societies stronger... cultures stronger... makes organizing and keeping order easier... answers a lot of questions that can't be answered...

There are millions of reasons religion is positive even if god doesn't exist. Societies without religion have a vacuum and are open to exterior forces that do have them.

People like to believe… so you might as well have them believe in something positive.so what your saying karma, is unless society is delusional it can not function.

Merely that societies need identities that cold soulless nihilism can't give them. Such systems have societies that fall apart. There is no group identity and so people just act in their own best interest. This has much the same effect as every cell in your body deciding to do what is personally best for it. You'd cease to be a human being after about 2 minutes.

You need something to hold society together... so as I understand it unless society has a god to follow then it will fall apart, have you forgotten japan, china, korea, etc if you look at what neocons do, all of it reinforces social and cultural identity. neocon do the opposite to that, they cause derision, and mistrust, these are not things, that hold a society together, but makes it's people distrust others, just like macarthyism, in th 50's You may and likely do disagree with said policies, but at least with this prism you might begin to understand them. For well over 50 years there has been a growing feelings that the very core of this civilization has been unraveling. The above actions are being taken to rewind the system and perhaps even make it self winding into the future. and the core problem is religion, (karma:you have it all arse about face(back to front))

The point is that you must at all times avoid extremes. Extremes are nearly always bad. a society with no professed identity, if taken to an extreme, has no group identity and ceases to be a group. On the flip side, a society with too strong an identity become a mere puppet to that vision and so cannot adapt, grow, or innovate. Humans are attracted to absolutes for some reason, but it almost always leads to our ruin.

We must thread the needle. I think most of the comments that have been made in this forum are correct, but only to an extent. As nearly any social property approaches the absolute, it becomes increasingly unstable and destructive. I can't at the moment think of anything that is good in the absolute. the philosophers of the west call this moderation... the philosophers of the east call it balance. Call it what you will, absolutes are nearly always to be avoided. yes agreed we must get rid of the religious fundamentists, the hard liners, the neocons, and perhaps society will triumph in the end.

Why do religious people life a moral life? I'm sure they give many reasons, but I'll bet their only real reason is that they want to be in their religion's version of Heaven for all eternity. Some probably don't care about being good just for the hell of it. They just know that that's how to get into Heaven. They're taking advantage of a bribe.
It is ridiculous to assert that every person of a religious faith adheres to their beliefs because of this. I'm sure that some people do exist that conduct themselves in a moral manner out of fear, but there are also people who hold great disdain for people who do not find intrinsic good in morality.

So why do Atheists live a moral life? They have no incentive to do so; they believe that they're just gonna rot in the ground when they're dead, and that that's the end of it. They have no Sky-Daddy or -Mommy to please, and no Heaven to spend eternity in. But they live a moral life because they believe it's just a good thing to do. They're living moral lives just for the hell of it. They have no need for bribery.
Every atheist lives a moral life? I doubt that there is any group of people in which every member lives a truly moral life. There will be religious people who break their morals, and there will be atheists that break their morals. Yes, it is true that the atheists are probably not motivated to live morally out of fear of a supreme being raining down brimstone upon them for immoral actions, but it is ridiculous to say that every person who subscribes to a religious faith and lives morally does so out of fear.

So it seems that the religious, even if they think they're living a moral life only because it's nice, are being selfish in that they just want a spot in that cloud up over there. Atheists, on the other hand, don't think they're gonna be rewarded for their morality for eternity after they're dead, but it doesn't matter to them. They still are gonna live a moral life.
How is it that they're being selfish? If their actions will get them a ticket to Heaven, how is that being selfish (and immoral)? What about evangelicals? They try to get people to live morally so that they will live in Heaven after death too! How is that selfish?

It seems that the selfish people in this equation — the religious — will in fact lose their spot in Heaven, while the true humanitarians — the Atheists — will take their spot.
It's funny that you see all religious people as selfish and all atheists as humanitarians (almost as funny as you capitalizing atheists and not religious).

Ozymandias,

It is ridiculous to assert that every person of a religious faith adheres to their beliefs because of this. I'm sure that some people do exist that conduct themselves in a moral manner out of fear, but there are also people who hold great disdain for people who do not find intrinsic good in morality.
Every atheist lives a moral life? I doubt that there is any group of people in which every member lives a truly moral life. There will be religious people who break their morals, and there will be atheists that break their morals. Yes, it is true that the atheists are probably not motivated to live morally out of fear of a supreme being raining down brimstone upon them for immoral actions, but it is ridiculous to say that every person who subscribes to a religious faith and lives morally does so out of fear.

I admit I should have worded my post differently. I'm sure there are exceptions.

How is it that they're being selfish? If their actions will get them a ticket to Heaven, how is that being selfish (and immoral)?

The bribe in and of itself doesn't make them selfish. They're selfish if they actually take advantage of the bribe.

What about evangelicals? They try to get people to live morally so that they will live in Heaven after death too! How is that selfish?

Maybe they're not entirely selfish in that sense, but they're selfish in another sense. Most evangelicals think that their religion is the "correct" one, and that everyone must share that religion. They think they're right and anyone else that doesn't agree with them is wrong. So they're still selfish.

It's funny that you see all religious people as selfish and all atheists as humanitarians (almost as funny as you capitalizing atheists and not religious).

I don't see all religious people as selfish and all Atheists as humanitarians. That was my faulty wording to which I've already admited.

I don't capitalize "religious" kuz it's a generic term. For the same reason, I wouldn't, and don't, capitalize "nonreligious". I capitalize "Atheist" kuz it's a specific term. I would, and do, for the same reason capitalize "Christian" or "Jew" or "Buddhist".

I admit I should have worded my post differently. I'm sure there are exceptions.
Ah, okay. That makes sense, then.

The bribe in and of itself doesn't make them selfish. They're selfish if they actually take advantage of the bribe.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. How are they taking advantage of the bribe? I believe it is immoral to do moral things if they are being done only to get a ticket to Heaven. Is that what you mean?

Maybe they're not entirely selfish in that sense, but they're selfish in another sense. Most evangelicals think that their religion is the "correct" one, and that everyone must share that religion. They think they're right and anyone else that doesn't agree with them is wrong. So they're still selfish.
Is there anyone who believes that everyone is right? I don't see how it is selfish to believe in one thing so fervently that you are intolerant of other beliefs. It's possible to still have regard and concern for other people, even if you believe that the system they follow is ridiculous.

I don't see all religious people as selfish and all Atheists as humanitarians. That was my faulty wording to which I've already admited.
I understand. Thanks for the clarification!

I suppose entrance into Heaven here depends on your beliefs. I'm pretty sure that, to enter a Christian Heaven, you not only need to live a relatively moral life but you must also believe in the essential Christian tenets of faith. This would make it impossible for the most humanitarian and righteous Atheist to get into Heaven.

I don't capitalize "religious" kuz it's a generic term. For the same reason, I wouldn't, and don't, capitalize "nonreligious". I capitalize "Atheist" kuz it's a specific term. I would, and do, for the same reason capitalize "Christian" or "Jew" or "Buddhist".
I see. I have just run into so many people that, out of a lack of respect for religions, refuse to capitalize any of them. I thought you were the same way. I apologize for making a hasty conclusion.

Ozymandias,

I don't quite understand what you're saying. How are they taking advantage of the bribe? I believe it is immoral to do moral things if they are being done only to get a ticket to Heaven. Is that what you mean?

Yes.

Is there anyone who believes that everyone is right?

No, but there are people that don't impose their beliefs on others.

I don't see how it is selfish to believe in one thing so fervently that you are intolerant of other beliefs. It's possible to still have regard and concern for other people, even if you believe that the system they follow is ridiculous.

The problem is that they actively try to make everyone's beliefs match theirs.

I understand. Thanks for the clarification!

No problem. :)

I suppose entrance into Heaven here depends on your beliefs. I'm pretty sure that, to enter a Christian Heaven, you not only need to live a relatively moral life but you must also believe in the essential Christian tenets of faith. This would make it impossible for the most humanitarian and righteous Atheist to get into Heaven.

True, but the point of my post is to show that some Atheists are just as deserving of Heaven as Christians (although my original wording doesn't show that very clearly :o).

I see. I have just run into so many people that, out of a lack of respect for religions, refuse to capitalize any of them. I thought you were the same way. I apologize for making a hasty conclusion.

:)

Yes.
In that case, I don't believe that those people will be getting into Heaven anyway.

No, but there are people that don't impose their beliefs on others.
Isn't it vital to make a distinction between people who are trying to expose other people to what they believe is good and right and those who intimidate others into their religion for power? I don't see immorality in telling other people "look, this is great!" I <i>do</i> see immorality in "this is my religion, it is now yours unless you want to die."

The problem is that they actively try to make everyone's beliefs match theirs.
They are doing what they believe is right. Is it right to tell someone who is knee-deep in evil acts to live a moral life? Isn't that imposing your beliefs on someone else?

True, but the point of my post is to show that some Atheists are just as deserving of Heaven as Christians (although my original wording doesn't show that very clearly ).
Maybe better wording would be that atheists can be as moral, if not moreso, than Christians? Involving Heaven has clearly caused <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44589"> some confusion. </a>

So what of morality? We are animals like any other animal.

Is it immoral for two animals to kill each other? No.

Is it immoral for me (an animal) to kill another human animal? Absolutely not.

What morality - be nice to each other - why so we can get a meal (job/ work). So we can reproduce and make more animals.

We do what any other animal does to survive for a few short years and reproduce and continue our evolutionary line. (all functions and feelings are genetically encoded)

We only act in a nice way to F***, feed or find shelter. Or impress others with our seemingly nice actions to achieve the same results.

It is not immoral to kill, steal or rape. I dont know where you get this crap from - we are animals, slightly more intelligent than monkeys. Stop deluding yourselves we are anything more.

So what of morality? We are animals like any other animal.have you actually read athuls opening post.

Is it immoral for two animals to kill each other? No. as they know no better.

Is it immoral for me (an animal) to kill another human animal? Absolutely not.of course not, as you know better.

What morality - be nice to each other - why so we can get a meal (job/ work). So we can reproduce and make more animals.no just because it's nice to be nice, it take less facial muscles to smile, then it does to frown.

We do what any other animal does to survive for a few short years and reproduce and continue our evolutionary line. (all functions and feelings are genetically encoded)exactly, that's the meaning of life, to propagate the species.

We only act in a nice way to F***, feed or find shelter. Or impress others with our seemingly nice actions to achieve the same results.yes some of them are decieving, but I have'nt met to many.

It is not immoral to kill, steal or rape. I dont know where you get this crap from - we are animals, slightly more intelligent than monkeys. Stop deluding yourselves we are anything more.
drugs
sex
self mutilation
suicide
masturbation
altruism
selfishness
greed
wealth
money
homosexuality

None of these things are immoral. None of these things are evil.

murder
discrimination
malice
destruction
collectivism
domination
rape
stealing

These things are immoral.

The only thing that can be immoral is that which harms another. Anything one does for oneself or to oneself cannot be immoral, unless it harms another as a direct and intentional result.

Furthermore, nothing that one cannot control can be immoral. One cannot be immoral because they are a particular race. One cannot be immoral because other people like them have been immoral. One cannot be immoral because they were brought up in wealth. One cannot be immoral for disliking the taste of asparagus. One cannot be immoral for being homosexual.

Having an ego is moral. Thinking you are good is moral. Being wealthy is moral. Being powerful is moral. It is what you do with these things that is immoral.l

selfishness and greed are moral, altruism is immoral? What?
Selfishness and greed are very often the cause of rape, murder, discrimination, malice, domination, and stealing.
What immoral thing does altruism cause?
Weakness? That is a lame duck.

sorry wrong list my mistake, been rectified.

have you actually read athuls opening post.
as they know no better.
of course not, as you know better.
no just because it's nice to be nice, it take less facial muscles to smile, then it does to frown.
exactly, that's the meaning of life, to propagate the species.
yes some of them are decieving, but I have'nt met to many.

drugs
sex
self mutilation
suicide
masturbation
altruism
selfishness
greed
wealth
money
homosexuality

None of these things are immoral. None of these things are evil.

murder
discrimination
malice
destruction
collectivism
domination
rape
stealing

These things are immoral.

The only thing that can be immoral is that which harms another. Anything one does for oneself or to oneself cannot be immoral, unless it harms another as a direct and intentional result.

Furthermore, nothing that one cannot control can be immoral. One cannot be immoral because they are a particular race. One cannot be immoral because other people like them have been immoral. One cannot be immoral because they were brought up in wealth. One cannot be immoral for disliking the taste of asparagus. One cannot be immoral for being homosexual.

Having an ego is moral. Thinking you are good is moral. Being wealthy is moral. Being powerful is moral. It is what you do with these things that is immoral.l

Yes, I have read opening post. It questions moral values, as does my post?

You very neatly define morality for us. What gives you the right to do this?

You only copy parts of religious morality and seek to call it your own.

You tell me we know better than to kill........sorry thousands of killings every day many without remorse....who knows better?

Fuedal Japanese society was very moral, but samurai could kill on a whim. Why do you think your moral values are more corect than anyone elses???

The original post questions a religious persons right to morarilty. I question both a religious persons right and an atheists right, as both are equally based on false beliefs.

The original post says athiests are humanists. I say modern athiests are semi-religionists who judge by moral standards which are not implicit in the human condition.

Neither religionists nor athiests have any right to moral high ground, as the basic idea of human morarilty is false, and the morality discussed in the original posts is that of certain modern society only, and is therfore not definitive of all moral values anyway.

You very neatly define morality for us. What gives you the right to do this?she's not defining your morals, shes generalising, we all do it, it's a debate forum.

You only copy parts of religious morality and seek to call it your own.no thats back to front, before religion man had morals.

You tell me we know better than to kill........sorry thousands of killings every day many without remorse....who knows better? it's inherently in us all, not to kill.
but unfortunatly some do it anyway, and there usuelly out of there heads anyway.

Fuedal Japanese society was very moral, but samurai could kill on a whim. Why do you think your moral values are more correct than anyone elses???a society based on hero worship, honour and morality, whos to say without centurys of indoctrination in to this culture we can only guess. shes generalising as I said earlier.



The original post questions a religious persons right to morarilty. I question both a religious persons right and an atheists right, as both are equally based on false beliefs
.why?, and how so?.

The original post says athiests are humanists. I say modern athiests are semi-religionists who judge by moral standards which are not implicit in the human condition.why?, and how so again?, atheism is not a religion.

Neither religionists nor athiests have any right to moral high ground, as the basic idea of human morarilty is false, and the morality discussed in the original posts is that of certain modern society only, and is therfore not definitive of all moral values anyway.why?, and how so thrice. please supply reference material for these assertions.
thank you.

Ok, interesting post. All the way from heaven to the debate of god. Might I suggest that science always has the upper hand because the debate is does GOD exist? Not which one exists SCIENCE or GOD? Therefore, we all can accept that even those who believe in god accept that science and its laws are true. Now interesting thing said by Atheist is "Prove me god exists." and the theists say "prove me he/she/they doesn't/don't."

See, to prove something, you need proof. To disprove something, there needs be a valid foundation that claims it true. How can we disprove something when you haven't proved it? For something to not exist you do not need any proof. Cause you cannot prove/disprove the non-existant.

Ok, interesting post. All the way from heaven to the debate of god.
You are the only person who has switched over to that, everyone else is talking about morals, and whether an atheist would "deserve" heaven. But, generalising on this is futile anyway.

Might I suggest that science always has the upper hand because the debate is does GOD exist? Not which one exists SCIENCE or GOD?
My existence is far more crucial than any scientific theory or advancement. Humans lived for many years without science. We can't say whether or not the concept of God was necessary, except by projecting ourselves into our predecessor's shoes. So someone could say that science is unnecessary, but the idea of God is or was necessary. But apples are not oranges anyway.

Why do you say that science is a better religion than religion, while you also say that science is not a religion?



To disprove something, there needs be a valid foundation that claims it true. How can we disprove something when you haven't proved it? For something to not exist you do not need any proof. Cause you cannot prove/disprove the non-existant.
That is like saying every scientific theory must be proved before it can be disproved. That is crazy-talk. To disprove something you must show it does not exist. When people "disprove" bigfoot, they show that the guy who made the movie was a fraud, and that the guy who had the tracks all over his land had a bunch of wooden feet to make prints with. Nobody had to prove bigfoot existed before they could try to disprove the idea. You have to disprove the claims of theists before you can claim you have proof.

P.S. MIS-T, hi, you have no foundation from which to assert that humanity had morals before they had religion, I think.

she's not defining your morals, shes generalising, we all do it, it's a debate forum.
no thats back to front, before religion man had morals.
it's inherently in us all, not to kill.
but unfortunatly some do it anyway, and there usuelly out of there heads anyway.
a society based on hero worship, honour and morality, whos to say without centurys of indoctrination in to this culture we can only guess. shes generalising as I said earlier.


why?, and how so?.
why?, and how so again?, atheism is not a religion.
why?, and how so thrice. please supply reference material for these assertions.
thank you.

No, what you are saying here just simple isn'y true.

Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals" that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

Moral values have no objective reality, they are subjective and change between persons and societies. A persons moral code is a product of their belief system. Even people who say they have no belief system, believe in a moral code and this becomes their belief system.

All belief systems are exactly that "belief", and are therefore inventions of mind and have no foundation in reality. MORAL VALUES ARE SIMPLY WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN.

Musta is not generalising, these are her particular moral values. The frightening thing is that like most atheists, she will deny they are belief, will deny any possibilty she is wrong, will insist they are a concrete reality and will try to assert her moral values on me and anyone else she can.

I call athiests semi-religionists because to be an athiest is simple to deny god, this is purely a negative statement. To state I am an athiest offers no specific theory on life it simply denies one. As all our modern societies and morals have developed from once religious societies - an athiest cannot avoid "culturally" adopting this some of these values.

"Out there heads that kill"; policemen; soldiers; executioners; abortionists. Do you live in the same world as me?

Last question - why is Musta allowed to generalise because its a debate, but I have to provide evidence. This hardly seems fair?

By the way, although I have no fixed religion - neither am I an athiest.

Answers please............................

cole your wrong. No, what you are saying here just simple isn'y true.

Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals" that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded with is neighbour (Enlightened Self-Interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. For the treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness. and self-defense. Because man does not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to treat there fellow man the same way.) then they became a group and then a community, and then societies spreading ethical religion through morality.

Religious morality is usually premised upon a revealed "will" of a deity, either in the form of a Scripture (Bible; Koran; Vedas; Book of Mormon) or in the form of a living prophet or spokesperson (the Pope; the Mormon President; an Imam; a swami; a medicine man) or in the form of personal inspiration (that still, small voice; the Pentecostal "gift of knowledge"). However, since I cannot verify any of the past or current claims for the existence of a god, I have no business basing my sense of morality upon any revelation (unless the revelation has been established as the law of the land, in which case I am going up against the State, not a god).

If no gods exist, then all alleged revelations are all human contrivances. In other words, I cannot distinguish between the so-called will of a god and human invention, so I default to seeing all claims of revelation as human inventions -- or at least acting as if this were the case. So, if, for all practical purposes, all morality is the invention of humans, then I would think that we do best to treat all public discussions of morality as one would a scientific claim. In science, all claims to knowledge are subject to revision, and all ideas are put before the public with the specific aim of encouraging the public to scrutinize those ideas. If an idea of mine should be shown to have serious flaws, I agree to follow the results of that scrutiny and reassess or even abandon my idea.


"Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
Thomas Jefferson

no need for religion.




Moral values have no objective reality, they are subjective and change between persons and societies. A persons moral code is a product of their belief system. Even people who say they have no belief system, believe in a moral code and this becomes their belief system.no there believe system is a produce of there moral code.

All belief systems are exactly that "belief", and are therefore inventions of mind and have no foundation in reality. MORAL VALUES ARE SIMPLY WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN.no, your forgeting, Common moral decency( no need for religion) Enlightened Self-Interest.( no need for religion) self-defense.(no need for religion)

Musta is not generalising, these are her particular moral values. The frightening thing is that like most atheists, she will deny they are belief, will deny any possibilty she is wrong, will insist they are a concrete reality and will try to assert her moral values on me and anyone else she can. we all generalise, no you have that back to front only the religious preach.

I call athiests semi-religionists because to be an athiest is simple to deny god, you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.this is purely a negative statement. To state I am an athiest offers no specific theory on life it simply denies one. no, it's more enlightened, it's to know your possition in the way of things(to propagate the species, to make a heaven here on earth.)As all our modern societies and morals have developed from once religious societies - an athiest cannot avoid "culturally" adopting this some of these values. back to front again.
"Out there heads that kill"; policemen; soldiers; executioners; Do you live in the same world as me?policeman, solders, executioners, come under judicial morality and yes the kill, but are given this right by the respective goverments, it does not mean that killing is not wrong.it's the socipath the psychopath etc that kills, who are Out there heads.

Last question - why is Musta allowed to generalise because its a debate, but I have to provide evidence. This hardly seems fair?you generalise I generalise we all do, if asked to back up her assertion musta would, lets put it another way, most would not make an assertion without first having some kind of backup.

By the way, although I have no fixed religion - neither am I an athiest.

Answers please............................good for you.

cole your wrong. when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded with is neighbour (Enlightened Self-Interest. Under this principle, it makes perfectly good sense for a person to treat others kindly and helpfully. For the treatment will likely cause them to reciprocate with similar behavior, thereby increasing the person's happiness. and self-defense. Because man does not want to be murdered, robbed, raped, or otherwise injured, their desire to be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully leads them to treat there fellow man the same way.) then they became a group and then a community, and then societies spreading ethical religion through morality.

Religious morality is usually premised upon a revealed "will" of a deity, either in the form of a Scripture (Bible; Koran; Vedas; Book of Mormon) or in the form of a living prophet or spokesperson (the Pope; the Mormon President; an Imam; a swami; a medicine man) or in the form of personal inspiration (that still, small voice; the Pentecostal "gift of knowledge"). However, since I cannot verify any of the past or current claims for the existence of a god, I have no business basing my sense of morality upon any revelation (unless the revelation has been established as the law of the land, in which case I am going up against the State, not a god).

If no gods exist, then all alleged revelations are all human contrivances. In other words, I cannot distinguish between the so-called will of a god and human invention, so I default to seeing all claims of revelation as human inventions -- or at least acting as if this were the case. So, if, for all practical purposes, all morality is the invention of humans, then I would think that we do best to treat all public discussions of morality as one would a scientific claim. In science, all claims to knowledge are subject to revision, and all ideas are put before the public with the specific aim of encouraging the public to scrutinize those ideas. If an idea of mine should be shown to have serious flaws, I agree to follow the results of that scrutiny and reassess or even abandon my idea.


"Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."
Thomas Jefferson

no need for religion.



no there believe system is a produce of there moral code.
no, your forgeting, Common moral decency( no need for religion) Enlightened Self-Interest.( no need for religion) self-defense.(no need for religion)
we all generalise, no you have that back to front only the religious preach.
you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.no, it's more enlightened, it's to know your possition in the way of things(to propagate the species, to make a heaven here on earth.)back to front again.
policeman, solders, executioners, come under judicial morality and yes the kill, but are given this right by the respective goverments, it does not mean that killing is not wrong.it's the socipath the psychopath etc that kills, who are Out there heads.
you generalise I generalise we all do, if asked to back up her assertion musta would, lets put it another way, most would not make an assertion without first having some kind of backup.
good for you.

Well, I see we both fully agree that there is no need for religion, that is good. What I am saying is that we are all unavoidably influenced by the ideas of religion

We both agree that morals vary between people and sytems (you seem to think judicial morality is different from other morality?) - that is good. It also proves that morals are subjective!

"Only the religious preach" - yes it is true the religious are the worst preachers, but not the only - you are preaching your point of view to me.

"Common moral decency" - is your perception of what common moral decency is. Or do you believe that if the majority of people believe something this becomes common morality and therefore must be correct - sorry this is 'mob rules' mentality.

You say if we cant prove god exists we should assume there is no god. This is very intelligent of you and very logical. I fully agree with your analysis. ALL I am asking you to do is apply the same logic to morals. You cant prove they exist. We can measure thoughts and feeling by electrical and chemical signals in the brain and nervous system - they can be proved. But where are your morals can I touch them - no - they dont exist. They are a fabrication of your mind.

And this stuff about "man becoming social before religious" is fascinating. You should publish , I'm sure the anthropological community would be greatful to have this UNPROVED conundrum solved for them.
From the very earlist record of man there is evidence of burial with tools / ceremony and evidence for very rudimentary religion. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims of an evolved social structure prior to the first rudimentary pagan religious concepts.

cole

you can not deny the which does not exist, that would be moronic.

By the way, when I said an athiest denies god. It is obvious that I mean denies the existence of god.

To say "I am an athiest" is a negative definition of self. I can say I am not a doctor, this is a true statement. But I do not define myself as "I am not a doctor". Why define yourself as what you are not - define yourself as what you are .

Well, I see we both fully agree that there is no need for religion, that is good. What I am saying is that we are all unavoidably influenced by the ideas of religionreligion has as lot to answer for. it's a negative influence we had for millienia.

We both agree that morals vary between people and sytems (you seem to think judicial morality is different from other morality?) - that is good. It also proves that morals are subjective!thats because it is.
I could not kill even if I was in the army but they would expect me to.

"Only the religious preach" - yes it is true the religious are the worst preachers, but not the only - you are preaching your point of view to me.no I am offering my slant on things, it for you to decide to accept or not, to tell you how I act or feel is ok, but to tell you how you all should act or feel is preaching, understand.

"Common moral decency" - is your perception of what common moral decency is. Or do you believe that if the majority of people believe something this becomes common morality and therefore must be correct - sorry this is 'mob rules' mentality. wtf are you talking about"mob rule " what crap. Common moral decency is just that, common to everyone.

And this stuff about "man becoming social before religious" is fascinating. You should publish , I'm sure the anthropological community would be greatful to have this UNPROVED conundrum solved for them.
From the very earlist record of man there is evidence of burial with tools / ceremony and evidence for very rudimentary religion. You have absolutely NO evidence to support your claims of an evolved social structure prior to the first rudimentary pagan religious concepts. so your saying without religion man could not of become social.
so two cavemen meet waving there spears at each other, and one says to the other did you here about religion, whats that, says the other, why thats the stuff that make you become friends,
cant we be friends anyway no says the other not without religion(sarcasm) .

dont talk out of your arse .

Mis-t,

I was just saying that there seems to be no historical basis for your assumption that humans had morals before religion. You re-create the human mind in modern man's image so you can parallel the idea of modern people not needing religion for morality with pre-historic moral ideology. This is not a given, for those pre-historic people, by any means.
I would be interested in anything that supports your idea other than this type of assumption.

having read down this thread, I cant believe the stupidity, coming out of some peoples heads.
we don't need a bible, or even religion, to delve into the field of metaphysics - which is the profound extension of our self-awareness as a species. and with self awareness brings morality.
once man was able to communicate where food is located and make friends he had morals.
it is deftly stupid to assume man had no morals before religion, that is an very arrogant but totally irrational statement.
I'm surprised at the low intellect of the recently new members, unbelieveable.

pavlos you beat me to it, well said.

First of all, I pointed out the fact that nobody has any evidence of how pre-historic man thought regarding religion and morality (at least in terms of which was first). It doesn't matter whether you would like to say morality arose with religion, or that it preceded it, you are just guessing. I may join your speculations, if I formulate a theory, but I was just pointing out the weak footing this argument has.


once man was able to communicate where food is located and make friends he had morals.
Animals do both of these things. Are you advocating animal morality? Or would you say that was "stupid"?


it is deftly stupid to assume man had no morals before religion, that is an very arrogant but totally irrational statement.
I'm surprised at the low intellect of the recently new members, unbelieveable.
No. It is not "stupid" at all. It is one possibility for how to describe the creation of responsibility. You would be "stupid" to say that it is not possible that man's sense of morality arose with the sense of a metaphysical reality, as expressed by their ideas of religion at that time. Obviously, one would have to be a complete idiot to assert that mankind had to have some organized religion before morality.

You are deftly ignoring many of the questions brought up by this discussion, so you see it as simple:

Please explain to me when animal morality (as if there could be such a thing), turned into human morality, before religion.
Also, explain how early man's ideas of of metaphysics were not religious.
Also, I would appreciate some good evidence before you assert that all other ideas are stupid. You sound like Lamarck, describing one of his theories as having no possibility of being incorrect. That is arrogant... or ignorant.


Also, MIS-t, man didn't become a social animal, he evolved from a social animal. What is the point at which a "man" becomes responsible? When did his predecessors have the responsibility we give to animals, i.e., none?

Ethics must come before religion. Otherwise there would be no reason to take up religion. Without a value system there is no good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, right or wrong... one thing is equal to another. Like Adam and Eve in the garden, without a knowledge of good and evil how could they know it was wrong to disobey God?

~Raithere

Define Right or Wrong.
Society as a whole defines right as actions that are beneficial to it.
Wrong as actions detrimental to society.
That is the generalization ethics has brought upon us. Why should fighting for a bunch of people called the right thing? Why is fighting for yourself called selfish? Rights and wrongs are just excuses for society to control advantage of individuals. This issue was debated under my thread called "What is Right or Wrong?"

Define Right or Wrong.Right is what is in agreement with a principle, standard, or fact. Wrong is in disagreement or conflict with a principle, standard, or fact.

Ethics is the study of those principles and standards.

Other than that I'm not sure what you're on about. Is it that you disagree with society determining what the principles and standards are?

~Raithere

I believe this is how this arguement started
"Firstly, when is this time "before religion when man had morals"that you talk of? Man has always had religion. You go back before modern religion, you find pagan religions - you have to go back to cavemen to find a time before religion. Are you talking about caveman morals?
All these more ancient peoples had their form of religion, and their own differing moral codes.
Egyption; Viking / Norse; North american indian; Incan; Mayan; Celtic/ druidic; Babylonion; Greek; Roman.
Lack of religion is a relatively modern phenomena.

P.S. MIS-T, hi, you have no foundation from which to assert that humanity had morals before they had religion, I think.
and then I said
"when man became a social animal, was religion instantly created no, man had to set physical and ethical bounderys with is fellow man, Ie common moral decencies, these are essential to the survival of any human community. religion, came about through not knowing and fear, a vocano ( mother earth is angry) lightening strike ( the sky god is angry) man had no religion, before he became social, he traded