Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Atheists individually can and do have morals, sometimes extraordinary moral standards.

I am so glad that you have morals!

But neither Atheism or Naturalism provide any basis for them. Naturalism in particular teaches there are none.

And an Atheist can just as easily have none! It is left only to preference or taste.

Empirical science proved a long time ago that babies in the womb are human life! Some women have rejected reality. And chosen fantasy, so they can kill.

Sad, we even have to talk about this!

So, according to you, the Chinese killing more females than males is irrelevant because they are not really even human females? If so...

Sorry, I really can’t walk that path with you.

I detest what they are doing!

Just wait, someone will call me sexist again, even for saying that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

?? No it doesn't. Where do you get that?

Atheists tend to do what's right, not what they are told. Religious types tend to do what they are told, not what's right. (Stole that from someone else on this forum.)

A cancerous tumor in a human patient is also "human life." In fact, it has the exact same DNA as the patient. But it's not a human being.

Nope, that is a false assumption.

You make a lot of assumptions, don't you. I can't help but think you've been indoctrinated by some religion and told that "all non-believers think X." If so, I would strongly advise you to start thinking for yourself.

Nope. You can detest abortion if you like; I usually do. That's not sexist. Trying to take away women's rights - that's sexist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for your kindness and patience with me!

What basis for morality does Atheism provide?

What basis for morality does Naturalism provide?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While you all are working on the above...

And now a word from our sponsor...

Here is our “Hero” for today...

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919)

Creator of the Haeckel Hoax.

One of many deliberate lies created to deceive millions of people, to further the cause of “no morals” and the wicked practice of abortions!

You actually have to lie to people to get them to kill their own children in the womb.

And you don’t mind doing that in the least.

Pathetic!

 

Well, first off, they are not really that different. Naturalism is the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, not supernatural ones. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. For the purposes of your question you can consider them the same. Another term for this is secular (i.e. not religious) morality.

Secondly there's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality. This is a good thing; if Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays. Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore (or actively defy.) In fact, the Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, a reference book widely used by Christian theologians when it comes to ethics, states that religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other."

So where do people get their morals? It starts from their evolutionary baggage. We all have evolutionary adaptations that allow us to live in a society, because societies are one way we survived and prospered over the past few million years. We protect our young because they carry our genes. We tend to like/love people who are close to us and distrust strangers, because that protects our tribe, many of whom are related to us. When we do something contrary to the society's survival we feel shame - and we express that by blushing and by acting abashed. Other members of the tribe see that, and realize that the behavior is not likely to be repeated - and accept the member back. If the member shows no shame, he is likely to repeat his anti-survival actions, and is rejected. Men want to get a lot of women in the society pregnant, because that best ensures the promulgation of their genes. Women want to select one man as a protector/provider because that best ensures the promulgation of HER genes.

So that's where we start. On top of that we have intelligence. So, based on our intelligence we can decide that even though we have evolutionary drives to do good and bad things, we want to live our lives differently. Maybe that means the guy who wants to sleep with every woman he sees decides on one and sticks with it. Maybe it means that although a given woman would like to kill the other woman who is sleeping with her husband, she prefers to live in a lawful society, and thus addresses it via legal means.

And that's how pretty much everyone, from religious to atheist, get their morals. They start with behaviors that have evolved over the years. (And those aren't unique to us; most primates show almost identical basic behaviors.) Then we consider how we want to modify them based on an intelligent look at what sort of society we want to live in. This doesn't always work, of course; sometimes religious types read their religious books and decide that it means they should kill immigrants (or infidels, or Muslims, or whatever.) But for the most part it does work.

I would also add that a great deal of our morality comes from what we observe from parents, classmates, society at large etc. Thus if a charismatic societal leader decides that it's OK to "grab women by the pussy" if you are famous enough, that sort of thing promulgates. Likewise, if society at large glorifies something (a certain style of dress or behavior) that tends to become part of our morality. And all too often such morals are accepted without much thought, because it's easy, and we are equipped to want to do what the rest of society does.

 

I am not sure exactly.

In the Old Testament Era the death penalty was used and obviously endorsed by God.

And that was done because of evil people doing evil things usually on a long term basis, over and over again. Normally being warned repeatedly to stop and refusing to repent. As you know, there are exceptions to this which appear to be more harsh.

It is normally used to put a halt to evil, of one form or another, and can also be used to set a horrible example for other people and nations. To try and prevent the spread of the corruption to others.

And it makes sense, normally, because the person was harming others directly with their own free choice. So the responsibility for their evil acts and death was on them.

And to repeat, they were usually warned.

And there were often no prisons in those days and often not millions of dollars lying around to spend on feeding and housing and guarding prisoners in almost luxury like we have in the United States.

Criminals have it made in the US!

People are all created in the image of God and are born innocent and, born neutral morally.

As they grow they start making moral choices for themselves, those decisions have consequences, and they continue to make moral choices the rest of their lives, and are responsible for all of them, under normal circumstances, where mental abnormality is not involved.

Being born and created in the image of God (in their soul, not body) makes everyone innocent, valuable and of great worth, regardless of their body condition.

But also in play is what they decide to do with the innocence God gave them at birth.

If they corrupt themselves and destroy the innocence of their soul (the image of God) until all they are capable of is evil, they loose God’s protection, as they deliberately mold and make themselves into the enemy of Love or God.

I would be in favor of the death penalty for murder and possibly rape, or at least castration for rape.

There is nothing wrong with using the death penalty to stop evil directly and to stop the spread of evil, especially if there is no other way to stop it.

But I am not a nut about it, and would find it hard to actually vote for it, because I value life so much and people can repent and turn around as well.

It is a difficult issue for me!

 

Dude's a fucking idiot, not to mention a creepy-as-fuck misogynist and a likely homophobe. Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced that he's not simply trolling--his posts are all so freakin' unhinged and all over the place. Is is sensible to continue indulging him in this manner?

 

Because God exists, and Macro-Evolution is a lie much of what you said becomes a lie as well. Kind of an adult fairytale.

Here is a short list of Naturalism faith options. Some of them directly contradict others.

• Altruism
• Consequentialism
• Consequentialist libertarianism
• Cornell realism
• Ethical egoism
• Evolutionary ethics
• Hedonism
• Humanistic ethics
• Moral skepticism
• Natural-rights libertarianism
• Objectivism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics

Why would someone pick one over another?
How would Naturalism make them pick one?
Which one is right?

Does it really have anything at all to do with Naturalism.

I think it is just personal self-deception, and personal preference, a personal philosophy to justify themselves, and justify their sin, and how they want the world to be.

Reality becomes irrelevant.

Thanks for your post!

 

There's no such thing as macroevolution vs microevolution - just evolution. But even if you don't "believe" in evolution, since other social primates have almost identical evolutionary behaviors, you have to accept that they are innate.

Those aren't faiths. Those are a list of ethical theories that you copied and pasted from a Wikipedia article. (Note that plagarism is dishonest.)

That's a nonsensical question. They are not exclusive.

?? It doesn't. It's a list of theories, like you might list the Ten Commandments, or the laws from Leviticus. Why would you pick one over the other?

You don't really understand the words you are using, do you.

 

Right. But unless you pretend that primates do _not_ show the behaviors they do in fact show, then you have to accept that many such behaviors are innate. SA might argue that "well, since we have nothing to do with primates, our innate behaviors are different" - but even he would have a hard time arguing that therefore we have no innate behaviors. Indeed, he probably has some sort of screed that decries our "sinful" or "base" behaviors.

 

This is actually a pretty impressive paragraph, and let's be clear, the Westminster observation is not wrong.

However: Are you aware you just fulfilled your own critique?

• There's really no such thing as a consistent Christian religious morality — Okay.

• If Christians had a standard, Bible-based morality, then they'd be obliged to go around killing gays — Well, says you. And, sure, some Christians, too, kinda-sorta. It's not that I don't get what you're referring to, but you're wrong.

• Every Christian out there picks and chooses what bits of the Bible he wants to use to support his chosen morality, and which parts he wants to ignore — And so did you.​

And let me just jump the most likely points about what the Bible says: Yes, there is a lot in the Old Testament that is downright nasty, stupid, and cruel. There is, of course, also something called the New Testament, and, yes, I know you're aware of that, but remember what these separate parts are and what they do. More to the point, a Bible-based morality can be the wrong morality if it means calculating covetously, as we see many examples of in the world; in that context, a Christ-based morality is the proper address of faith. However, if a Christian reads the Bible properly, then the Bible-based and Christ-based moralities are supposed to be one and the same. A good way of accomplishing that is to take the bits about killing gays or whatever and stack them up against the ministry of Christ. Haven't you ever noticed how the supremacists cite the Old Testament, and sometimes invoke the Pauline Evangelism? Where is Christ in all that? Telling them to sit down, shut up, trust God, and get over themselves. Christ is absent from supremacist arguments because He is inconvenient to their covetous calculations. Put your favorite Biblical cruelty, as such, up against the Gospel of Matthew.

Sure, they're doing it wrong. But so are you, and in questions of dangerous Christianism, yes, it's kind of important.

 

So why is it still there?

For historical context?

For us masses can we obtain a Christian properly read printed version? And since a properly read version I'm thinking it should be followed 100%, not have any sort of expiry date, cover every conceivable situation

? A do it yourself comparison religion ?

Sounds unique

Again why not leave out those bits?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!