Feed on Posts or Comments 24 April 2014

Christianity &Rationals Thomas on 18 Feb 2012 02:25 pm

The funny thing about Christianity – it may make people less moral, not more

The Christians we see on the public stage (politicials, mega-church pastors, the Pope and his underlings, etc.) are fond of suggesting that Christians are better because they have better morals than others. Conversely they suggest that non-Christians are less moral because they do not follow the Christian God. Is this true? This short piece from The Week demonstrates otherwise:

 The Truth About Secular America

American culture is sick, and secularism is the cause of our disease. That, said Steve Chapman, is the contention of religious conservatives like presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who insist that feminists, liberals, and gay marriage have undermined traditional morality, and that only a return to our Christian roots will cure what ails us. But all evidence suggests that this view is not only backward—it’s wrong.

As America has become more secular in recent decades, “most indicators of moral and social health have gotten better, not worse.” Crime has plummeted. Teen pregnancy is down by 39 percent. Divorce rates are dropping. Abortion rates among adolescents are half what they used to be.

Which states continue to have the biggest social problems? The Bible Belt states, not the supposedly sin-ridden blue states. Mississippi has the nation’s highest rate of church attendance, and also the highest murder rate. Liberal Vermont’s murder rate, on the other hand, is 25 percent of the national average. Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, has the nation’s lowest divorce rate. So please, spare us “the sanctimonious fairy tales.” Secular America is doing just fine.

Want to make America better? One way might be to abandon Christianity. It does not seem to be helping.

209 Responses to “The funny thing about Christianity – it may make people less moral, not more”

  1. on 19 Feb 2012 at 12:31 pm 1.Jim said …

    I am an agnostic so I went to your web site hoping to see something entertaining and informative. Wow, was I ever disappointed. It seems like its written not from a purely scientific point of view, but rather by someone who has a “holier-than-thou” (ironic, no?) yet a very shallow understanding of religion, including Christianity.

    It is impossible to be convincing if you do not have a very deep understanding of what you are trying to discredit. And no, being “raised a Christian” does not qualify you as an expert on Christianity. That is why there is something called a theologian. I would have easily rebutted and shot holes through your argument point by point but I’m too lazy.

    Also what works against your credibility and the impression I get that you’re an angry and bitter kid sitting in your mother’s basement is your constant name-calling: stupid, insane, crazy, etc….

    But as an example – your point about slavery: firstly you are quoting from the old testament. There is a reason why its called the old testament – look it up. While you’re at it, learn how the old testament fits into the Christian religion. Secondly, based on your newly acquired knowledge of the context of the old testament in the Christian religion, you will see why your point is hilarious.

    I could go on and on – but again I’m too lazy too debate with atheists – since I find atheists and the conservative religious to be the same: close-minded people who think they know it all. Hence the futility of a rational discussion.

    As for “The disgusting truth about Christianity – it destroys morality”: I wonder if it’s more accurate to say that it is people that destroys the basic tenets of religion, not the other way around. Bush wants to invade Iraq, so he says it’s God’s will. A mullah wants one of his zombie to bomb the US embassy – so he says it’s the Will of Allah. Take off religion and they’ll simply substitute God with country, nationality, pride, (insert what you want here).

    I wonder where you base your morality on? After all, there is no God, and there are no consequences as long as you do not get caught. Life is good huh.

    And lastly, your tag line: “Exploring God and religion in our world today” — I kind of thought it’s really exploring God and religion in our world today. Instead – it’s more like – “I want to stay in my comfortable atheistic shell since I feel safe here and to hell with God and religion I don’t even want to explore”.

    Or did you add that tag line just to trick people like me into coming to your blog thinking it’s really a rational discourse of religion and atheism by giving it a misleading veneer of respectability.

  2. on 19 Feb 2012 at 4:16 pm 2.azreal said …

    well, I’m an atheist and I’m not convinced by this one…… There are surely many other factors influencing crime, divorce rates, teen pregnancy etc… local economic conditions, individual poverty, education, ethnic mix etc….

    I don’t think we can draw a conclusion that just because these states are more religiously devout, this is the cause of thier problems. Allthough I do agree that lack of good education and poverty do seem to go hand in hand with high levels of religious observance; we could perhaps draw some interesting conclusions from that observation….

    Although Jim makes some of the usual objections and rants we might expect, he does make a good point about credibility. I sometimes think that the inflamatory language so often seen in these posts is anti-productive and damages credibility.

    I for one doubt that anything i say here could change the mind of a true believer or make them ‘see the light’ of atheism… but these discussions could influence people not yet decided and looking for answers; our reasoned debate might contribute to increased knowledge and educate people who might otherwise have been seduced by the easy answers that organised religion can seem to offer, especially to the uneducated.

  3. on 19 Feb 2012 at 4:49 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    #1 Jim:

    ” I would have easily rebutted and shot holes through your argument point by point but I’m too lazy.”

    More likely unable.

    “But as an example – your point about slavery: firstly you are quoting from the old testament. There is a reason why its called the old testament – look it up.”

    So we get to abandon the 10 commandments? Most Christians would consider you to be an idiot for suggesting it.

    Why would an omniscient. omnipotent God change his mind? Why write an old testament?

    “I find atheists and the conservative religious to be the same: close-minded people who think they know it all.”

    Like you.

    “I find atheists and the conservative religious to be the same: close-minded people who think they know it all.”

    Let’s see. We can base morality on the Bible, rife with slavery, misogyny, murder, Hell, racism, homophobia, etc. in both old and new testaments. Or we can base morality on rational thought. Any intelligent person chooses the latter.

  4. on 19 Feb 2012 at 4:56 pm 4.alex said …

    I’m not sure credibility matters on this site. Like you mentioned, most people have already got their minds made up and almost nothing will convince them. I do get highly irritated because, these theists recognize their majority and they attempt to use it to advance their agendas.

    I understand that not all theists aggressively promote their crap, but most of them do. As an atheist, I get so tired that I get militant. Sometimes, my thinking gets muddied, but for the most part I mean well and I will tolerate ALMOST everyone.

    Atheists trick people going into this site? Look at the numbers. You’d think that atheists sites are out of control and monopolizes the wwww. It reminds me of some white people complaining about the United Negro Fund. Where is the the United Caucasian Fund?

  5. on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:06 pm 5.Obvious said …

    I wonder where you base your morality on?

    Any thinking person bases their morality on something like this:

    http://d2bb.org/morality.htm

  6. on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:14 pm 6.A said …

    Jim, we all get disappointed. Same arguments atheist used centuries ago.

    Alex,

    Always entertaining. You are tired of theist but keep coming back then work in the UNCF. Are you high?

  7. on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:20 pm 7.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Jim, the editor of this site has a VERY clear understanding of religion, especially Christianity. Simply skim through the months and months worth of articles and posts to come to this conclusion yourself (or visit the whywontgodhealamputees.com. home site rather than the blog).

    And a “deep” understanding of Christianity (or Islam, Judiasm or Catholicism for that matter) is achevied rather simply and does not require a doctorate or theology (Haha, a doctor of religion? In what world is such a degree taken seriously?). Put simply, it is false hope, full of fallacy, self-contradicting, childish and limiting. How does one come to this conclusion? Read any chaper of any foundational religious book critically and honestly.

  8. on 19 Feb 2012 at 7:42 pm 8.alex said …

    “You are tired of theist but keep coming back then work in the UNCF. Are you high?”

    not too tired to refute your moronic ideas. keep them coming. Am i high? sometimes. you on the other hand, is crazy. and when you die, like me, it’s over. can’t face it? wah, i wanna see my mommy. wah! i’m such a sinner. god has plans for my special ass.

  9. on 19 Feb 2012 at 8:23 pm 9.azreal said …

    @Jim. . . Completely understand why u get frustrated with the way they push their beliefs onto others.we’ve all faced it. I come from a country where the church is not separated from the state and I’ve had it all my life, especially at school. This is why i get so fed up with it. I don’t care what they choose to believe as long as they keep it tothemselves . I don’t see why they have to push their belief onto other, especially easily led children who haven’t the knowledge or experience to resist. I find this morally repugnant.

  10. on 19 Feb 2012 at 8:34 pm 10.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Anybody want a good laugh…???

    http://purposedriven.com/blogs/dailyhope/the-bible-is-historically-accurate/#Comments

  11. on 19 Feb 2012 at 8:36 pm 11.Slapnuts McGee said …

    azreal,

    you really should care what they believe. Because if unchecked and unchanged, it will affect your life sooner or later, be it in politics, laws, or other areas that religion constantly attempts to poison.

  12. on 19 Feb 2012 at 8:47 pm 12.ReligionIsStupid said …

    It’s strange how we get all these convoluted arguments about theology, morality, context, and the like yet we ignore the fundamental issue at the heart of the matter.

    Jim, like so many others, seeks to steer the conversation to “a rational discourse on religion”, yet is missing the obvious: A rational discourse on something that’s based on a fantasy or delusion is an oxymoron.

    To have this discussion before proving that these deities even exist provide a false legitimacy to religion. We’re talking about superstitious explanations from a pr-escientific people of a few thousand years ago and we treat them as if they are relevant today. That’s just silly.

  13. on 19 Feb 2012 at 8:49 pm 13.azreal said …

    agreed. . What i mean to say is that i don’t object to their belied if privately held. If they don’t affect me or anyone else it doesn’t matter. I do object most strongly if and when they do try and affect others as you say.

  14. on 19 Feb 2012 at 9:05 pm 14.azreal said …

    #12

    well put and perfectly true, However we do live in a world where these superstitions ae given great credence by many, even the majority. What do we want to achieve here? If we don’t engage in discourse how can we make our point and hopefully help others in the process. An ivory tower will not lend itself to communicating and educating. By engaging with these people in a reasoned way, we allow their ignorance to show and expose the weakness of their arguments

  15. on 20 Feb 2012 at 12:34 am 15.daedalus2u said …

    Actually, God does heal some amputees.

    Many amphibians will regrow limbs if they are lost, for example salamanders.

    I guess this means that God loves salamanders more than He loves humans.

  16. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:21 am 16.Paul said …

    Faith is defined as Trust, confiedence and relience upon God….During the times of Jesus on the earth,God was dealing directly with man thru Israel and did reveal his presence in differing ways for exact purposes that brought him Glory lead up to revealation of Christ….when Jesus came Jesus is the express image of God…being perfect man and perfect God in one…The trust ,confiedence, and relience on God is not self generated or else it would be available thru self effort and would not require the response of belief…No one can come to God unless they believe that He is…Therefore, unbelief is what prevents someone from entering into an relationship of faith…which is the gift of God so no man can boast…in self effort…Jesus is foolishness to those who are perishing…That would be YOU…Tooth Fairy…Faith comes by hearing & believing the word of God…That is not to say that there are not other alternative beliefs…but Jehovah is the author of eternal truth and the alternative is to believe a lie…Which is what YOU promote TOOTH FAIRY…since Faith in God is a gift from Him…based on believing His word…the only logical conclusion for your book is a anti-christ bible…which is even predicted by the Eternal Truth of God’s Holy Word…You were even predicted over 2000 years ago…that should make you feel even more special than you think you are…The truth is some one is wrong and I have every confiedence it you….The healing of amputees has no relevance to eternal truth…Truth is your argument is supported…God predicted it…Congrats

  17. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:30 am 17.40 year Atheist said …

    http://d2bb.org/morality.htm

    The question of the source of moral authority arises here. There is confusion in today’s society between ethics and morals. This has come about with the secularization of all public life. Today moral authority is extended to the alleged “wisdom” of temporal sages and wits.

    Let’s examine the character of the object: morality.

    Both morality and ethics are based on imperative statements such as “should” statements and “must” statements. The term imperative derives from imperare: to command, order as does the term imperial and necessarily involves the authority to enforce the statement with consequences. Imperatives are not derivable logically from any empirical investigation of nature. Imperatives are rules for guiding human behavior, not rules describing the behavior of natural phenomena. The behavior of natural phenomena is deterministic; human behavior is not (if it were, arguing the issue would be of no consequence). So human behavior is thought to be controllable through commands or rules.

    Without the authority to enforce consequences for behaviors, imperatives are of no value. The entire weight of an imperative depends on (a) consequences whether positive or negative, (b) the desirability or revulsiveness of the nature of the consequences, and (c) the probability of actually incurring those consequences.

    Ethics today are usually proclaimed by a theoretical philosopher or a professional bio-ethicist; his authority is himself. Ethics are derived pragmatically using logic, frequently to evaluate cost/benefit ratios of competing behaviors. The consequences for not observing the ethic could be as small as cost/benefit gains or losses, or as large as threatened global disaster scenarios predicted by the ethicist, with implied guilt for those who do not observe the ethic. When one hears statements declaring that “we MUST…” or “the nation(s) MUST…”, it is a human-derived ethical imperative statement.

    Morals are considered passé by secularists because morals are derived not by human logic, they are rules pronounced on the authority of a supreme being that is declared non-existent. The traditional consequences for not observing these rules are declared to be too onerous for the value of the infraction. If such a being did exist, the moral authority of that being would be high, much higher than man-made authority, and the benefits and consequences would apply to all humans, universally.

    Now for the question of the applicability of ethical authority. An example has been given of ethical behavior being driven by a political philosophy, in this case, Libertarianism. Assuming that the principles for Libertarianism are consistent across all Libertarians, what is the source of authority for declaring those principles to be unassailable, universal and valid ethics? The answer has to be the human mind, operating on principles thought to be logical.

    So the human mind, or at least a subgroup of human minds, has declared an ethic. No matter how compelling the logic behind the ethic, what gives those rules or principles universal moral authority?

    There are a couple of possible ways to achieve universal moral authority for human-derived principles. First is through the appeal to the collective conscience for voluntary righteous behavior vs. guilt for non-compliant behavior. This is not a likely source of universal authority for the machinations of human minds.

    The second way to achieve universal moral authority for human-derived principles is through the use of force. And this is the way that is historically implemented.

    It is easy to conclude that political philosophies are not actually imperatives without the injection of force into the equation. This realization is what drives Atheist/Materialists ever Leftward, regardless of their starting philosophy.

    But the larger conclusion remains that personal absolutes are not the same as universal absolutes, and that principles that derive from personal absolutes are as likely to evaporate as any other personal opinion. As bedrock foundations for universal principles of behavior, personal absolutes or opinions won’t suffice.

    Regardless of the Atheist and Materialist subpopulation that adheres to personal principles, the potential volatility of such principles suggests that they haven’t the persuasive force to be a source of universal voluntary submission or guide for universal conscientious righteous behavior. It is the weightless, empty nature of Atheism / Materialism itself that renders any adopted personal, man-derived principles to be of no weight in evaluating the character or potential behavior of the Atheist.

    Certainly these arguments apply somewhat to Christians as well, and this statement always surfaces despite being a tu Quoque fallacy. With Christians, at least the principles are not volatile and can be found easily. And the same goes for Muslims. Whether or not a Christian or Muslim [2] behaves according to their universal principles does not remove the expectation that they would, and ordinarily do, and moreover the principles give a baseline for a metric of character evaluation that does not exist for Atheist / Materialists.

    Interestingly a political philosophy such as Libertarianism does not allow the proponent to actually exercise those principles unless he is in power. Without the power to implement the political philosophy or authority to enforce its consequences, a Libertarian is just a philosopher, not a practitioner.

  18. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:55 am 18.Paul said …

    Truth is even creation itself testifies of a Creator…Science supports the evidence of a creator supports deliberate Creatio,not random chance, and therfore…only a far reaching theroy can explain away a creator…truth is it takes greater faith in mankind to believe and trust in a un proven theory w/ the purpose of explaing away a creator God…You always promote logic but your alternative to God is more illogical than your criticisum of the Bible…you create your beliefs by your own Vain imaginings…Christians are convinced by the rational of a creator..even creation supports that conclusion…the convincing power of eternal truth is recognized by those who have ears to hear and whose hearts seek eternity…That would not be you..Tooth Fairy…Some will forever reject the eternal truth of God’s Holy Word…That would be YOU Tooth Fairy…Again YOU are revealed, again, In God’s Holy Word…I know it really erks you when I say “God’s Holy Word” I’ll tell you why it does…because YOU are a “Hater” of the things of God…again… Tooth Fairy YOU are revealed by the Spirt of God thru God’s Holy Word…Congrats…Again

  19. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:58 am 19.alex said …

    “I guess this means that God loves salamanders more than He loves humans.”

    like+

  20. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:03 am 20.alex said …

    17.40 year Atheist said …

    somebody translate. my A.D.D. isa killin me.

  21. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:04 am 21.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Paul, and the actual evidence to support your belief in this fantasy figure of a god would be what exactly?

  22. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:05 am 22.ReligionIsStupid said …

    The standard translation for 40YA is “blah, blah, blah”.

  23. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:24 am 23.Ben said …

    “We simply ask ourselves, “Would I like to be enslaved?” The answer is “No.” We extrapolate that obvious conclusion to others. Therefore, slavery is wrong.”

    40YA

    I got the above quote from Marshall Brain on your link. This is his ethical extrapolation process above. Of course he is wrong since many throughout history sold themselves into slavery. After the American Civil War, many slaves did not want to leave their master’s side. So, his system breaks down quickly.

    So if I do not want to be aborted then abortion would be…..? He didn’t touch that one.

    What Brain is really saying is “everyone should follow MY moral absolutes”.

    Ultimate arrogance from a guy who will not even acknowledge he is the developer of WWGHA.

  24. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:46 am 24.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ben, how does the authorship of WWGHA relate to your inability to provide any evidence whatsoever of the existence of your imaginary god?

  25. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:55 am 25.Anonymous said …

    Ben 23,

    If you look up the definition of a slave, it is involuntary. Eg:

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

    “Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.”

    Thus a statement like this “After the American Civil War, many slaves did not want to leave their master’s side” is idiocy. A person is not a slave if he has a choice in the matter.

  26. on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:47 am 26.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Anonymous said …

    “Thus a statement like this “After the American Civil War, many slaves did not want to leave their master’s side” is idiocy. A person is not a slave if he has a choice in the matter.”

    This is typical of Hor’s convoluted logic. Most of his comments are simply knee-jerk reactions, not rational, logical well-thought replies. The pattern will continue. After once again made to look foolish, he won’t reply to the rebuttal. This sock-puppet will disappear for a while, only to reappear as a different one, posting another stupid comment, starting the cycle again – all the while NEVER, EVER providing any evidence of his imaginary god.

  27. on 20 Feb 2012 at 10:51 am 27.freddies_dead said …

    #20. alex said …

    17.40 year Atheist said …

    somebody translate. my A.D.D. isa killin me.

    40YA sputtered out an awful lot of words to say “Might makes right”.

    Of course he thinks that his God is the mightiest of all but, as usual, he singularly fails to demonstrate that the God he believes is responsible for morality actually exists.

  28. on 20 Feb 2012 at 1:28 pm 28.Ben said …

    “So if I do not want to be aborted then abortion would be…..? He didn’t touch that one.”

    Maybe he thinks abortion is wrong.

    “a guy who will not even acknowledge he is the developer of WWGHA.”

    Would you?

    Family needs and famine lead many peasants to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery in order to survive. Not an uncommon practice centuries ago. Still happens in India.

  29. on 20 Feb 2012 at 2:28 pm 29.Lou (DFW) said …

    28.Ben said …

    “Would you?”

    Would you care to divulge your true identity here to us?

    “Family needs and famine lead many peasants to voluntarily sell themselves into slavery in order to survive. Not an uncommon practice centuries ago. Still happens in India.”

    So what?

  30. on 20 Feb 2012 at 3:36 pm 30.3D said …

    Only religion can get otherwise normal people in 2012 to start defending slavery, setting people on fire, and beating people to death with rocks.

  31. on 20 Feb 2012 at 4:14 pm 31.Ben said …

    Sure Lou, I’m Ben now who are you?

    Lou said “So what?”

    Exactly, you don’t get it.

  32. on 20 Feb 2012 at 4:31 pm 32.Anonymous said …

    “a guy who will not even acknowledge he is the developer of WWGHA.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Brain#Beliefs_and_interests

  33. on 20 Feb 2012 at 4:49 pm 33.DPK said …

    Curious that it has come to the point that the only way Ben can defend his religious doctrines is to now try to convince us that slavery is, in fact, NOT immoral.
    Ok then……….. not much more to say then, huh?
    D

  34. on 20 Feb 2012 at 5:03 pm 34.Lou (DFW) said …

    31.Ben said …

    “Sure Lou, I’m Ben now who are you?”

    Ben Now?

    “Exactly, you don’t get it.”

    Oh yes, I get it. The slavery/morality schtick is just another Hor diversion from the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

  35. on 20 Feb 2012 at 5:13 pm 35.ReligionIsStupid said …

    3D, aptly summed up.

    Still wondering how the authorship of WWGHA is relevant to Ben not being able to produce evidence for his imaginary god though?

  36. on 20 Feb 2012 at 7:00 pm 36.Ben said …

    Lou, you still didn’t tell me who you are. We need to know.

    Anonoymous

    What does the authorship of of WWGHA have to do with you proving God does not exist? We already know he is the author.

    Of course Brain cannot hide from WWGHA, although he doesn’t claim it. The tracks are there even for him. Try to find his name on any WWGHA article.

    And the slavery reference comes from Brain’s website he does claim posted by a contributor. Lou still doesn’t get it.

  37. on 20 Feb 2012 at 8:42 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Ben said …

    “Lou, you still didn’t tell me who you are.”

    I never said I would, nor do I intend to.

    “We need to know.”

    The only thing we need to know here is the evidence for your imaginary god. You have none, so now you’re wasting time again on yet another irrelevant, diversionary tangent.

  38. on 20 Feb 2012 at 9:31 pm 38.Ben said …

    Lou(DFW)
    Are you just the sock puppet as we have all always suspected?

    Things that fail the “Deciding to do Better” moral decision methodology.

    1. Slavery
    2. Abortion
    3. alcoholism
    4. Drug use
    5. Gambling
    6. Lying (Relative according to atheist)
    7. Cheating (Another relative one)

    It is a complete failure.

  39. on 20 Feb 2012 at 10:06 pm 39.Anonymous said …

    I’ll bite. How does the a rational methodology for morality fail on alcoholism?

  40. on 20 Feb 2012 at 11:03 pm 40.ReligionIsStupid said …

    As predicted, following “Ben” getting busted for using sock puppets to bolster his case, he’s back and trying to direct the attention onto other people and accusing them of what he was caught out doing.

    It’s the same as how “Hor” and “Curmudgeon” after being called on fallacious arguments, not providing proof, etc, turn around and tried to make it seem that it was everyone else that had the burden of proof and had failed to make their case.

    We’re still waiting for any of these characters to provide proof of the existence of this god of theirs. That’s the item that would so easily close this argument. Two thousand years and we’re still waiting.

  41. on 21 Feb 2012 at 8:09 am 41.Severin said …

    1 Jim
    “And no, being “raised a Christian” does not qualify you as an expert on Christianity. That is why there is something called a theologian.“

    I see!
    When we speak religions, especially Christianity and Bible, we need experts. None of us ordinary people is educated enough to discuss Bible.
    BUT when we come to creation, abiogenesis and evolution (that include physics, math, chemistry, biology,…), every primitive, uneducated idiot who hardly finished his/her 3rd class, finds him/herself free AND competent to authoritatively give opinions, explain, interpret, teach …
    And very loudly, aggressively and arrogantly!
    No experts necessary to interpret science.

    Yes, THAT is the very base of every single religion: let ignorance win!

  42. on 21 Feb 2012 at 8:29 am 42.Severin said …

    1 Jim
    “I wonder where you base your morality on?“

    I am a good man and I have a very solid moral code.
    I do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, ever.
    I am very compassionate and feel pain when I see any kind of violence. I never use violence myself.
    I help people a lot. REALLY a lot!
    I am extremely responsible for everything I do, ready to take consequences for my deeds.
    I am 70 now, and I have the same moral code through my whole life.

    I am an atheist, I do not believe in any supernatural being or force, and do not accept any religious teaching.

    Now, please, YOU tell me where is the base of my morality.

    Something is obvious: no religions and no gods necessary to have good people.

  43. on 21 Feb 2012 at 1:01 pm 43.Asher said …

    “Christanity makes people less moral”

    I’ll bite. Which atheists moral code is the standard in this comparison?

    I also noticed no statistics were offered which is always dubious at best. The declaration that “secular America is doing just fine” is offered as opinion and to takes this a step further; America is hardly just “secular”. America is made up mostly of religious folks. Therefore we have another false comparison.

  44. on 21 Feb 2012 at 2:13 pm 44.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.Asher said …

    “I also noticed no statistics were offered which is always dubious at best.”

    But you NEVER, EVER notice that you have no evidence for your imaginary god. Morals, or lack thereof, are irrelevant to that point – except in that theists have no compunction in being dishonest about that.

  45. on 21 Feb 2012 at 7:33 pm 45.Severin said …

    43 Asher
    “I’ll bite. Which atheists moral code is the standard in this comparison?”

    My mother’s.
    Her basic moral rule was: never do to others anything you would not like others to do to you.
    If you want to offend someone or even to hit someone, first think how would you feel if someone offended/hit you!

    Simple and effective.

  46. on 21 Feb 2012 at 7:50 pm 46.Asher said …

    Severin

    Sounds Biblical, so you believe all people should follow your mother’s moral code? Would that be your mandate?

  47. on 21 Feb 2012 at 7:56 pm 47.DPK said …

    As opposed to god’s absolute moral code as described in the bible that killing people for all manner of trivial “sins” is required, and it’s perfectly ok to own and even beat your slaves. But of course that “absolute” moral code was only in the old testament, god changed his mind in the new testament, and we know this because…… oh wait, yeah, Jesus never said “Don’t own slaves”. ” He never said, “Don’t kill adulterers or insolent children, or those that work on the Sabbath.” In fact, what he actually said was…

    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19

    So, how do we know that god’s absolute moral law from the old testament is different from god’s absolute moral law from the new testament? Simple, you need a theologian to explain to you what god REALLY means, because clearly, you don’t understand it, because everyone knows that murdering people for silly religious infractions and owning slaves and selling your daughters into prostitution and the like is clearly immoral, so god must not want us to do that, in spite of him clearly saying that we should.
    What in the world would we do with theologians?
    D

  48. on 21 Feb 2012 at 10:01 pm 48.alex said …

    “Sounds Biblical, so you believe all people should follow your mother’s moral code? Would that be your mandate?”

    Yeah Severeen! Quit pushing yo mama’s morality! Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me (thru her) how to put my lipstick on or how eating pork will surely condemn me to eternal damnation.

  49. on 22 Feb 2012 at 1:43 am 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    46.Asher said …

    “Sounds Biblical, so you believe all people should follow your mother’s moral code?”

    Actually, the biblical commandments 6-10 are basically the same as his mother’s moral code – one that most likely existed well before anything biblical. The biblical commandments 1-5 are not morals at all, but rather a symptom of your imaginary, maniacal god’s narcissism.

    “Would that be your mandate?”

    It mustn’t be a mandate because it’s an innate human quality.

    But now back to the point – how are morals relevant to the fact that you NEVER, EVER offer any evidence for your imaginary god? It seems immoral to me that people like you won’t be honest about that.

  50. on 22 Feb 2012 at 6:04 am 50.Severin said …

    46 Asher
    „Sounds Biblical, so you believe all people should follow your mother’s moral code? Would that be your mandate?’

    Sounds Biblical, but is not.
    What would be wrong in people following this moral code?

    It is now on you to explain:
    My mother and my father were atheists and were wonderful people. My daughter is an atheist and is a most moral person you an imagine. Many of my friends are atheists and are very moral, honest people.
    33% of people in France are atheists (27% in Belgium, 30% in Checz Republic, 20% in U.K., …source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism ).
    Are they all owful people?
    If not, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?

    Why don’t you say something?

  51. on 22 Feb 2012 at 12:34 pm 51.Scott said …

    “What would be wrong in people following this moral code?”

    Speaking just for me, what makes your mom the morality police?

    Stalin also asked:

    “What would be wrong in people following this moral code?”

    Christians would ask:

    “What would be wrong in people following this moral code?”

  52. on 22 Feb 2012 at 1:02 pm 52.Lou (DFW) said …

    51.Scott said …

    “Speaking just for me, what makes your mom the morality police?”

    Nothing does. He didn’t suggest any such thing.

    He was asked:

    43 Asher (AKA Hor, who rarely, if ever, answers any questions, but demands that others answer his)

    “I’ll bite. Which atheists moral code is the standard in this comparison?”

    And he answered: “My mother’s.” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.)

    Show us were he required that his mother, unlike your imaginary god, commanded in her “rule of morality” that:

    Thou shalt have no other gods before me, or I will destroy entire cities where men, women, children and animals must be killed. (Deuteronomy 2:33-34, Numbers 21:34-35, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 6:21. Joshua 10:40) In some cases you can keep the girls alive for raping. (Numbers 31:15-18)

    And you compare his mother to Stalin?! (Typical theist delusion and hypocrisy.)

  53. on 22 Feb 2012 at 4:12 pm 53.Lou (DFW) said …

    51.Scott said …

    “What would be wrong in people following this moral code?”

    “Speaking just for me, what makes your mom the morality police?”

    Scott,

    Let’s try this again, read slowly several times if necessary:

    “What would be wrong in people following this moral code?”

    He didn’t ask what would be wrong in FORCING people to follow the “moral code” do unto others…what’s your problem with that?

  54. on 22 Feb 2012 at 4:59 pm 54.DPK said …

    Typical from the religious mindset, they have no problem campaigning to make others follow “their” moral code, because in their mind their mandate comes from a higher power, so of course they are justified in forcing their beliefs on everyone else.
    But, even mention a code of morality or ethics that is derived from simple human social evolution and they go off about Stalin and Hitler and all sorts of other nonsense.
    The funny thing to me is, they insist that moral relativism is somehow inferior to the moral absolutism of the biblical god, but never offer any explanations for the clearly immoral behavior and practices of the biblical god’s supposed “absolute moral authority” other than some convoluted vague reference to theological woo about old vs new testament and reading the bible “in context”.
    I’ve yet to hear an apologist give anything close to a rational explanation of exactly what “context” makes it ok to own and beat another human being or to sell you daughter into prostitution, or keep the females and children from a conquered nation as sex slaves.

  55. on 22 Feb 2012 at 8:13 pm 55.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ironically, the need to maintain the illusion that their personal book of myths is somehow different from the books of myths that it’s derived from, takes away the opportunity to use and apply “context” as a real answer.

    If they’d drop the pretense that their (any their, it doesn’t matter who) book of myths has divine inspiration or is somehow the basis for all morals, then they could point out that, yes, slaves, rape, misogyny, everyone was doing it. It’s not right now, but it was practiced then.

    In terms of precepts, 1700 years before the supposed dead-jew-on-a-stick,
    Hammurabi had a code that dealt with crime and punishment including treatment of slaves, and how they had a lesser status than free men.

    Going back 2000 BC, as earlier to claims of JC as we are later to then, Ur Nammu recognized murder, robbery, adultery, and rape, as capital offenses. Again, dealing with slaves as a different class. There’s earlier too, if you like.

    So, what does the bible have to show for its 2000 years of moral progress? Oh yes, instead of “kill someone and you’ll be punished” it’s “don’t kill [else you'll be punished]” – pushing the code into a message of positive behavior. Of course, there’s also all that guilt-stuff about worshiping a deity with a surprisingly low self-esteem but.. context, eh?

    You’d think the most powerful being in the history of ever would have come up with something a little more enlightening, but perhaps he was tired out and confused having created light before the stars and plants before the sun.

  56. on 22 Feb 2012 at 9:56 pm 56.Severin said …

    51 Scott
    “Speaking just for me, what makes your mom the morality police?”

    As always, you are trying to turn our attention from the substance, by falsifying my words (lying).

    The essence is not my mother or her moral code.
    The essence is the fact that there are millions of good people on this earth who do not believe in gods and do not follow any religion or religious moral codes.
    Which leads us to clear conclusion: we don’t need gods/religions to behave morally.

  57. on 22 Feb 2012 at 10:30 pm 57.DPK said …

    And conversely, believing in gods/religion is not a guarantee of moral or ethical behavior either.
    Case in point, look at the number of theists right here who have no problem lying, distorting the truth, or otherwise “bearing false witness” in order to make their position look anything but weak and unfounded.

    I said earlier, “I’ve yet to hear an apologist give anything close to a rational explanation of exactly what “context” makes it ok to own and beat another human being or to sell you daughter into prostitution, or keep the females and children from a conquered nation as sex slaves.”
    I predict not one of them will step to the plate and take a swing… they will either ignore it or change the subject with meaningless diversions. Probably about time for them to go back to either bio-genesis or the god of the gaps position….
    Just wait and see.

  58. on 23 Feb 2012 at 6:52 am 58.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Fear not, DPK. No doubt someone who prides himself on his ability to accept complete nonsense without any kind of evidence will be along to argue with you that no amount of evidence will ever change his mind.

  59. on 23 Feb 2012 at 7:03 am 59.Scott said …

    “there are millions of good people on this earth who do not believe in gods”

    I never claimed otherwise Severin.

    “we don’t need gods/religions to behave morally.”

    I’ll ask again, morality defined by who?

  60. on 23 Feb 2012 at 11:58 am 60.Lou (DFW) said …

    59.Scott said …

    “I’ll ask again, morality defined by who?”

    He’ll probably answer again. He has “more” morality than you do, and it didn’t come from his sky daddy.

    Like a dog chasing its tail, you’ll keep going around in circles with yet another irrelevant tangent (morality) to divert attention from the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god – but you won’t find it chasing your tail. Get back to us when you stop running in circles and actually have anything of substance to provide as evidence.

  61. on 23 Feb 2012 at 12:07 pm 61.Lou (DFW) said …

    59.Scott said …

    “there are millions of good people on this earth who do not believe in gods”

    “I never claimed otherwise Severin.”

    Poor Hor, still up to his same old s.o.p. What Severin wrote was:

    “The essence is the fact that there are millions of good people on this earth who do not believe in gods and do not follow any religion or religious moral codes.”

    His point is “we don’t need gods/religions to behave morally,” not that millions don’t believe in gods.

    And what the hell difference does it make where he gets his morals? He has them, and they didn’t come from an imaginary god, nor do yours.

    Morals are a product of human society. Get over it and move on to something relevant. For example, where is your evidence for your imaginary good? Show some of those morals that you suggest are god-given.

  62. on 23 Feb 2012 at 7:43 pm 62.Biff said …

    Interesting comment Severin. How can you claim a morality is wrong if it is all relative? It’s just not possible.;)

  63. on 23 Feb 2012 at 8:12 pm 63.DPK said …

    Biff back to his same old tired BS.
    Biff how can you claim a morality is RIGHT if it isn’t relative??
    Case in point, your biblical morality says: “Thou shalt not kill.” If this is absolute, then there is NEVER a moral or ethical reason to kill someone. Would you agree??? Can you think of NO circumstance where it would be morally or ethically acceptable to kill someone, ever???
    If you can, than your morality is relative… subject to interpretation, as ALL morality is.
    Think about it before you spout your dogmatic nonsense. Even if you follow Christianity, you pick and choose which parts of the biblical moral code to follow and which parts to ignore every day. How do you do this??? You KNOW it is wrong to stone adulterers and homosexuals to death (let’s hope) HOW do you know this?

  64. on 23 Feb 2012 at 11:00 pm 64.jth said …

    who ever runs this site is an ignorant fool keep living by what science and men tell you you can’t think for yourself you are hateful arrogant and just a foolish human being you should shutdown this site and find out what’s going on around you before you spread hate. educate yourself you need it bad. god help you and bless you because you have no clue about what your talking about i feel sorry for your lack of knowledge one day you could wake up and smell the coffee but as for now your lost try to figure it out.stop all the hating there’s enough in this world as it is. educate yourself it works GOD BLESS

  65. on 24 Feb 2012 at 12:07 am 65.Biff said …

    DPK, more of my tired old BS.

    Actually the Hebrew word is “Ratsach” which translates to “Thou shalt not murder or kill a man unjustly.

    So DPK, feel free to adjust your scenario is you like. I know it was just an oversight on your part.

    Sorry you think not murdering is a myth. But being an atheist, I find your ilk will believe anything.

  66. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:27 am 66.Lou (DFW) said …

    65.Biff said …

    “But being an atheist…”

    You’re an atheist?

    “…I find your ilk will believe anything.”

    Actually, atheism is the rejection of a belief.

  67. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:30 am 67.Lou (DFW) said …

    64.jth said …

    Biff, where’s your criticism of this moron’s writing style?

  68. on 24 Feb 2012 at 1:37 am 68.DPK said …

    Biff, once again back pedaling with excuses for the inerrant word of god which god of course, would never allow to be bastardized. Actually, some research I found says, “The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay – has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that “tirtzach” refers to “any kind of killing whatsoever.” The word “lo,” as you might suspect, means “thou shalt not.”
    So, I guess you’ll need to impart some sort of moral relativism to guess which one god actually meant, huh? Because his moral absolutism isn’t so absolute.
    Let’s take another… “thou shalt not bear false witness”….. Can’t think of ANY instances when it would be morally necessary to tell a lie? Really?
    How about keeping Sabbath… can you think of any instance where is would be moral for someone to do work on he Sabbath??
    Come on Biff.. think hard now… you can do it.
    Sorry… your argument for moral absolutism is as silly as your belief in invisible beings.

  69. on 24 Feb 2012 at 2:55 am 69.Biff said …

    DPK

    I see you feel the need to bear false witness? Would this fit with Severin’s moral prudence or just yours? Do you make a habit of bearing false witness?

    “Tirtzach” means not to shed blood illegally and is derived from “Ratsach”. No relativism needed but you follow your scholar(?) if you like. Then since God gave animals for food, that would shoot down your scholarly appraisal.

    I have made no argument for absolutism. I only support a lack of belief in atheism of I reject atheism.

    Let me ask: Doubt you will answer but I’ll put it out there.

    When is it OK to lie, steal, cheat, murder? Just curious how that works for you there?

  70. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:35 am 70.DPK said …

    “I see you feel the need to bear false witness?”
    I didn’t bear false witness. I quoted an interpretation of a translation, as did you. I cited my source, I didn’t see a cite from you. Why should I accept your interpretation of god’s inerrant word over Dr. Alcalay’s? Hmmm… perhaps it’s because YOU need to make a judgement that “thou shall not kill” probably isn’t a good absolute morality since it obviously is a ridiculous standard to hold to. So YOU rationalize that that isn’t what god would have meant… thus applying your own sense of morality on god’s absolute moral code… and you don’t even realize you do it! So complete are the Jedi mind games you fall prey to.

    It is ok to lie to protect another from harm. As in when Germans or French hid jews from the Nazis and lied to the SS stormtroopers. Sins by your absolute morality, yes?
    Steal?? Never saw Le Mis, eh?
    Murder?? My bible says kill, the only 10 commandments I’ve ever seen says kill… so??? I thought god would not allow his inerrant word to be falsified. And of course, self defense, preventing harm to others, protect the innocent all provide moral justification to kill. Did you know there are sects of christians who believe god demands vegetarianism? Know what their morality is based on? The same moral imperative that YOU claim gives us animals for food. So much for absolutism.
    You are free to reject atheism. But I notice you didn’t answer the rebuttal to the question you posed to Severin… How can you claim a morality is right if you have no ability to evaluate it?
    I doubt you will answer, but I’ll put it out there. Do you contend that it is NEVER morally correct to lie, steal, cheat, or kill? How about work on the Sabbath… notice you skipped over that one… coveting? haha.. now you’re being unamerican, coveting is the basis of our economy…
    I like how you make an inference, and then want to back away from it with “I made no argument for absolutism”… typical Biff theological bs…
    Now that we’ve shown the ridiculousness of your position, care to take a stab at my question in #57 that none of your equally deluded alter-egos have had the balls to try?
    Yeah, didn’t think so.
    We nw return to our regular programing…..

  71. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:21 am 71.Lou (DFW) said …

    69.Biff said …

    “I only support a lack of belief in atheism of I reject atheism.”

    10.Biff said …

    “Nice sentence structure. What finishing school was it you attended again?”

  72. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:27 am 72.Lou (DFW) said …

    62.Biff said …

    “Interesting comment Severin. How can you claim a morality is wrong if it is all relative? It’s just not possible.;)”

    What’s the point of this question? What did Severin write that would precipitate such a question?

  73. on 24 Feb 2012 at 7:05 am 73.Severin said …

    Biff, Scott,
    I think that you, people, claimed that Bible is a “general moral code”, an “absolute moral code”, and that human beings would live immoral lives, full of killing (murdering), raping, torturing, stealing, lying …, without accepting and following that moral code of Bible.
    Without Bible, people would be deorientated, they would not have their moral compass.
    If Bible is the moral absolutums, it inevitably means that:
    a) All people accepting and following Bible must be highly moral people, they CAN NOT be immral (how can one accepting moral absolutes be immoral???)
    b) All people who do not accept and follow Bible MUST be highly immoral, morally desorientated, morally blind, live immoral lives

    In reality:
    Many people accepting and following Bible are very bad people (rapers, murderers, abusers, liars…)
    Many people who do not accept and do not follow Bible are nice people.

    Conclusion:
    If some people accepting and following Bible are highly immoral, and other people who do not accept and do not follow Bible are highly moral, then Bible is obviously NOT the absolute moral code.
    Period.

  74. on 24 Feb 2012 at 12:14 pm 74.Lou (DFW) said …

    73.Severin said …

    “Conclusion:
    If some people accepting and following Bible are highly immoral, and other people who do not accept and do not follow Bible are highly moral, then Bible is obviously NOT the absolute moral code. Period.”

    Despite the reality of your analysis, it really isn’t necessary except to discredit the nonsensical, convoluted thinking of backwards people like Hor (Biff/Scott/Asher). It’s just as logical to attribute morality to the “Star Wars” stories as it is to attribute it to the bible. We can even employ their convoluted thinking to justify it – “Star Wars” movies have grossed more money than have biblical movies.

    But, in the final analysis none of these discussions about morality and origins is relevant to the fact that there’s no evidence for their imaginary god – period.

  75. on 24 Feb 2012 at 2:33 pm 75.Biff said …

    DPK

    If you want to follow Dr. Alcalay have it. I have no beef if you don’t kill anything. But I don’t want to get sidetracked on some tangent as this site tends to do.

    When is it OK to lie, steal, cheat, murder? Just curious how that works for you there?

    My original question to Severin. Sorry Severin, DPK came in and got me off track.

    How can you claim a morality is wrong if it is all relative? It’s just not possible.;)

  76. on 24 Feb 2012 at 3:32 pm 76.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Biff, set us straight. Tell us where you believe morality stems from and provide examples. Is it relative, absolute, what?

    You seem keen to attack others but you seem equally loath to make a point. Why are you so afraid to state your position?

  77. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:13 pm 77.DPK said …

    Biff, do you actually read anything anyone else writes (apparently not) or are you just one of those sad souls sitting in your mother’s basment re-reading your own posts with your hand in your pants telling yourself how brilliant you are.
    I answered your question, Severin answered your question… how about you try answering ANY of ours??

  78. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:34 pm 78.Severin said …

    75 Biff
    “When is it OK to lie, steal, cheat, murder?”

    It is O.K. to lie to the enemy who asks for a way in your country, or to the enemy who wants to kill or arrest someone ans asks you or the address (for example to Germans in France 1941.)
    It is very O.K. to steal emmunition from enemy. It is O.K. to steal everything from the enemy who occupied your country, and is trying to harm your contry, your friends, and your children.
    It is O.K. to kill your enemy, especially if he came to your place to harm you and your children.

    So, you see, moral rules ARE relative.
    Sometimes you are free to lie, steal, kill, without being proclaimed immoral or dishonest. In other cases you are not allowed to do it, otherwise you will be proclaimed immoral, dishonest, AND guilty.

    I do not need Bible or god to make the difference. Most people don’t.

  79. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:43 pm 79.Severin said …

    Biff,
    I mean, if YOU have to read Bible to see in which cases you are free to lie/steal/xheat/kill, and in which you are not, then I am very sorry for you!

    I am able to make my choices perfectly without Bible/god.
    In case of doubt, I would consult PEOPLE (not Bible/god), but I guess that would be necessary really rarely, as I have a perfect “built in” moral code.

    B.t.w., can you direct me to verses from which one can distinguish moral from immoral killing?
    Maybe I missed them.

  80. on 24 Feb 2012 at 4:54 pm 80.Biff said …

    Severin

    Ok, so you say it is OK to steal from an enemy during a time of war. I understand that. It could be argued it is not even stealing much like a foul in basketball is not a foul if not called. Just a thought.

    But what about someone who claims it is OK to steal from the government or the rich man or to get ahead in life? Would they be wrong?

    I have had some claim it is OK to lie. cheat and steal in certain circumstances. I’m just trying to understand this.

    Thanks Severin

  81. on 24 Feb 2012 at 5:31 pm 81.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Biff, #76. Once again, you avoid all questions. What a coward you are.

    Where do you think morality comes from. Why don’t you answer this?

  82. on 24 Feb 2012 at 7:46 pm 82.Severin said …

    Biff,
    My point is that MORALITY IS RELATIVE, and normal human being is able to distiguish between moral and immoral deeds without consulting Bible or god.
    My point is that Bible is NOT moral absolutum, and we all can live without it.

    Aborigines and Amazon Indians, and many other nations and civilisations survived without Christian god and without Bible for 40,000 years. Their basic moral code does not differ much from mine or from my mother’s. having been without Christian god and without Bible, they did NOT kill, cheat, lie, … for 40,000 years, but lived in peace (untill Christians came and imposed upon them their “morality”).

    According to the idea that morality would not exist without Bible, the a.m. nations would have exterminate themselves after a short periof of time, but they did not.
    Where their moral code comes from?
    Obviously not from Bible, Christian god, Koran, Allah …

  83. on 24 Feb 2012 at 7:59 pm 83.Biff said …

    Severin

    I didn’t say a word about the Bible. That is you and the others. I will try one more time. Claiming the Amazon Indians don’t have liars and thieves is just speculation. Lets stick with us that are here.

    What about someone who claims it is OK to steal from the government or the rich man or to get ahead in life? Would they be wrong?

    How about putting a baby to death who has survived an abortion? Would that be murder?

  84. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:01 pm 84.Biff said …

    Oh, Servein one more observation.

    If morality is indeed relative, then on what authority can we claim the morality of another is immoral?

  85. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:16 pm 85.DPK said …

    Biff, Biff Biff.
    We are not going to answer any more of your silly questions until you reciprocate and answer ours, because you are just being obtuse.
    Let me turn your question back on you though. Try to grow a pair and ANSWER this one, instead of ignoring it, as you always do.
    Assuming morality is indeed NOT relative, then on what authority do you decide what is in fact, immoral?
    For example, let’s say you subscribe to the Biblical commandment to “keep holy the sabbath”. We know from the old testament, god commanded people not to do any work on the sabbath, and indeed there are sects today, christian and jewish, that follow this as absolute moral code. Now, let’s assume, and I’ll go out on a limb here, that you are not one of those wack job nutcases, and you know that it is not immoral for say, a doctor or nurse to work a shift in the ER on a Sunday, or that it is not immoral for a policeman or fireman to work a shift on god’s day. Will you agree with that? Then, on what authority do you make that judgement? Could it be a relative moralism that ALLOWS you to make a judgement? If not, please provide us with the absolute moral code that describes in detail exactly what is allowed and what is not, in every circumstance. Has god provided us with such a document? Where is it so we can review.
    If such a document does not exist, then just admit that you are wrong and stop wasting everyone’s time with useless and pointless babble. While you’re at it, we’re still waiting for you to provide your evidence of the existence of gods, and your evidence of intelligent design.

  86. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:23 pm 86.Severin said …

    83 Biff
    “Claiming the Amazon Indians don’t have liars and thieves is just speculation.”

    I never said anything like that.

  87. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:24 pm 87.Severin said …

    83 Biff
    “What about someone who claims it is OK to steal from the government or the rich man or to get ahead in life? Would they be wrong?”

    Of course it would.

  88. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:34 pm 88.Severin said …

    83 Biff
    “How about putting a baby to death who has survived an abortion? Would that be murder?”

    That is a sensitive question, but we don’t need a god to solve it.

    Legally, unborn babies are NOT persons (at least in most modern countries). They are legally NOT human beings.
    Accordingly, in countries where unborn babes are not concerned as human beings, abortion is not considered murder.

    I, of course, have my own feelings and my own opinion about it: I do not like abortion and I do not support it as some sort of general solution.
    However, I do support anyone’s RIGHT to avoid giving birth.
    INSTEAD of doing it by abortion, there is education, health services, schools, contraception …

  89. on 24 Feb 2012 at 8:41 pm 89.Severin said …

    84
    “If morality is indeed relative, then on what authority can we claim the morality of another is immoral?”

    On my own authority. I never failed in my life in making decisions about what is right and what is wrong.
    It does not mean that I never did anything wrong, but when I did it, I KNEW it was wrong, I FELT it (very small things).
    As I said, in case of dilemma about some decision in some very important matter, I would consult PEOPLE that I find honest: my friends, my daughter, lawyers, other professionals connected with the problem…even my ex-wife.

    What authority would you look for in case of dilemma?

  90. on 24 Feb 2012 at 9:17 pm 90.40 year Atheist said …

    If one has a valid worldview, and accepts that there is Truth and has based the principles of his life upon that, then there is a direct approach to moral decisions. If a decision is to be made, and any of the options fall outside of the boundaries of my worldview, then those options are off the table. Acceptable options must cohere with my worldview, which must cohere with Truth.

    This might be less than clear at first. That would be because I need to explain that my worldview contains subsets of Truth: honesty, integrity, reliability / dependability, truthfulness, personal responsibility, self reliance rather than parasitism, perseverance, and many other personal traits that derive from Truth.

    If I am confused about a moral decision I can always go back to the concept of Truth and its subsidiaries, Integrity for example, and ask whether an option is coherent with my worldview.

    This is not the same as running an option through a list of rules, and looking for a rule-based answer. Rather it is based on maintaining the integrity of a coherent worldview based on Truth.

    This is the opposite of ethical opinions such as pragmatism, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and other rule-based decision processes – all of which have no basis in Truth, but are based on opinions of correct outcomes. Correct outcomes can come with the most onerous of means which are required to accomplish the “ethical” ends.

    To the contrary, a Truth based approach questions both the means and the end and asks for the compatibility of those with the Truth based worldview. Integrity and honesty are both considered values in a Truth based worldview, while outcomes are the primary (only?) real consideration in the opinion-based worldviews.

    There is another very real distinguishing difference between the opinion-based ethics and the Truth-based. That is this: a Truth-based ethic is for oneself, for keeping one honestly within the boundaries of his own worldview. Opinion-based ethics are for other people. The philosopher’s ethical opinion is that other people should behave in such and such a manner, in order to fulfill the demands of the philosopher’s opinion. It should not require much rumination to determine that opinion-based ethics tend strongly toward totalitarianism, with the philosopher’s elite opinion being enforced amongst the masses.

    This is in diametric opposition to an ethic which one uses to control one’s own actions and opinions under the aegis of true and valid principles.

  91. on 24 Feb 2012 at 9:48 pm 91.Anonymous said …

    Poisoning the well, assuming facts not in evidence, non-sequitur – and that’s just the first sentence of 40YAs usual blather. No point in proceeding, as everything else falls by the wayside.

  92. on 24 Feb 2012 at 11:16 pm 92.Suh said …

    Great post again 40YA. Truth must be established before meaningful ethics can be established.

  93. on 25 Feb 2012 at 12:31 am 93.DPK said …

    ok… I definitely want some of whatever Suh is smoking.
    Seriously? “Great Post”??? A bunch of rambling non-sensical new age babble talk? No wonder you buy into the god delusion.

  94. on 25 Feb 2012 at 2:34 am 94.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Suh, if you enjoyed that post then you should appreciate this one which also references truth. It has similar relevant content but with less fallacies. Which one do you prefer, and why?

    Neodialectic nihilism and social realism

  95. on 25 Feb 2012 at 4:08 am 95.DPK said …

    Makes as much sense as anything 40 year writes. I think your found his ghost writer! Not quite wordy enough though.

  96. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:21 am 96.Severin said …

    #90, 40 yA
    “If one has a valid worldview, and accepts that there is Truth and has based the principles of his life upon that, …“
    What is the „valid worldview“, and who will, according to you, tell me whether my worldview is valid or not?
    What is the „Truth“?
    What is „acceptance of Truth“? What are „the principles of life based on Truth“?
    What the hell are “its subsidiaries”?

    Sounds to me like attributes of some dark, misterious, secret occult organisation.

    I have never heard about „Truth“, and would never want to hear about it (sounds misteriously/horrifying, rejecting), yet I have all necessary attributes af a correct „worldview“, that perfectly fits society I am living with: honesty, integrity, reliability / dependability, truthfulness, personal responsibility, self reliance, rather than parasitism, perseverance, …

    I AM a good man without consulting the “Truth or its subsidiaries”, even if I knew where to find them.
    When I have any “moral dillema”, I do not look for „Truth“ or „its subsidiaries“, I ask people for their opinion, and I never fail.
    Even if I do fail, consequences are negligible.
    Because I have NEVER dilemma obout whether whether or not should I kill someone, steal, rape, hold slaves, stone my daughter if she is disobediant, or stone someone working at sabath….
    Such decisions are already built in my body.

  97. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:58 am 97.Severin said …

    40 yA

    I have moral integrity.
    I KNOW what is moral and what is not.
    Honesty, integrity, responsibility, reliability and truthfulness are my constants.

    I am an atheist.

    You will have to somehow “digest” this FACT.
    Because I am not alone, I am not the only one who perfectly fits YOUR definition of morality without being religious.
    There are millions and millions of honest, responsible, truthfull, reliable atheists.

    I personally know some 20 of them or more.

    So, Sir, no need for god to be moral.

  98. on 25 Feb 2012 at 1:31 pm 98.Scott said …

    Severin,

    On whose morality do you judge yourself moral?

    40year,

    That was some good insight. Ethics and morality get interchanged so often it is obvious most think them to be the same entity.

  99. on 25 Feb 2012 at 3:10 pm 99.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Severin, these references to “Truth” are usually appeals to “other ways of knowing”.

    In other words, it’s an attempt to introduce a pseudo-scientific, non-falsifiable, non-testable, non-replicatable, position that is based on nothing other than wishful thinking.

    Once someone goes down that path, there’s no end to the nonsense that they’ll try to pass off as some “higher Truth” which is “beyond” this realm.

    It’s a convenient ploy when you can’t, or won’t, provide evidence for your position. You just claim that you are in possession of some “higher Truth” which can’t be derived or tested by current scientific methods.

  100. on 25 Feb 2012 at 3:32 pm 100.Severin said …

    98 Scott
    “On whose morality do you judge yourself moral?”

    My own.
    It came to me probably from
    a) genes
    b) home education
    c) living with society,
    but whereever it came to me it was not from priest, church or Bible, or any other religious sources.
    I never used to pay special attention to morality in my life.
    I never “learned” morality or about morality. I never had “classes” about morality, neither I ever read books about it.
    I somehow always knew that I must be honest, responsible, reliable, truthful, and I was.
    I can not recall the time in my life when I was not aware of it, even from my earliest childhood.

    I think one can learn a lot about morality from PINOCCHIO (I first read it before I was 6), from Adventures of Winnetou (read it when I was 7.5) and Tom Sawyer/Huckleberry Finn (my first reading with about 10 or 11).

    Now you: where comes your morality from?

  101. on 25 Feb 2012 at 3:51 pm 101.Severin said …

    98 Scott
    “On whose morality do you judge yourself moral?”

    How would YOU judge me? Immoral?

    I DO live a honest life, I AM highly responsible, reliable, truthful, I work a lot, do not lie, cheat, steal or kill, neither I drink or use drogs, I love my family and my friends, I am very compassionate, I help people (really a lot), … HOW, the hell, would anyone judge me but moral.

    Now, if I had to compare my morality with some “model of morality”, I would not know with what to compare it.

    And why should I?

  102. on 25 Feb 2012 at 3:54 pm 102.Severin said …

    Thank you RIS!

  103. on 25 Feb 2012 at 4:42 pm 103.ReligionIsStupid said …

    And here we are again.

    Sock puppets Inc. throwing out the same old “where does your morality come from?” line yet do they answer that for themselves? Of course not. Diversions? Sure seems so.

    So, come on, theists, explain the basis of your morality. If it’s from your god, then show us how you derive morality from that and how you know that this is divine and not just man-made.

    Also, give us your take on the question of “is what is morally good commanded by god because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by god?” – you folks keep bringing up absolute and relative morality, so let’s see the answer in your own context.

  104. on 25 Feb 2012 at 5:15 pm 104.Lou (DFW) said …

    98.Scott said …

    “On whose morality do you judge yourself moral?”

    How many times must he answer this question until you answer this one – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

  105. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:11 pm 105.Scott said …

    Severin,

    Don’t be so paranoid. I’m not judging you only asking a question from way up in this thread.

    So what you are saying is your morality is just your own impressed on you by parents.

    Fine, but what makes you morality better than someone elses’? In other words, what sets you apart to judge another’s action as immoral?

  106. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:50 pm 106.Severin said …

    105 Scott
    “Fine, but what makes you morality better than someone elses’?”

    Sorry, where/when did I say my mprality was BETTER than someone’s elses’?
    It is not fair to put in my mouth something I did not say!

    Are you going to answer me what is the source (model?) of your morality, or not?

  107. on 25 Feb 2012 at 6:59 pm 107.Severin said …

    105 Scott
    “So what you are saying is your morality is just your own impressed on you by parents.”

    So, you don’t read posts, but do comment them?!
    What sort of debating is it?
    I said some 3 – 4 times in my recent posts that I GUESS that my perfect built-in feeling for what is moral and what is not, comes (probably) from 3 sources:
    a) Genes
    b) Home education
    c) Scoiety I live with,

    but I also wrote that I don’t give a damn where it comes from.
    I live a decent (and very satisfactory) life, I am in perfect balance with the society I am living with, and I have more interesting things to do than searching where my sense of morality comes from.

  108. on 25 Feb 2012 at 7:14 pm 108.DPK said …

    Severin,
    Haven’t you learned yet it’s not a good idea to feed the trolls? He is just baiting you to try and divert attention away from the facts that:
    1. He has no logical alternative to the question of morality
    2. He cannot possibly defend the idea that morality comes from a god, via the bible.
    3. He has no evidence that the god to which he would like to attribute moral authority, even exists.
    4. He does not want to admit that ALL morality, and ethics, are relative to situations and conditions that must be taken into account, and it is not possible to have an absolute morality that is in fact, moral. A morality that is not relative would be clearly immoral.

    So, as you noted, he does not respond to ANY questions, or offer anything in retort, but just asks the same maddening questions over and over in the hope that you will forget that his position is completely untenable.

    Now that we have deposed of that, can we have some evidence for the existence of gods?

  109. on 25 Feb 2012 at 7:20 pm 109.Severin said …

    105 Scott
    “In other words, what sets you apart to judge another’s action as immoral?”

    I am the ONLY “judge” of another’s actions.
    In fact, I never “judge” anything, I mean I rarely analyse anything to find out whether or not something is moral.
    I have strong and clear feelings that tell me whether or not some act is moral (for me!).
    I am not quite sure I would be able to verbally analyse each case/act regarding its morality, but my feeling about it is storng, clear, and works perfectly.
    I never in my life was in conflict with society I am living with, moreover, I am very appreciated from the part of society tha knows me well, so I guess my “moral-o-meter” works very well, thank you for asking.

  110. on 25 Feb 2012 at 7:27 pm 110.Severin said …

    108 DPK
    Thank you, DPK, you are right.

    BUT, I always think that some 14 year old, “unbalanced” young man/lady also may read this, and if I can be of any help to them to make them using their own mind, I will be happy.

  111. on 25 Feb 2012 at 8:37 pm 111.Scott said …

    Severin I must say you and the others are the most paranoid bunch I have ever seen. If you don’t want to answer the questions just say so, and I will not ask. I doubt any 14 year olds are monitoring the site looking to change their opinion.

    I know your morality comes from parents/environment. Then you say you do not judge others morality.

    I just do not believe that. I bet you have judged Muslims for the Jihadist actions they have taken against the world. And I bet the standard you have used is the morality that has been programmed into you. I bet you judged that atheist (I hope) Stalin for his actions against humanity.

    So again, what makes your morality better than these? They believe they are acting morally.

  112. on 25 Feb 2012 at 9:07 pm 112.Lou (DFW) said …

    111.Scott said …

    “Severin I must say you and the others are the most paranoid bunch I have ever seen.”

    And Hor, you and your sock-puppets are the most intellectually dishonest “bunch” that I ever saw.

    “If you don’t want to answer the questions just say so, and I will not ask.”

    Is that what you want from us? Don’t answer the question “where is your evidence for your imaginary god” so we will eventually stop asking you to provide evidence?

  113. on 26 Feb 2012 at 12:42 am 113.40 year Atheist said …

    Any and every Atheist is a perfect example of Atheism which has no moral code, while any and every Christian is an imperfect example of Christianity as embodied by Christ. Christians aspire to a standard that is higher than possible for humans to meet or at least maintain. Atheists aspire to be thought of as automatically “Good Without God”, even while having no Atheist moral code whatsoever, much less one in common.
    Atheists not only have no songs (note 1), they have no paragons, no moral authorities, no grounded philosopher, and no grounded philosophy. And it is on this that the major players base their arrogant pose of superiority. Like Skepticism, Atheism is merely a rejection, and nothing more. It is an attack on logic and knowledge which is discomfiting, especially to the young and immature. Neither Skepticism nor Atheism has a positive contribution to make; both merely say, in effect, “I reject”. And neither produces any reason for rejection, other than “I don’t accept” what you say, or maybe “your evidence doesn’t satisfy my needs”.

    When pinned down with demands for actual reasons for their belief system, it is typical for an Atheist to resort to circularity or to embedded Materialism rather than grounded logic, assuming that s/he remain engaged to that degree rather than to begin other types of attacks to avoid direct logical analysis. Some will merely sit on their rejection, with no attempt to justify it with logic or data. Others default to Scientism or anti-ecclesiasticism. Still others develop fanciful philosophies which fall immediately under the scrutiny of logical processing. But there is never any decisive material evidence nor grounded logic for supporting their beliefs. Denial is all they have.

    There are only three paths involved in validation of premises: (1)grounding in absolute principles; (2)infinite regression; (3)circularity. Free Thinking is not bounded by any absolute grounding. Admitting to absolutes is the beginning of the end for Atheist philosophy. So absolutes are denied, categorically, (and absolutely). Atheism absolutely requires this. So what is left is circularity and infinite regress.

  114. on 26 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 114.Anonymous said …

    We only need the first sentence, as usual, to address the blather.

    Over-generalization, strawman, over-generalization, red-herring. From here, everything is based on his fallacious first sentence and can be dismissed without further ado.

  115. on 26 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 115.DPK said …

    Stan… do you ever post ANYTHING that isn’t a direct cut and paste from your stupid website? Ever have an original thought??

  116. on 26 Feb 2012 at 5:00 am 116.Lou (DFW) said …

    113.40 year Atheist said …

    “Any and every Atheist is a perfect example of Atheism which has no moral code”

    Any and every aphilatelist is a perfect example of aphilatelism which has no moral code.

    “while any and every Christian is an imperfect example of Christianity as embodied by Christ.”

    No shit, Sherlock. But the most obvious failing of xtians, other than their blatant hypocrisy, is their intellectual dishonesty. This in turn leads to the rejection of their own so-called “moral code,” in that they lie and misrepresent atheists to justify their delusion.

  117. on 26 Feb 2012 at 6:21 am 117.Severin said …

    111 Scott
    “If you don’t want to answer the questions just say so…”

    You are either lazy or rotten.
    I answered all your questions.
    You never answered mine.

  118. on 26 Feb 2012 at 6:25 pm 118.Xenon said …

    40ya,

    Thanks for your contribution. Great insight into the metaphysical position of the atheist doctrine of rejection. That is an informative blog you have as well.

  119. on 26 Feb 2012 at 7:41 pm 119.DPK said …

    Interesting Xenon that you accept 40 yrs’ contention that atheism is not really an “ism” but merely a rejection of other people’s “isms”, but when an atheist point that out, you reject it and say atheism is a religion. Now, obviously you can’t have it both ways… so which is it?
    And Lou is absolutely correct in clarifying 40yr’s assertion that atheism does not have a moral code, anymore than not-stamp collecting has no moral code, or not believing in the Sandman has no moral code. For that matter, actually BEING a stamp collector or one who DOES believe in the sandman ALSO has no moral code… so his point is, one again, completely pointless and designed to mislead.
    You see, what he is trying to imply is that atheists, as individuals, have no morality, and that is simply not true.
    So. let’s review:
    Atheism has no moral code = true.
    Therefore, atheists have no morality = false

    See how he tries to play his Jedi mind games, disguised in verbal diarrhea, on the weak minded? Oh, sorry, in your case it appears to have worked. Uh, draw you own conclusions.

  120. on 26 Feb 2012 at 11:41 pm 120.Lou (DFW) said …

    118.Xenon (aka Hor) said …

    “Thanks for your contribution. Great insight into the metaphysical position of the atheist doctrine of rejection.”

    Hor, rather than offer evidence for his imaginary god, is once again on one of his psychological lying binges about atheists.

    Almost every word of his comment is a lie.

    The comment wasn’t great.

    It wasn’t insightful.

    The rejection of theism (itself a metaphysical position), cannot, by definition, be a “metaphysical position.”

    Atheists have no doctrine per se.

    His blog isn’t informative.

    The only part of Hor’s comment that is true is rejection of theism.

  121. on 27 Feb 2012 at 12:38 am 121.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Thanks for your contribution. Great insight into the metaphysical position of the atheist doctrine of rejection.”

    W.T.F.

    That has to be one of the most profoundly stupid statements in the history of this blog. Words Horatiio needs to look and learn the meaning of include: contribution, insight, metaphysical, atheist, and doctrine.

    In fairness though, anyone using 40YA as a learning tool for the use of language, logic, or clear communication is going to fail big time anyway. What else can one say about someone that is stupid or dishonest enough to claim that disbelief in imaginary beings is a moral stance?

  122. on 27 Feb 2012 at 2:31 am 122.ReligionIsStupid said …

    You are either lazy or rotten.
    I answered all your questions.
    You never answered mine.

    …and he never will.

    It’s a game, that’s all it is at this point. A chance to be a troll and hence to feel powerful. It’s all about opposites to real life as we’ll see below.

    All A/Asher/Ben/Biff/Curmudgeon/Horatiio/Q et al want is to divert the conversation to one of their scripts – creation, evolution, morals – and to ask questions to which they don’t actually care what the answer is. The intent to extract the merest hint of doubt or uncertainty.

    Somehow, in the twisted world of the theist, science yet not having answers to some things translates to uneducated goat-herders knowing everything. Yes it’s a false choice and false equivalence but we’re talking about intellectually and morally dishonest posters anyway.

    From there, it’s just a question of running away from questions and coming back when there’s a chance to ask exactly the same questions as last time.

    When that fails, it’s time to accuse everyone else of using their dishonest tactics. We saw that when Ben got caught talking to himself when he forget his current identity and was called on being a sock puppet. The next thing was Ben disappeared and Curmudgeon surfaced to accuse others of being sock-puppets. Yeah, right.

    Previously the burden of proof had to be painstakingly explained over and over again to these nincompoops and now they are claiming that everyone else has yet to live up to their expectations when it’s the Hor’s of this world that refuse to even try to prove their case.

    Now we have the same range of characters still ignoring everyone’s questions and trying to pretend that everyone but them is ignoring questions.

    I don’t think that the readers of this blog are that naive that they can’t see past this game. If it happens that they are, then they’re probably incapable of seeing how stupid buying into religion actually is. And it’s very, very, stupid.

  123. on 27 Feb 2012 at 2:48 am 123.Truth said …

    “divert the conversation to one of their scripts – creation, evolution, morals”

    Stupid,

    Great name. This thread is about morality thus the contributors attempt to stay on track by discussing morality.

    See Stupid, discussing people is mindless and childish. If you have a problem with a post by 40years, then give specifics and back it with facts. No problem there. But all you and the other minions can conjure up is that he is a liar. Boo Hoo, whine and cry. He actually does make some very good points I even agree with.

  124. on 27 Feb 2012 at 2:58 am 124.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ooh, look, more socks!

  125. on 27 Feb 2012 at 3:20 am 125.Lou (DFW) said …

    123.Truth (aka Hor) said …

    “This thread is about morality thus the contributors attempt to stay on track by discussing morality.”

    No, this “thread” (actually, topic, not thread) is about the xtian claim that “non-Christians are less moral because they do not follow the Christian God.” It’s about how xtians, rather than provide evidence for their imaginary god, criticize and lie about atheists, just as 40YA unwittingly demonstrated. Furthermore, where are you when the theists here divert all the other “threads” off-topic to avoid the fact that they have no evidence for their imaginary god?

    “But all you and the other minions can conjure up is that he is a liar.”

    Really? Show us where anybody other than me wrote anything similar to what you claim – which, by the way, is the topic of this “thread.” That is, how xtians lie by claiming that non-xtians are less moral.

    “He actually does make some very good points [that] I even agree with.”

    “Even” you agree with? Exactly what does that mean? To what extreme must one go in order to agree with his babbling nonsense?

  126. on 27 Feb 2012 at 3:55 am 126.Lou (DFW) said …

    111.Scott said …

    “I bet you judged that atheist (I hope) Stalin
    for his actions against humanity.”

    I bet you judged those theists Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc., for their actions against humanity.

  127. on 27 Feb 2012 at 5:37 am 127.ReligionIsStupid said …

    I suppose when bringing up how sock puppets try to shift the conversation I shouldn’t be surprised when that happens in response.

    So, “Truth”, and my apologies for not listing you earlier, do show us an example of a good contribution, one that moves the conversation forward.

    Please explain the basis for christian morality, demonstrate that it’s superior (if you believe that it is) and, of course, if your basis is rooted in the supernatural (bible, god, etc) then its incumbent upon you to prove that this basis, your god for example, is real and not just some convenient fiction. Remember though, my question is about christians, not your perceptions on non-believers.

  128. on 27 Feb 2012 at 2:06 pm 128.DPK said …

    “If you have a problem with a post by 40years, then give specifics and back it with facts. He actually does make some very good points I even agree with.”

    Ahem… I did, and as usual, got no response from anyone. Let’s try again, he begins and predicates his diatribe with:
    “Any and every Atheist is a perfect example of Atheism which has no moral code, ”
    Now, think about what this actually means. First, any statement that starts with “Any and Every” needs to be viewed with suspicion. Next, likes make a substitution in terms to understand just how silly and meaningless this profound sounding statement actually is.
    “Any and every [individual who does not believe in leprechauns] is a perfect example of [not believing in leprechauns] which has no moral code.
    Yeah, so what?
    The implication (without evidence) is that athesits are therefore immoral, further assuming that morality can only be attained by believing in god, and further, the christian god, who presents a perfect morality.
    I could go on through each and every point of his non-sensical diatribe, but what’s the point? “Truth”… (interesting moniker, what’s the capital “T” imply?) is easily fooled and even more easily impressed.

  129. on 27 Feb 2012 at 8:26 pm 129.ReligionIsStupid said …

    DPK@128 – how ironic, that in order to paint his misleading picture, “Truth” ignores the first three posts following 40YA’s blather.

    “Truth” also sees fit to cherry-pick mid-sentence without indicating that he took a partial quote and finishes with a comment about how discussing people is childish, and mindless yet he starts with a derogatory salutation and ends “…But all you and the other minions can conjure up is that he is a liar. Boo Hoo, whine and cry.”, which DPK points out isn’t a fair assessment of the comments anyway.

    Morals and ethics are you providing a good example of Christian values, “Truth”? When you answer #127 you can let us know.

  130. on 27 Feb 2012 at 8:30 pm 130.Mitch said …

    From 40ya:

    “Some will merely sit on their rejection, with no attempt to justify it with logic or data. Others default to Scientism or anti-ecclesiasticism.”

    I see you have debated with the new atheists before. Their inability to put together a legitimate worldview has always led me to believe they really don’t accept their rejection. I would seem their constant need to discuss religion and ecclesiasticism is an indicator they know they are wrong but do not have the courage to admit it.

  131. on 27 Feb 2012 at 9:35 pm 131.DPK said …

    If I told you I didn’t believe in Leprechauns, would you chastise me for not “attempting to justify it with logic or data”? What kind of logic or data do you need to not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence?

    You theists, your inability to put together a rational worldview or defend your extraordinary claims about the nature and reality of supernatural beings has led me to believe you really don’t accept your beliefs. How many of you come onto atheist website in an effort to convince yourself that perhaps your own delusion is somehow true. Sad.
    All because you are terrified to die….
    Come on, everyone does it, how hard can it be?

  132. on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:14 pm 132.Mitch said …

    “What kind of logic or data do you need to not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence?”

    DPK when will you atheists learn? Just because you don’t accept the evidence or experience the salvation of Christ in your life doesn’t make it any less real. The world doesn’t revolve around your rejection.

    And please, I am not trying to convince you of anything. I was addressing 40YA. You cannot be convinced to accept Christ.

    “Come on, everyone does it, how hard can it be?”

    I don’t know. I’m not so cold or callous to pretend to know what it is like. I do like what is waiting for me.

  133. on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:53 pm 133.alex said …

    “Just because you don’t accept the evidence or experience the salvation of Christ in your life doesn’t make it any less real. The world doesn’t revolve around your rejection.”

    Freaking moron. Substitute “the invisible pink unicorn” for Christ?

    What’s waiting for you iz werms. When you die, dat’s it, freakin coward. Aint’ no damn virgins, ain’t no….

  134. on 27 Feb 2012 at 10:54 pm 134.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Their inability to put together a legitimate worldview has always led me to believe they really don’t accept their rejection.

    At least you recognize at some level that atheism isn’t a world view and that’s progress. When you can understand that it’s a rejection of your claim that imaginary and non-existent gods exist then you’ll see how non-nonsensical your need to force-fit the label worldview is.

    Just why do you need to do this? Do you call rejection of Leprechauns (above) a world-view? If you do, then at least you are being consistent. Which is it, Mitch? Is rejection of the existence of Leprechauns a world view? If so, why?

    Just because you don’t accept the evidence or experience the salvation of Christ in your life doesn’t make it any less real.

    Fantastic! Mitch, we’ve been asking until we are blue in the face for someone to provide some evidence. Whenever that question is asked, back-peddling, evasiveness, diversions, personal anecdotes, god-of-the-gaps, arguments from ignorance, everything but evidence is presented.

    You say it’s real, then please would you describe the evidence that you speak of?

  135. on 27 Feb 2012 at 11:11 pm 135.Lou (DFW) said …

    132.Mitch said …

    “DPK when will you atheists learn?”

    Learn that you will NEVER, EVER present evidence of your imaginary god?

    “Just because you don’t accept the evidence or experience the salvation of Christ in your life doesn’t make it any less real.”

    You haven’t presented any evidence to accept. I was raised in an xtian environment, I went to xtain church and bible school, I was baptized – I NEVER, EVER “experience[d] the salvation of Christ,” and neither have you.

    Just because you don’t accept the evidence or experience of leprechauns doesn’t make them any less real.

    “The world doesn’t revolve around your rejection.”

    Nor does it revolve around xtianity.

    “You cannot be convinced to accept Christ.”

    Oh yes I could be – if only there was any evidence.

    “I do like what is waiting for me.”

    What do you imagine that to be?

  136. on 27 Feb 2012 at 11:18 pm 136.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.Mitch (aka Hor) lied …

    “Their inability to put together a legitimate worldview has always led me to believe they really don’t accept their rejection.”

    Make up your mind. You theists falsely claim that atheism is a religion, then you write that atheists have an “inability to put together a legitimate worldview.” Your constant lying eventually catches-up with you.

    “I[t] would seem their constant need to discuss religion and ecclesiasticism is an indicator they know they are wrong but do not have the courage to admit it.”

    Another lie. The discussions are the result of theist delusion being forced upon us and society. Stay in your tax-payer subsidized church and STFU – such discussions will cease.

  137. on 28 Feb 2012 at 3:05 am 137.ReligionIsStupid said …

    And there we have it. The standard attempt to divert the conversation via attacks on the character of non-believers followed by total silence when we ask for the proof that the theists claim to have.

    Could it be any clearer? The proof is imaginary or, at least, only exists in their own mind, and gods are imaginary.

  138. on 28 Feb 2012 at 3:51 am 138.40 year Atheist said …

    The purpose of ridicule is two-fold. First it is used to cow the opponent: no one likes to be the object of laughter or derision. It becomes difficult to respond rationally to such irrational attacks. So it is a tool of aggression useful for stifling dissent. In this manner ridicule eliminates – as much as possible – intellectual independence in both the opposing viewpoint and any tendency toward independent thought in wayward subordinates.

    Second, ridicule is used to deflect the argument off the path of a valid subject and onto the person or worldview of the opponent. Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.

    Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left, starting with the situation comedies of the 70’s such as “All In The Family”, which positioned the conservative as a buffoon. This methodology has ballooned until every TV show can be seen to have conservative fools and Leftist geniuses (or at least normal appearing folks). Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.

    Saul Alinski might just be the most influential unknown, dead person in the country today. Alinski wrote “Rules For Radicals”, the philosophy and methodology of agitation and organization. Alinski and his philosophy was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s Master’s Thesis. And Alinski and his philosophy was the subject that Barack Obama taught during his Chicago “community organizer” days.

    Alinski proposed 13 rules in the “Tactics” section of his book. Rule 4 says,

    ”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage”
    Alinski also proposes an ethic, which he summed up,

    ”The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means”
    But the “most potent weapon” can be disarmed, as it was in the recent debate between Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Dennett became overwrought and spouted ridicule; Plantinga remained calm and stuck to the subject. By not responding to the ridicule Plantinga actually gained the high ground of intellectual pursuit, and consequently the respect of at least some of the observers.

    Sticking to the subject and not responding to ad Hominems or to other types of fallacies is not just disconcerting to those who reduce themselves to the use of ridicule; it spot lights themselves as being ridiculous, intellectually ineffective, and just basically wrong. Ridicule is not rational thought, it is verbal abuse.

  139. on 28 Feb 2012 at 4:02 am 139.ReligionIsStupid said …

    …I have violated my (somewhat malleable) principle of not commenting on other blogs, by placing two comments on Massimo Pigliucci’s blog article regarding physicalism vs. dualism…

    http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/2012/01/dualism-at-massimos-place.html

    Not so much malleable, more like useful when convenient but certainly not a principle enforced with much regularity. Now what was that about values?

  140. on 28 Feb 2012 at 4:04 am 140.alex said …

    “138.40 year Atheist said …”

    Thank you. I was having a hell of a time trying to sleep and after reading your last post, I think I am on my way. Your endless blah, blah, blah numbs me. Your writing sucks. You keep losing me with your pseudo intellectual style. Give it up man. Where did you learn how to wri?……take a class!, zzzzzzzzzzz. snore.#?%()@#, huh? zzzzz.

    I am not ridiculing,kjkjksadf I’m just.zzzzzzzzzzz. I spell gud.

  141. on 28 Feb 2012 at 4:58 am 141.Lou (DFW) said …

    138.40 year Atheist said …

    “Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.”

    Exactly what happens here with theists such as you, Hor, and his sock puppets. You NEVER, EVER provide any evidence for your imaginary god. Instead, you deflect attention from that fact with irrelevant tangents – “a Red Herring fallacy.” Atheists don’t do that simply and obviously because it isn’t necessary.

    On the subject of god, the only thing theists must do is present their evidence. But they can’t because they have none.

  142. on 28 Feb 2012 at 5:29 am 142.ReligionIsStupid said …

    This is another of those silly consent-seeking pleas where the religious want “respect” for their ridiculous ideas. See that word “ridiculous”, it has a context and and it’s more than apt to ridicule ridiculous nonsense and mind-numbingly boring, fallacious, word-salad, posts.

    It’s hard to know if our drive-by poster feels as if he is the subject of ad hominem because he’s just regurgitated some nonsense from a few years ago. If he does, then I’d suggest several things. First, if he needs to keep repeating this post, then maybe he might want to consider if his paranoia is justified. Second, claiming that people are attacking him is a poor excuse for running away from discussing their comments. Finally, Alex saying that your writing sucks, for example, is not an ad hominem even if you’d like to pretend that it is.

    Now, as for ridicule. Feel free to ridicule me for the following…

    Not believing in imaginary friends in the sky. Not believing that man was formed from dust, women from a rib, of talking snakes, a men who lived in a fish, a boat that could hold enough fauna to repopulate the world, of flat earths, a universe created solely for us, that Mary was a virgin, a god that was his own father, a god who needed a blood sacrifice so badly that he sacrificed himself to himself to atone to himself for the mistakes he made in making imperfect beings, that drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a zombie god gets you into heaven, that prayers have any effect on the real world, oh and so much more.

    Further, feel free to ridicule me for saying that all 38,000 (Thirty-Eight Thousand!) different sects of Christianity are just as silly as is belief in Thor or Zeus.

    There’s no problem in publicly pointing out that I don’t believe that when we die we all go to this magic, but different depending on who you ask, place called heaven. Feel right at home for calling out how silly I think it is to need the ramblings of a bunch of uneducated goat-herders as my moral compass. Go ahead and publicly humiliate me for being active in the community, leading and organizing, raising funds, and for providing my services for free without needing the threat of eternal damnation in order to spur me along.

    Without doubt, it’s more than acceptable to highlight how I don’t believe that a supernatural spirit watches me 24×7 and intervenes in the world, except that he clearly doesn’t. Further, you should absolutely make public that I literally laugh at the idea that the world was created in six days and in an order inconsistent with reality.

    You have my permission to ridicule me for any of the above and I’ll treat theists with the same respect for their ridiculous ideas.

    Now, let’s see some proof of the existence of gods.

  143. on 28 Feb 2012 at 5:49 am 143.Severin said …

    #113
    “Any and every Atheist is a perfect example of Atheism which has no moral code, …”

    Those people are unbelievable!
    They have some sick need to lie continously and to base further conclusion on their own lies.

    Anythong based on this first, theatrically stated sentence is a lie, because this very sentence is a lie.
    There are atheists with moral code.
    I am one of them, and I know them many.
    I am sure this “gentleman” knows them too, but he has obviously sick need to avoid the truth and to base his conclusions on demagogy.

    Just imagine his reaction if I started MY post with something like this: “Any and every theist is a perfect example of theism which has no moral code”.

    Of course I would never do such stupid, demagogic generalisation with onlu purpose to build further lies on it.

  144. on 28 Feb 2012 at 1:43 pm 144.DPK said …

    Sev, you missed the point. His statement is correct, atheism HAS no moral code, just as “being a person who lives in a blue house” has no moral code. What is wrong is the inference, therefore atheists lack morality. That is an invalid conclusion, and as you point out, is entirely untrue. Since living in a blue house does not come with a moral code, it does not mean that people who live in blue houses are amoral. Just that their morality is not derived from living in a blue house.

  145. on 28 Feb 2012 at 10:00 pm 145.Severin said …

    #144

    Once again thank you, you are right.

  146. on 28 Feb 2012 at 10:01 pm 146.Severin said …

    #144

    Thanks once again, you are right.

  147. on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:22 am 147.Asher said …

    “Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.”

    40ya,

    Shouldn’t it be expected? Jesus experienced ridicule and hate on a regular basis. I would expect no less from the world today. Witness the pastor being put to death for becoming a Christian in Iraq. He is just one of many. I wouldn’t surprise me if in 20-30 years preaching in the pulpits could result in death.

  148. on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:54 am 148.DPK said …

    “Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic.”
    And you can’t think of ANY reason why this is so…..

    “Shouldn’t it be expected?”

    Why, yes. I suppose it should.

  149. on 29 Feb 2012 at 1:14 am 149.Lou (DFW) said …

    147.Asher said …

    “Shouldn’t it be expected? Jesus experienced ridicule and hate on a regular basis. I would expect no less from the world today.”

    A world created by your so-called intelligent designer.

  150. on 29 Feb 2012 at 4:38 am 150.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.”

    40ya,

    Shouldn’t it be expected? Jesus experienced ridicule and hate on a regular basis. I would expect no less from the world today. Witness the pastor being put to death for becoming a Christian in Iraq. He is just one of many. I wouldn’t surprise me if in 20-30 years preaching in the pulpits could result in death.

    Sigh. You really don’t see that the most obvious reason for people being ridiculed is for being ridiculous? As for this “Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.” what does that even mean? And, dude, lay off the paranoia pills – your blood pressure will appreciate it.

    The pastor being put to death…in Iraq. Another vague and emotional statement, but you’re probably just picking up and running with something you read elsewhere?

    Do you meaning Youcef Nadarkhani? You do know that he’s not dead and that there are reports that his sentence has been commuted? Finally, do you even realize that Iran (with an N) and Iraq (with a Q) are two different countries? Youcef Nadarkhani is in Iran.

    Though, let’s talk about Iraq, let’s see your Christian morals and values in action. You are up in arms about one person being sentenced to death, yet you almost certainly support the death sentence so your issue is likely that he is a Christian. Do you have any compassion at all for the 105,000+ civilians killed in Iraq (Q)? Or is that OK because GW Bush claimed to be invading Iraq on a mission from his god?

    You end with the slippery slope argument totally ignoring the people being burned to death because they were accused of believing in the “wrong” kind of imaginary spirits in good old Christian Kenya? Hypocritical much? Or, maybe, it only counts when you can play the martyr?

    “Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic.” yet, strangely, you claim to be surprised.

  151. on 29 Feb 2012 at 5:46 am 151.Lou (DFW) said …

    147.Asher said …

    “Shouldn’t it be expected? Jesus experienced ridicule and hate on a regular basis.”

    Christopher Hitchens wrote:

    “It is entirely appropriate to ridicule absurd ideas rather than to treat them as serious and give them respect. Only serious ideas based on reason and evidence are worthy of intellectual respect.”

  152. on 29 Feb 2012 at 10:17 am 152.alex said …

    ““Shouldn’t it be expected? Jesus experienced ridicule and hate on a regular basis. I would expect no less from the world today.”

    no. let’s not legitimize. santa claus is ridiculed and same for the tooth fairy. so what?

    jc is another myth. don’t give me that faith bull. there may be just the slightest evidence that jc ever existed, but it’s dubious. come on, show me the money.

  153. on 29 Feb 2012 at 1:12 pm 153.Curmudgeon said …

    “Another vague and emotional statement, but you’re probably just picking up and running with something you read elsewhere?”

    Probably so, since the Prez condemned Iraq for the action. Maybe he made it it up along with Fox and CNN. Surprising he spoke out against Muslims. Christians die everyday around the world just for being Christian.

    Can you imagine the outrage here if an atheist was put to death for being atheist?

    Cults always do refer to the norm as ridiculous. This is how they keep power over them. The cults deserve ridicule but I am above such childish endeavors. I wouldn’t want to Hitch myself.

  154. on 29 Feb 2012 at 2:08 pm 154.DPK said …

    You theists are so confusing. You all say we should respect and tolerate each others religious beliefs, because believing in ANY god is obviously better than believing in no god. Yet, when the Iranians exercise their religious freedom by following the instructions of their god, that those who leave Islam for a false faith must die, you scream foul. I mean your god commands death for people for ALL sorts of trivial matters. You seem to have no problem with that.

    Now, of course this implies that somehow, you KNOW that THEIR god is the wrong one, and YOUR god is the right one. Not to worry, if you have the “real god” on your side, he won’t let a false god defeat him. Really, if christians die “everyday around the world just for being christian” that doesn’t fit well with your idea of an all powerful, benevolent and loving god, does it???

    Hmmm… what’s that sound? Could it be Hor, er Crumedegeon, being impaled on the horns of a dilemma? Bet that hurts!

  155. on 29 Feb 2012 at 2:12 pm 155.DPK said …

    And… let’s please not forget what the Christian bible says about it:
    Deuteronomy 17
    If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

    hmmmmm

  156. on 29 Feb 2012 at 3:09 pm 156.Lou (DFW) said …

    153.Curmudgeon said …

    “Can you imagine the outrage here if an atheist was put to death for being atheist?”

    Can you imagine the outrage here if an philatelist was put to death for being a philatelist?

    However, http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisses-charges-against-muslim-man-attacked-atheist-204051912.html

  157. on 29 Feb 2012 at 6:42 pm 157.DPK said …

    Gee, crickets chirp when you point out that (a) it isn’t atheists killing christians, it’s other theists, and they are doing it by order of their own god. And (b) the christian god instructs them to do the exact same thing!
    Gee, let’s think about this. If I was a human and wanted to control people by a religion I invented, what would be the first thing I’d command??? Hmmm… maybe, kill anyone who doesn’t believe??? Yeah, that would be my guess too.
    But of course, we know THAT never happened, right? Because xtianity is a religion of peace and love… uh, like Islam?

  158. on 29 Feb 2012 at 7:55 pm 158.ReligionIsStupid said …

    DPK – It seems that A, Asher, Curmudgeon, Mitch, Scott, (Hor) maybe I missed some too, all lost their voices when they were asked to either explain or justify something that they said. They keep boxing themselves into corners which is not surprising considering the material that they have to work with.

    Now, just where is this evidence that these believers trumpet but never, ever, provide?

    “Delusion”, it’s the new word for faith.

  159. on 29 Feb 2012 at 8:02 pm 159.ReligionIsStupid said …

    If I was a human and wanted to control people by a religion I invented, what would be the first thing I’d command??? Hmmm… maybe, kill anyone who doesn’t believe???

    And if you’d ever learned anything from history, something you’d do soon after would be to make it an article of faith that “proof” of your religion is that other people ridicule your beliefs and that everyone who tries to convince you otherwise is being controlled by an evil and invisible enemy.

  160. on 29 Feb 2012 at 9:20 pm 160.Lou (DFW) said …

    153.Curmudgeon said …

    “Can you imagine the outrage here if an atheist was put to death for being atheist?”

    Can you imagine the outrage here if an philatelist was put to death for being a philatelist?

  161. on 01 Mar 2012 at 2:07 am 161.Boz said …

    “If I was a human and wanted to control people by a religion I invented, what would be the first thing I’d command??? Hmmm… maybe, kill anyone who doesn’t believe???”

    Stalin and Lenin. Hey, it is Atheism!

  162. on 01 Mar 2012 at 2:14 am 162.Boz said …

    RIS lame claim

    ““Delusion”, it’s the new word for faith.”

    RIS, can you make the “awk” sound like a parrot? These Dawkinites who go around quoting and using his terminology are so tiresome and lame. Can any of you think for yourself?

    But I will give you a chance to prove yourself. A delusion “a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence.” In this case, billions of people.

    Provide the superior evidence as the definition requires and the victory will be yours.

  163. on 01 Mar 2012 at 2:47 am 163.Lou (DFW) said …

    162.Boz said …

    “In this case, billions of people.”

    Billions of people were wrong about many things throughout history, and they still are. It’s amazing that you would stoop to making such a stupid comment.

    “Provide the superior evidence as the definition requires and the victory will be yours.”

    How many times have theists been told that about their claim of god? But rather than do it, they instead “make the “awk” sound like a parrot,” just like Boz does.

    You would think that in this case, out of billions of people, somebody could “provide the superior evidence [for god] as the definition requires and the victory will be theirs. Yet they NEVER, EVER do. Instead, there are so many idiots on this blog who don’t have the integrity and courage to admit they have no such evidence, and that their faith is simply a delusion.

  164. on 01 Mar 2012 at 2:48 am 164.Lou (DFW) said …

    161.Boz said …

    “If I was a human and wanted to control people by a religion I invented, what would be the first thing I’d command??? Hmmm… maybe, kill anyone who doesn’t believe???”

    “Stalin and Lenin. Hey, it is Atheism!”

    So therefore, murder in the name of religion is justified?

  165. on 01 Mar 2012 at 12:49 pm 165.alex said …

    160.Boz said …
    “Stalin and Lenin. Hey, it is Atheism!”

    Those bozos are almost universally vilified. Theists on the other hand, mostly stand idly by, complicit, while their brethren commit stupidity perpetrated by the bible.

    Idi Amin and I don’t believe in Santa Claus. I guess that invalidates my Santa Claus non-belief?

    Where’s your god proof? Diversion dismissed.

    Next.

  166. on 01 Mar 2012 at 1:45 pm 166.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Boz, is that the best you’ve got?

    When you and your “chums” get boxed into corners based on your own claims and we’re waiting for you to provide evidence of your god and an explanation of how you can have a “personal relationship” with someone who isn’t there, you respond with a version of “others believe it too”.

    Time to produce your evidence or admit that you can’t.

  167. on 01 Mar 2012 at 8:42 pm 167.RC said …

    4. People like Stalin were interested in propagating an ideology, not a look. Nobody was persecuted in the Soviet Union for not having a mustache like Stalin, or for not wearing a uniform similar to his, or for not liking the same food, music or sports. Large numbers were persecuted and killed for practicing religion, and for being interferences to atheist-communist expansion. Now some would retort that Stalin had a change of heart during the Second World war and that he recognized and elevated anew the Russian Orthodox Church. This is a historically correct statement, but in no way does it indicate that Stalin moved toward theism. The move was strictly utilitarian. Steven Merritt Miner in his work Stalin’s Holy War informs us that Stalin had ulterior motives behind the move.

    “Moscow’s religious policy at this time can only be understood in the context of Soviet security considerations, especially Moscow’s concerns about the disaffection of non-Russian nationalities. The Kremlin saw the church not only, and perhaps not even primarily, as a tool for mobilizing and harnessing Russian nationalism throughout the union, but rather as one of several instruments for countering and disarming non-Russian, and anti-Soviet, nationalism. As most tsars could have told Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church was an effective agent for the Russification of the ethnically diverse and contentious western regions.”

    http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_crimes.htm

  168. on 02 Mar 2012 at 12:25 pm 168.Boz said …

    RIS

    Are you being a coward? I’m waiting for you to provide the “superior evidence” as the definition requires for the word “Delusion”.

    If you are going to use the word delusion, then provide the evidence.

  169. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:22 pm 169.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Coward is ironic coming from someone who posts under multiple identities and never ever will provide any evidence that his god exists and there you have your evidence of your delusion.

  170. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:31 pm 170.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Now, Boz, let’s see you provide the evidence that your god exists. Not divert the conversation, not play games and try to avoid the question.

    Provide evidence that your god exists. You can’t do this, it’s your burden of proof, so your god doesn’t exist. It’s OK, you know. We don’t mind if you admit it’s just “faith” – it’s the claiming there’s evidence when you won’t provide it that makes you look so foolish.

  171. on 02 Mar 2012 at 1:35 pm 171.Lou (DFW) said …

    168.Boz said …

    “If you are going to use the word delusion, then provide the evidence.”

    A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence.

    If you are going to use the word “god,” then provide the evidence. By definition, your claim is a delusion until you do so. That is the “superior” evidence for your delusion.

    I have no doubt that you will not provide any evidence even though your demand for evidence of delusion has been met.

    Unless you provide said evidence or admit that you have none, then that makes you a coward.

  172. on 02 Mar 2012 at 4:11 pm 172.MegaByte said …

    RIS,

    Irony? Hardly. You claim billions are delusional. Yet you are not qualified nor can you provide superior evidence. Rather you would rather make puppet claims.

    You are a coward. Come on, you claim I am delusional back it big boy. Superior evidence.

  173. on 02 Mar 2012 at 4:15 pm 173.Boz said …

    There you go there is the puppet you are so concerned about. Now you concentrate on providing the superior evidence.

    Hope you don,t mind Mega.

  174. on 02 Mar 2012 at 4:17 pm 174.TeraByte said …

    Well, got the delusional evidence?

  175. on 02 Mar 2012 at 8:30 pm 175.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, let’s recap. Boz outs himself as MegaByte and tries to cover up but just makes things worse.

    MegaByte, builds a flaming strawman about something someone didn’t say in an attempt to shore up his already weak position.

    MegaByte and Boz (not sure who is stage-left, stage-right) get thick with the insults having previously said such behavior was childish. Double standards being SOP for the cast of theists here.

    MegaByte promotes himself to TeraByte and asks for delusional evidence. Why he wants evidence that is delusional is not clear.

    Somehow “Boz” feels that making demands while posting under multiple identities creates some sort of compelling reason for people to take him seriously. One is tempted to ponder if he’s delusional in that respect.

    Meanwhile, the whole cast of characters is locked in some high-school drama where they feel that demanding “superior evidence” wins them the case. What they fail to see is that by definition that makes their evidence “inferior”. Adding insult to injury, seeing as they haven’t provided any evidence at all, they lose by default.

  176. on 02 Mar 2012 at 8:46 pm 176.Boz said …

    Just to correct the record, I posted all three. I know the fascination with monikers you possess.

    Now back to RIS and the record. RIS has failed to support his accusation ot theist being delusional. The definition has been posted above and requires “superior evidence” to make his case. We STILL await this evidence. Well, any evidence actually. He seems more interested with monikers.

  177. on 02 Mar 2012 at 9:33 pm 177.DPK said …

    Really? Boz, perhaps an apology is in order. I didn’t see where you posted any evidence at all…! In fact, I just went back looking for it and still didn’t find it. Perhaps it was posted under one of your sock puppet personas?? In any event, could you please direct me to it, or provide this superior evidence again, because I would hate to spend eternity in hell just because I missed it.

    Wait?? was it your observation that Stalin was atheist? Is THAT what you are claiming is evidence of god? Or is it because “billions of people believe it”?

  178. on 02 Mar 2012 at 9:58 pm 178.Lou (DFW) said …

    172.MegaByte said …

    “You claim billions are delusional. Yet you are not qualified nor can you provide superior evidence.”

    Actually, the problem is that you aren’t “qualified” to understand “superior evidence.” Not surprisingly, because you are part of the deluded billions who believe and have belied in imaginary gods, including all those who believed in Zeus and all the rest of the imaginary gods. You are no different than they were.

  179. on 02 Mar 2012 at 10:59 pm 179.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Boz – “Just to correct the record, I posted all three”

    Of course you did, that’s what was said above.
    “Boz outs himself as MegaByte and tries to cover up but just makes things worse….MegaByte promotes himself to TeraByte”

    Now you’re claiming to “correct the record”? Even when caught cheating you try to cheat yourself into a better position. You’re just painting yourself as more and more distrustful with every passing moment.

    Why do you need to post under different IDs? Let’s clear that up first.

  180. on 02 Mar 2012 at 11:35 pm 180.alex said …

    “Why do you need to post under different IDs? Let’s clear that up first.”

    trisexual?

  181. on 03 Mar 2012 at 12:53 am 181.Permalink said …

    RIS

    Why do you post as ReligionIsStupid? I hope this isn’t your real name. Since it is not, why hide your identity?

    I also know this is not your only moniker. This would make you a liar and a hypocrite

  182. on 03 Mar 2012 at 1:08 am 182.40 year Atheist said …

    This may help. Over at skepticmoney there is a list of suggestions regarding educating your kids into Atheism. I guess the idea is that kids might not fall into Atheism merely by not mentioning deities to them. Maybe they would pick it up at school or friends. So a positive program is needed.

    The list goes like this (very condensed, with my comments appended):
    11. (He goes backwards, no comments on that, please). Introduce the kids to Atheist blogs. [They need to learn expletives and ridicule from the pros].

    10. Teach them science. [Uncontroversial unless he really means Scientism.]

    9. Watch Science shows on TV. [They will be presented as absolute truth, too.]

    8. Encourage questions; use the Socratic Method [except give Materialist answers instead of Socratic method of more questions.]

    7. Learn about mythology. Also uncontroversial [unless one uses it as a Fallacy of Guilt by Association.]

    6. Watch anti-christian movies, like Agora and Religulous. [make sure you don’t mix in any Christian movies, not that there are that many]

    5 Listen to a comedy recording by Julia Sweeny who makes fun of Christianity.

    4. Learn magic tricks. Uncontroversial [unless magic is erroneously equated with other things which are not provable.]

    3. Teach them about optical illusions. Uncontroversial [unless falsely equated with other things which are not provable.]

    2. Lots of Atheist and FreeThought stuff on YouTube.

    1. Books, from evolution to Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.

    I pointed out that there were no logic books or logic training in this agenda. That’s when the Atheists came out to play. One actually denies the value of logic (it’s just language which is riddled with incomprehensibility). And another one says that truth is not “absolute truth”.

    There’s much more entertainment there, too.

  183. on 03 Mar 2012 at 3:27 am 183.DPK said …

    It may help with what? Proof that your delusion about the existence of gods is true, or help with the original point of this comment section, that religious belief and morality do not go hand in hand?
    Really, I wonder if your brain is actually attached to your fingers? Why do you think your ridiculously bigoted post has ANY meaning about anything?
    So what if some website lists ways to teach your children about secularism? What does that prove about ANYTHING??? You sir, are an idiot.

  184. on 03 Mar 2012 at 2:50 pm 184.ReligionIsStupid said …

    DPK, yes this is nothing more than Stan’s typically irrelevant cut-and-paste, the pasting that he received is typical of what happens when thinking people respond to his verbal diarrhea.

    Here’s the link that he omitted to post. Some examples comments below, It’s instructive to read the whole set of comments but that’s too much to post here.

    “But overall, you sound young, you sound goddy, you sound smugly and even offensively convinced that you have to be right and everybody else has to be wrong. And you couch it all in this impenetrable, jargonistic “logic,” which in your hands is not a tool of understanding but a shrieking attack on everything and everybody who doesn’t instantly agree with you. Which itself hints at Gishing — the deliberate unwillingness to engage the human others in the argument, and to thereby show yourself superior and unanswerable.”

    and…

    “Thank you for showing that there is nothing to support the existence of god – other than verbal masturbation disguised as a “logic” argument. If you have some evidence try again.”

    and in response to “I have shown the logic”

    “No. You have thoughtlessly regurgitated the first cause argument over and over, and displayed distortions of atheist positions to use as a punching bag, while demonstrating what an inept buffoon you are at actually dealing with people pointing out that you don’t have a leg to stand on.”

  185. on 03 Mar 2012 at 3:42 pm 185.Boz said …

    40 YA

    Hilarious post especially that logic is not useful. That explains a lot.

    Just another indicator that the “guud” atheist always fall back to the Judeo-Christian set of moral imperatives. They are just not honest enough to admit it. Too busy parroting words like delusion which they cannot support. They are like the slinky, not very useful but funny to watch.

  186. on 03 Mar 2012 at 4:24 pm 186.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, while we are waiting for Boz and his other characters to explain why he feels the need to bolster his arguments with multiple posts under different names, and to provide even the minutest piece of evidence for the existence of his imaginary god, let’s look at a video that perfectly captures some of the non-arguments of the theists on this blog.

    http://youtu.be/ghtoPiAE1sA

  187. on 03 Mar 2012 at 10:30 pm 187.Lou (DFW) said …

    185.Boz said …

    “They are like the slinky, not very useful but funny to watch.”

    Very similar to the sock puppet, aka Hor.

  188. on 04 Mar 2012 at 3:05 pm 188.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Come one “Boz”, it’s a simple question, why do you need to bolster your arguments with multiple posts under different names?

    Is it because you use them to provide distractions to dodge answering questions… like to provide proof of the existence of your imaginary friend, for example?

  189. on 04 Mar 2012 at 7:54 pm 189.40 year Atheist said …

    First: “There is no “proof”.
    This always means material, empirical proof. And no, physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected. And empirically, proof is never expected since every experiment provides only an instance of falsification or non-falsification.

    [As a side issue, there is no material, experimental empirical “proof” of evolution, either; it is all conjecture, extrapolative inferences that do not, of necessity, follow categorically from the data. It is based on a random occurrence in minerals producing random life forms that ultimately produce intelligence randomly, non-purposefully.]

    But back to Materialist proof of non-material entities: that requirement is a tactic used to identify science with a cult, the cult of pure Philosophical Materialism that dogmatically restricts all reality to material reality – which science does not do. Science voluntarily accepts material limits to its investigations, which cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena due to the measurements and replicability required by empirical investigation. Philosophical Materialism is a parasite on science – it is not science nor scientific.

    Second: This is all inferential.
    Yes it is; in fact it is intuitive and it survives both the process of discernment and the concept that a rational, coherent universe exists, based on rational principles. There is no rational way to exclude a purposeful creation without also excluding rationality itself, as Materialism does.

    Third: This is just another God-dunnit.
    It is actually the use of all possible reality information to base a rational conclusion on all evidence available. The charge of “God-dunnit” is a simplistic statement of refusal to acknowledge certain evidence because it is contrary to Philosophical Materialism. The refusal to acknowledge data is irrational and cultish.

    Fourth: Science will prove you wrong
    I will not hold my breath for the day that science changes its position on measuring the unmeasurable. Absolute belief in science for all answers to all realities is “scientism”: a sub-cult of Philosophical Materialism. It is based on incorrect “axioms” and is speculative in a highly credulous and dogmatic fashion, eschewing intellectual humility for arrogance and locked-down intellects. Science will never answer the question “How should we live?” through laboratory experimentation.

    There is no rational way to deny that the source for rational thought exists in a non-material reality. Similarly there is no rational way to deny that the source of the dual realities was powerful and rational and purposeful.

    But there also is no way to provide physical evidence of that which must be personally experienced intuitively to be known to be valid.

    Seeking a personal experience then, makes more sense than seeking physical evidence.

  190. on 04 Mar 2012 at 8:55 pm 190.DPK said …

    I’ll save you all the headache of reading thought 40yr’s verbal diarrhea and give you the essential translation:

    “You can’t prove god doesn’t exist, therefore he does.”

    Now, if you are thinking, a 2nd grader can see through the holes in that assertion.” Well, you’re absolutely right. 40yr, as he does with ALL his cut and paste manifestos, attempts to hide the flaws in his reasoning in word salad, hoping you won’t taste the rotten tuna hidden among the croutons.

    Consider “physical proof of non-physical axioms is not expected.”

    Now. consider what the idea of a “non-physical axiom” actually means. It means, “Any and every wild ass idea that I could possibly propose, accepted without proof as being self evident.”

    Now, if you want to postulate a non-physical axiom that establishes a non-physical entity called god, who exists in some non-physical form outside the physical universe… ok. But then you further claim that this non-physical being interacts, influences, and intervenes in the physical world on a daily basis. Now your “non-physical” axiom moves into the physical world and must, by definition, have physical proof. A “non-physical axiom” is a meaningless idea in a physical world, much like the idea of traveling “to the edge of the earth”. The planet has no “edges” so the concept has no meaning.

  191. on 04 Mar 2012 at 10:07 pm 191.alex said …

    “Well, you’re absolutely right. 40yr, as he does with ALL his cut and paste manifestos, attempts to hide the flaws in his reasoning in word salad, hoping you won’t taste the rotten tuna hidden among the croutons.”

    …stop it! stop it! you’re killing me….
    (argh, bleh, burp, choke!!!!, guffaw, chuckle, grin)

  192. on 04 Mar 2012 at 11:34 pm 192.DPK said …

    “But there also is no way to provide physical evidence of that which must be pers. onally experienced intuitively to be known to be valid.
    Seeking a personal experience then, makes more sense than seeking physical evidence.”

    I have had a personal experience which I intuitively know is the manifestation of a non-physical magical pig that lives, non-physically of course, in my lower intestine. This magical pig is responsible for my lower digestive health, and causes my bowels to function. Now, since my lower digestive tract actually does function, that is proof that this non-physical magical pig therefore exists.

    There is no rational way to deny that the source for lower digestive function exists as a non-physical entity, specifically, the magical pig I have lovingly named “Doodiemaker”.

    Yeah, makes perfect sense in Stan’s world. Aren’t you glad you don’t live THERE?

  193. on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:50 am 193.s said …

    Another great post 40YA. Excellent reasoning and wonderful use of the English language. Nice to see someone express themselves clearly without schoolyard silliness. However, I think your last line expresses only 1/2 the issue.

    “Seeking a personal experience then, makes more sense than seeking physical evidence.”

    The Aquinas’ cosmological and teleological arguments hold as much clout as personal experience.

  194. on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:59 am 194.ReligionIsStupid said …

    It [evolution] is based on a random occurrence in minerals producing random life forms that ultimately produce intelligence randomly, non-purposefully.

    Are you nuts? Actually, I suggest here invoking your right against self-incrimination

    Science voluntarily accepts material limits to its investigations, which cannot be applied to non-physical phenomena due to the measurements and replicability [sic] required by empirical investigation.

    Yes, in the real world, sensible people expect the same measurement or test, under the same conditions, to produce the same or expected result. This is common test of reality. Similarly, we don’t waste our time pretending to be able to measure things that do not exist.

    I will not hold my breath for the day that science changes its position on measuring the unmeasurable.

    Nor should you. Anything that claims to measure the unmeasurable is, by definition, impossible or imaginary.

    Science will never answer the question “How should we live?” through laboratory experimentation.

    Did you get a big box of non sequiturs for your birthday or something? Here’s some equally ridiculous things that religion can’t answer: Why isn’t the sound of a piano yellow? How tall is tomorrow? Although, of course, there are real-world problems that science can answer. As for religion, well lets not waste time there.

    There is no rational way to deny that the source for rational thought exists in a non-material reality.

    Wow! Out of nowhere comes this complete load of crap.

    Similarly there is no rational way to deny that the source of the dual realities was powerful and rational and purposeful.

    Woah! who saw that one coming? Crap on top of crap. Presumably this other “reality” is the one where you can measure unmeasurable things, and inconsistent or non-existent results prove whatever the reality-impaired wish. This would be a good place to hide “god”, it being imaginary and all.

    But there also is no way to provide physical evidence of that which must be personally experienced intuitively to be known to be valid.

    “Personally experienced intuitively?” I want some of what you were on when you wrote that. Sounds impressive, means what? Can a person experience something non-personally? Can someone else experience your intuition on your behalf? Truly, this is one of Stan’s biggest loads of shit to date and that’s an impressive result.

  195. on 05 Mar 2012 at 1:56 pm 195.DPK said …

    192.s said …
    Another great post 40YA. Excellent reasoning and wonderful use of the English language.

    So now “Stan” has invented a thinly disguised alter ego “s” (really, you couldn’t do better than that Stan?) in order to try and self validate his nonsensical ramblings. How sad.

  196. on 05 Mar 2012 at 7:44 pm 196.Xenon said …

    40 ya

    You make some really great points. Thanks for actually providing some points for discussion. Atheist ask for proof for God and we know they are all looking for some sort of materialistic evidence. They never require these things for multiverse or abiogenesis, only God. Their reason is simple, they have made up their mind. No problem with that. Honesty would be nice, but these are atheist and honesty is relative.

  197. on 05 Mar 2012 at 7:45 pm 197.Xenon said …

    s,

    I agree. The arguments from Aquinas have never been disproven. They certainly work for me.

  198. on 05 Mar 2012 at 8:00 pm 198.Lou (DFW) said …

    196.Xenon said …

    40 ya

    “Atheist ask for proof for God and we know they are all looking for some sort of materialistic [sic] evidence. They never require these things for multiverse or abiogenesis, only God. Their reason is simple, they have made up their mind. No problem with that. Honesty would be nice, but these are atheist and honesty is relative.”

    Why don’t you show some honesty and stop lying about atheists think and say? You don’t have ANY evidence for your imaginary god, much less “materialistic” evidence. If you did, then that would be THE point of discussion in all of human history, but we all, including you, know that no such evidence exists.

  199. on 05 Mar 2012 at 8:02 pm 199.Lou (DFW) said …

    197.Xenon said …

    “The arguments from Aquinas have never been disproven. They certainly work for me.”

    Of course they do. Imaginary gods work for you, so why not anything else?

  200. on 05 Mar 2012 at 8:16 pm 200.DPK said …

    So there you have it folks. About as close to an admission from Stan and Xenon et al as you are likely to get. All you really need is to accept
    “non-physical axioms” (translation: blind faith) in order to convince yourself of the existence of gods.
    So, in their non-physical world, anything they want to believe is true, because it exists outside of the physical universe and therefore cannot be demonstrated to actual exist, but can only be “experienced” through intuition. If you “feel it” it must be true.
    But, I wonder why courts won’t accept “I had an intuition that god wanted me to do it” as a defense? I wonder if you would let a priest perform surgery on you guided by his “personal experience” with non-physical entities?
    Oh, that’s different right?
    The saddest thing about the absolute nonsense you preach is that you are so deluded you don’t even realize it’s nonsense.

  201. on 05 Mar 2012 at 8:29 pm 201.Xenon said …

    “you don’t even realize it’s nonsense.”

    No problem there. When I see Lou or DPK linked to a post I instinctively label it nonsense.

    I don’t blame you, I recognize your limitations. You are not capable of discussion, only ridicule to bolster your low self-esteem.

    Chin up Lou and DPK.

  202. on 05 Mar 2012 at 11:44 pm 202.Lou (DFW) said …

    201.Xenon (aka Hor) said …

    “You are not capable of discussion, only ridicule to bolster your low self-esteem.”

    As opposed to making unfounded personal attacks like the one you just made?

    Hor, do you still not see what it is that reveals your identity?

  203. on 06 Mar 2012 at 2:28 am 203.Lou (DFW) said …

    201.Xenon (aka Hor) said …

    200.DPK said …“you don’t even realize it’s nonsense.”

    “No problem there. When I see Lou or DPK linked to a post I instinctively label it nonsense.”

    As DPK wrote, “So there you have it folks.” When a comment from Hor, one of his sock-puppets, or one of his ilk is actually analyzed and succinctly replied to, Hor replies by shooting the messenger. But, other than to admit that the comment has validity, that’s about all he has to offer.

  204. on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:18 pm 204.Matthew Chance said …

    I’m curious as to what is the motivation behind all this debate and argument over a dimension that we are not even capable of conceiving. Of course God is imaginary to the non-believer, but to the Christian the myth becomes a reality through experience and relationship with the Lord. Go ahead try it, open a bible and say an honest prayer about whatever pressing issue is on your heart right now. I guarantee you if your heart isn’t too hardened to accept the Lord’s conviction and act on it, it will lead you to the solution of the toughest of issues.

    Christ never told us to defend our beliefs, He simply said spread the good news and ignore the haters. It’s a pretty sweet deal, I’m not sure what causes someone to reject it, but I suspect it is something they are holding on to that they are afraid to let go of. When He says, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” you just gotta drop the fishing nets, jump out the boat, and follow the random dude walking down the beach to see what he is talking about, or you can stay in the boat and see if the fishing is any better than yesterday and rationalize in your head why you made the best decision to stay.

  205. on 14 Mar 2012 at 12:22 pm 205.Matthew Chance said …

    As far as I can tell, it seems like this forum is made up of atheists collectively seeking confirmation of their beliefs by logically attacking followers of Christ who are genuinely attempting to explain their beliefs.

  206. on 14 Mar 2012 at 4:12 pm 206.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, provide some proof and stop whining already.

  207. on 14 Mar 2012 at 5:24 pm 207.alex said …

    “attacking followers of Christ”

    it’s not whywontChristhealamputees!

    list the genuwine attempts. otherwise, stfu.
    better yet, your own genuwine attempt?

    me atheist don’t have to do shit. i don’t believe in the gods, zeus, christ, or allah. you theists do and others like you do crazy shit in de name of yer god. so stop it! you can do what you want, just leave the rest of the country alone.

  208. on 14 Mar 2012 at 5:35 pm 208.alex said …

    “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men”

    ..so, how would you know, it’d be the Man? because of his beard and he looks like a caucasian bum? if christ existed, he would have been middle eastern. if christ showed up today, how would you know it’s him.

    ….damn, now that i think about it, even the son of god would have a hard time coming up with the “proof”. unless of course, like somebody suggested, he regenerates somebody’s limb. i guess it would be good enough for me. hail to christ! i’ve been wrong.

    I would prolly try to hurt christ though, just to check.

  209. on 14 Mar 2012 at 6:37 pm 209.Asher said …

    Matthew,

    You are right. They are angry, scared and lonely. Checking in here provides some great teaching material on those separated from God. I do feel badly for them.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply