Feed on Posts or Comments 09 December 2016

Christianity Thomas on 24 Apr 2012 12:46 am

Where is the Christian Moral Code?

This article makes a statement about Christian morals:

Without God there can be no good

The statement:

In their attempt to argue that effective and binding codes can be developed without a deity, atheists often mistake inferior codes – “common decency” – for absolute moral systems.

The Golden Rule, or doing as you would be done by, is such a code. But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.

Christianity requires much more, and above all does not expect to see charity returned. To love thy neighbour as thyself is a far greater and more complicated obligation, requiring a positive effort to seek the good of others, often in secret, sometimes at great cost and always without reward. Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words, “Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Two questions must be asked:

  1. Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?
  2. Do all Christians abide by it? Do even half? One tenth? Less?

Christians, care to answer?

1,014 Responses to “Where is the Christian Moral Code?”

  1. on 24 Apr 2012 at 4:07 am 1.Prime said …

    I fail to see a single thing in the Christian “moral code” that is inaccessible to someone without religion. That claim lays unsupported, and it’s a big one.

  2. on 24 Apr 2012 at 5:26 am 2.Paul D. said …

    I think it’s those ten rules in the Penteteuch that end with a prohibition against cooking a goat in its mother’s milk.

  3. on 24 Apr 2012 at 12:50 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    This should be fun because their moral code is as imaginary as their god. Prediction: no christian can define the christian moral code

  4. on 24 Apr 2012 at 1:42 pm 4.Doug Fo said …

    SPAG will result in SPAMC (Self Projection as Moral Code)

  5. on 24 Apr 2012 at 3:04 pm 5.Prime said …

    Actually, if I’m not much mistaken, the only truly ethical act in Christianity, if taken to its logical conclusion, is to evangelize, at least for people who believe in salvation by grace. Turning the other cheek and all that rot essentially boil down to “nice, but inconsequential” against “winning souls to Christ,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

    Preeeeeetty disgusting how it completely displaces morality from reality (like the well-being and suffering of actual people and other creatures) and lands it squarely in fantasy camp.

  6. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:10 pm 6.Doug Fo said …

    Prime thats why the adoption of Christianity, Islam, and the like are detriments to civilization.

    They introduce unprovable infinite absolutes, which can lead to vile decisions. Say to kill one’s children in order to spare them the infinite pain of Hell. If you think about it, by the reasoning of Christianity this was a GOOD act.

    Similarly, but less spectacularly, the unprovable infanites of heaven and hell can, will, and does lead Abrahamic theists to try to limit the rights of individuals who do not share their viewpoint. A wicked and uncivilized act, but nothing compared to the infinite punishment/reward they believe in.

  7. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:44 pm 7.Tanya P said …

    It also says in 1corinthians 1:18 “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (going to hell), but to us who are being saved (going to heaven) it is the power of God”. It continues in 2:14 to say “But the natural man (ones who have not accepted the spirit of God through Jesus Christ) does not receive (understand) the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolish to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned”. The Holy Spirit teaches the things of God to those that believe. And those who do not believe will not understand. It takes a leap of faith (accepting Jesus) that science simply does not allow for.But the fact that this is being disputed just fulfills the above scriptures.

  8. on 24 Apr 2012 at 7:59 pm 8.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.Tanya P said …

    “But the fact that this is being disputed just fulfills the above scriptures.”

    Congrats, Tanya P!

    You just provided a wonderful demonstration of circular reasoning.

    “It takes a leap of faith…”

    In other words, belief in something for which there is no evidence, even ignoring whether or not science “allows for” it.

  9. on 24 Apr 2012 at 8:40 pm 9.Prime said …

    6.Doug Fo said …

    “Similarly, but less spectacularly, the unprovable infanites of heaven and hell can, will, and does lead Abrahamic theists to try to limit the rights of individuals who do not share their viewpoint. A wicked and uncivilized act, but nothing compared to the infinite punishment/reward they believe in.”

    Indeed, and when you add in a mythology that indicates that an active and living God will punish any nation whose laws are not in accord with His own (imaginary) laws, you find a major push to legislate their anti-empirical, anti-civilized point-of-view.

    That, of course, is compounded hugely by doctrines that enable believers to think of all of their enemies as fundamentally and wholly wrong, corrupted by cosmic forces of evil, and lost to the universe to a pit of eternal suffering.

    So disturbing how many people hear this stuff and think, “Yeah, and that’s the ONLY way to be civilized and moral.”

  10. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:00 am 10.Gex said …

    It is interesting how they read into the Golden Rule some sort of expectation of pay back. That is not so. It is an acknowledgment that the other is just as human as you, and therefor feels joy or pain like you do. And since you don’t like pain, it makes sense not to cause pain on your fellow men.

    However, being good under threat of eternal torture or in the pursuit of the biggest prize of all is indeed doing some small good in the expectation, not only of getting something in return, but of getting way more than you gave in the first place.

    These people don’t have any clue what good is. Their “moral code” uses extortion and torture as motivators, and you can see clearly via this example how that twists their thinking.

  11. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:02 am 11.Gex said …

    Christians are the kind of people who, without any irony whatsoever, will spam the Internet with how homosexuality is unnatural.

    Send your message in smoke signals or STFU. They literally don’t understand what words even mean. They look in a book for what’s natural and not in nature itself.

  12. on 25 Apr 2012 at 1:12 am 12.Godless Monkey said …

    And the books they most often look to are written by xtian apologetics thus confirming their biases.

  13. on 25 Apr 2012 at 4:23 am 13.Slapnuts McGee said …

    How do delusional toolsheds like Tonya P even come across this site? They post one comment, usually a useless rambling, and then disappear. Come on people! Stick around and face the facts!

  14. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:05 am 14.Godless Monkey said …

    Well, Slapnuts, after they’ve posted their mindless dribble… time to grab the sandwich boards, run down to Planned Parenthood to protest and antagonize people, stop by Starbucks for a latte, and while there call out the gay kid behind the counter as a “fag” and then run home and pray for his abominable soul, read their ID workbooks, pray for their sins of the day, feel all fresh, clean and forgiven…and then start all over the next day. Yup, being an intolerant, hate-filled xtian trying to save the souls of the wicked pretty much eats up the day!

  15. on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:42 am 15.40 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.

  16. on 25 Apr 2012 at 12:14 pm 16.Lou (DFW) said …

    15.40 year Atheist said …

    “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.”

    FYI, the subject of this blog is to explore God and religion in our world today.

    FYI, the topic of this entry is “Where is the Christian Moral Code?”

    “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.”

    Which is exactly what you with your rambling, nonsensical rants – deflect the conversation from the topic,and ultimately avoid the fact that you have no evidence for your imaginary god.

    But ridicule religion? Sure:

    “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. The ideas that we critique and ridicule have historically led to or facilitated war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. They have enslaved millions, impeded medical and scientific research and are now draining vast sums of taxpayer dollars to propagate more of these ridiculous ideas.

    These ideas have resulted in untold amounts of violence, death, torture, and suffering as well as the profound intimidation and physical molestation of our young. Ridicule and even sneering condescension are about the mildest critical reactions that we can have for the enormity of the mind-boggling injustices perpetrated in their name. I can readily empathize with those of us who consider the behaviors prompted by these dogma to be illegal and criminal.” – Christopher Hitchens.

  17. on 25 Apr 2012 at 3:37 pm 17.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Ridicule is an appropriate response to ridiculous claims. If 40YA is offended by that, then he should take responsibility for his own actions and address his insecurities rather than whining about it in public.

  18. on 25 Apr 2012 at 3:46 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    15.40 year Atheist said …

    “Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left”

    Rush Limbaugh on Sandra Fluke:

    “So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh%E2%80%93Sandra_Fluke_controversy

    Bill O’Reilly: frequent use of the word “pinhead” for everyone with whom he disagrees. Most of his rhetoric is ridicule. His 2010 book is entitled “Pinheads and Patriots”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)

    Mark Levin: In his radio show, the consistent use of ridicule, ad hominems and insults is a staple of the show.

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

    The Right is the primary and most egregious user of ridicule.

  19. on 25 Apr 2012 at 4:56 pm 19.A said …

    40 ya

    Plantiga is a man of class. Unfortunately the atheists he debates are so outclassed they resort to ridicule to win points. It is a classless weapon of the leftist.

  20. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:03 pm 20.Zap said …

    Yes, Rush, Bill and Mark are all leftists.

  21. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:12 pm 21.DPK said …

    Zap, your are talking to a bag of hammers. Theists are so accustomed to stating an outright lie or fabrication as fact and then deluding themselves into thinking it is true, you cannot really convince them of anything with actual facts. They just ignore them and move on to the next round of distractions.
    40yr does this by lurking here until someone make even a casual mention of a topic he has written about in his mindless blog, and then gleefully proceeds to cut and paste volumes of his manifesto. He very much reminds me of a guy near here who drives around in an RV covered with biblical quotes and has a “the world will end on_______” with a magnetic changeable sign for the date that he has to keep changing. He looks like Charlie Mansion, and never misses an opportunity to pounce on some unsuspecting soul and try to deliver his message of doom. Even the Jehovah’s stay away from him!

  22. on 25 Apr 2012 at 5:42 pm 22.Asher said …

    Who is Charlie Mansion and why is he relevant?

    40 Year you are a seer if I believed in such powers. No sooner have you outted the left that they get busy with their show!

  23. on 25 Apr 2012 at 6:19 pm 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    22.Asher said …

    “Who is Charlie Mansion and why is he relevant?”

    Asher-Hor has time to post a reply to a typo of DPK simply to RIDICULE him for it when he knows damn well that he was referring to Charlie Manson (if he didn’t then he’s an idiot), but he NEVER, EVER provides evidence for his imaginary god.

  24. on 25 Apr 2012 at 7:31 pm 24.DPK said …

    I think it’s comical how they always try to divert the topic to politics and also how they always insist atheists are always part of the “left”.
    If you knew my own political views you would also find it hilarious as I am actually anything but left wing liberal!
    In fact, of all the openly atheists I know, the one thing I can say about them is that they seem to cover a very broad spectrum of the political and social spectrum. The only thing they do have in common is a kind of instinctive nose for bullshit… they can all smell it 10 miles away.

  25. on 25 Apr 2012 at 8:30 pm 25.Lou (DFW) said …

    24.DPK said …

    “I think it’s comical how they always try to divert the topic to politics and also how they always insist atheists are always part of the “left”.”

    That’s the way they think. It’s the same thing as them claiming that “atheism” is a religion. They must label and pigeon-hole everything in order to make it conform to their limited, convoluted way of “thinking.” Unless something has a label attached, they can’t understand it. Everything must somehow fit into their “worldview” before they can attempt to understand it.

    Like you, I’m neither a left-wing liberal nor a right-wing conservative. I’m liberal about some things and conservative about others. What theists here don’t understand is that “atheism” is not a choice based upon politics. It’s based upon (lack-of) evidence (for god), reason, and intelligence. For 99% of theists, it’s not a choice they made. They were, in effect, born that way because they were brainwashed as children to believe whatever religion that their region believed.

    For them, atheists MUST be left-wing liberals because they aren’t atheists and they are right-wing conservatives – such is their limited way of thinking.

  26. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:22 pm 26.gex said …

    Moreover, what you are seeing with religious nutters assuming everyone else is liberal is that you are seeing how political entities have co-opted their religion and made it a political entity. They don’t know why the hate liberals other than their religion has been twisted (more than it already was) to become a means for one political party to sell policies they can’t sell to a democracy without trying to convince them God wants them to.

  27. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:33 pm 27.Prime said …

    Indeed, much insight on here in the last few posts. These people can’t tease apart secularism and liberalism not least because the evangelical Christians have bought and pressed the Republican Party into being an extension of their own vision of the GOP: God’s Own Party.

    I am a liberal atheist. I have no problem with conservatism, especially economic conservatism (and am quite economically conservative on some issues), and I highly value the conversation and that there are vocal representatives on both sides (to keep anyone from getting too far out in la-la land). I’m even sympathetic to social conservatism. I’m not sympathetic at all, though, to theocracy, and am ardently committed to secularism. Because of the warping of the current Republican Party, which is unlikely to last forever (or even much longer), it is impossible to support most of the GOP candidates without supporting theocratic endeavors.

    It really makes me want the Republicans to take their party back from these scoundrels that feel overly compelled because of “Christian morals” to shove their religion into society, particularly in civics and education. Of course, their “moral” code teaches them that unless the law of the land concords with “God’s law” (meaning whichever brand the loudest religious mouths are promoting at present), terrible things will happen. Unfortunately, they seem too power-hungry to do it, and they sell us all out in the process.

  28. on 25 Apr 2012 at 9:50 pm 28.Lou (DFW) said …

    27.Prime said …

    “These people can’t tease apart secularism and liberalism not least because the evangelical Christians have bought and pressed the Republican Party into being an extension of their own vision of the GOP: God’s Own Party.”

    “It’s wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, … They need to leave their theologies in their churches.” – Barry Goldwater – aka Mr. Conservative, 1964 Republican Presidential nominee

  29. on 25 Apr 2012 at 10:43 pm 29.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Two days now and still no theists has posted an answer as to what the Christian moral code actually is? Looks like Anonymous’ prediction in #3 was spot on.

  30. on 25 Apr 2012 at 11:43 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    29.ReligionIsStupid said …

    “Two days now and still no theists has posted an answer as to what the Christian moral code actually is? Looks like Anonymous’ prediction in #3 was spot on.”

    Of course it was.

    But we did get 40DA’s rant about ridicule.

  31. on 26 Apr 2012 at 1:27 am 31.The Judge said …

    Charlie Mansion is hilarious. Charlie did kill in a mansion but he never changed his name.

    I wonder if mansion was ever called Charlie? That might have got you throat cut.

    How does Charlie Mansion prove God does not exist? How does amputees not healed prove God does not exist?

    How does Bachmann and Perry prove God does not exist as this thread claims?http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2247

    How does this blog prove God does not exist?

    Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.

  32. on 26 Apr 2012 at 1:36 am 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    31.The Judge said …

    “Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.”

    Show us in this thread where anyone wrote “Christian’s have no moral code.” If you can’t, the that makes you a liar.

    Let ME add, it has been asked over and over in this thread – “Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    Let ME add, you DID NOT answer the question posed in this thread. Can you or can’t you? If you can, then do it. Otherwise, get lost.

  33. on 26 Apr 2012 at 2:48 am 33.DPK said …

    So I get criticized for the typo of putting an errant “i”in Manson by some who writes sentences like this:

    I wonder if mansion was ever called Charlie? That might have got you throat cut.

    I can spell “irony”.
    If the best you have is resorting to criticizing typos, you’d be better served by keeping your yap shut, you just embarrass yourself. Don’t worry, Jesus still loves you.

  34. on 26 Apr 2012 at 3:17 am 34.ReligionIsStupid said …

    Hor’s sock-puppet wrote: “Let me add, Atheists claiming Christian’s have no moral code is like Carlos the Jackal claiming Pat Tillman is a murderer.”

    Your attempt at deflecting the subject at hand with a strawman is noted but by refusing to address the question you, yourself, make the argument that not even a Xtain knows what their supposed moral code actually is. Feel free to speak up and provide the details.

    By the way, when looking for a hero to contrast with Carlos the Jackal, you might want to consider that your mind went straight to Tillman — an atheist.

  35. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:06 am 35.40 year Atheist said …

    This subject arises du temps en temps and for some reason Atheists cannot believe that they are not considered trustworthy, despite the lack of morality attached to their belief system. They actually think that by creating a personally congenial code of behavior which matches their actual daily doings, that their tautological morality should be obvious to everyone, and that not only are they moral, they are more moral than anyone else, all of whom are admittedly moral defectives, to wit: sinners. (One cannot be a sinner if one declares that there is no sin of course).

    Not only are Atheists, in their own minds, more moral than their inferiors, Atheists are in possession of the moral authority to determine morality for the rest of humanity. For example, take a look at all of the Humanist Manifestos.

    Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”. By pondering – in ungrounded ponders of course, there being no absolute grounds – the value of other humans who are not themselves, they are able to make moral pronouncements on the value of classes of humans, again not themselves.

    In a sense, all Atheists are ethicists, in that they determine at least their own personal ethical systems of behavior. So every Atheist is at least a moral authority unto himself. It is not entirely clear how it is that some, but not all, Atheists acquire the extra moral authority to declare ethics for everyone. Regardless of how that accreditation is acquired, some Atheists have it, and they become career moral authorities for the rest of humanity.

    Now two of these career moral authorities have declared a new class of non-valued humans: the post-natals. Here is a summary of their new revelations:
    Abstract
    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
    Now, since this new revelation is an intellectual understanding of some sort, we should see how it stacks up before rejecting it as the product of fools. Well, “should” is too strong, that is a moral pronouncement itself; it is not necessary to examine it before rejecting it on the basis of “who do they think they are, God?” – the product of fools… and summarily shit-canning the entire subject.

    But of course, many folks will consider this Atheist revelation to be elegantly compelling, and for that reason alone it needs to be analyzed.

    First off, it presumes that pre-natal abortion of a fetus is a rational and therefore moral action. It explains legally declared ethical reasons to destroy a fetus and then asks, what is the difference between a fetus and a new-born, the answer for which is merely: a breath of air.

    For diseased pre-born fetuses it is presumed ethical to kill them. But some diseases, such as Down’s syndrome, are not 100% detectable prior to birth. So why not kill them post-natally? Since there is no definitive difference between pre-birth canal and post birth canal existence, the value of the critter is the same one second after as it is one second before traversing the canal. So it is not the process of birth that influences the value being placed on the critter.

    Yes, it’s a critter all right. But is it a human? Who is to say? If the mother and the ethicists agree that it is not a person, why then who can disagree? In fact, at what age does this determination procedure become invalid? Well, age is not the criterion. There is no age limit for placing value on a human.

    What is the criterion for personhood? According to these two career moral authorities, it is just whatever they, themselves, figure it to be. Their specific criterion is… well, it just doesn’t matter; they have one today. Now we might sit down and calculate the ROI for a just birthed critter, say on the average of a large population. Or we might do a specific calculation on the ROI for a just birthed critter for the individual case, say based on class, genetic history, family prior contribution to human welfare, needs for balancing the sexual population, needs for dealing with social ills such as poverty, or other social imbalances which this individual might exacerbate, etc. (Can Social Justice be ignored at the valuation of an individual, morally?)

    There is absolutely no restriction which is logically attached to the authoritative determination of the value of humanesque critters, regardless of birth status or time since traversing the birth canal. So it is incumbent upon someone to make the decision, someone with moral authority of course. And we already know who that is, the career moral authorities: the ethicists.

    By measuring the value of individuals (as has already been done by the Emmanuels in the current Democrat administration) those who do not contribute significantly to the betterment of humankind (for example) can be credited with less or no value. This is a simple determination. Equations already exist toward that end.

    The problem then becomes what to do with them, those who are devalued. At what point are their sources of sustenance reduced, or their sources of life maintenance removed, or maybe outright termination is required? Since the age, post natally, is not the issue, then how should the older ones be terminated? Or should they be sequestered in encampments? Perhaps some value might be extracted in terms of labor? And when they no longer can perform that, then extinguish them?

    These issues will be decided by the ethicists, of course.

    Why should we not trust them with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??

    If social engineering and eugenics is about a better world for the children, it is definitely not for ALL children, is it? Only those finding favor with the Atheist ethicists.

  36. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:02 pm 36.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.40 year Atheist said …

    “Why should we not trust them [atheists] with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??”

    There’s this issue with theists who by definition and convention are THEIST ETHICISTS:

    The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

    The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

    The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period.

  37. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:02 pm 37.Lou (DFW) said …

    40 year Atheist,

    “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” – W.C. Fields

    “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull [not to mention out-right lies].” – W.C. Fields

  38. on 26 Apr 2012 at 12:03 pm 38.Lou (DFW) said …

    36.Lou (DFW) said …

    35.40 year Atheist said …

    “Why should we not trust them [atheists] with our lives as they socially engineer the future for our children… Oh wait… the children, what about the children??”

    These children?

    http://tinyurl.com/6rvxqfh

  39. on 26 Apr 2012 at 5:07 pm 39.ReligionIsStupid said …

    So, what part of Stan’s recycled garbage contained the Christian Moral Code?

  40. on 26 Apr 2012 at 5:50 pm 40.DPK said …

    Uh… I phrase searched Stan’s website for the words “Christian Moral Code” and came up empty. So it is safe to say, if it is not already on Stan’s pre-written manifesto, he will not be commenting on that topic. Notice how he attempts to steer the topic toward abortion. The topic is not abortion, it is “where is the absolute Christian code of morality that everyone talks about, but no one can produce?”
    I’m beginning to think perhaps it only exists in their imaginations, much like their invisible god… nebulous and spooky, cannot be disproved because it can shift and change at will. Hardly absolute.
    I will say that I endured many years of christian indoctrination, and never once have I seen such a code outside of the 10 commandments. Are THEY the “superior and absolute moral code” they speak of?

  41. on 26 Apr 2012 at 6:02 pm 41.Prime said …

    Rather curious that their “philosopher” (Stan) doesn’t even take a stab at that one but rather uses the opportunity to do his favorite things ever:
    1. Read things he’s written;
    2. Lie about atheists; and
    3. Divert attention from the onus placed on him by his beliefs.

  42. on 26 Apr 2012 at 7:02 pm 42.Godless Monkey said …

    And I love the way 40YA just naturally assumes that all atheists believe that it’s a free-for-all on abortion. What a truly ignorant prick.

    Little trip down memory lane…bear with me. I’ll try to keep this short.

    When I was in high school one of my best friends, at 15, and a xtian (as were most of us, xtian and white, due to our particular demographics. Amazing how that helps shade who you are, right 40YA? Of course you’d disagree if you’d EVER respond to your dribble) was pregnant with an “uh-oh” baby by her 16-year-old boyfriend. She chose to have an abortion.

    By the time we were 22 she’d had four abortions, while still xtian, strictly using abortion as a form of birth control, which I found abhorrent then, and still do, but that was HER choice, not mine. Had she had proper sex ed perhaps this wouldn’t have happened, but who knows.

    And xtians, don’t come at me with why I find abortion strictly as BC abhorrent. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my being an “unbeliever in the supernatural” –as using the word *atheist” makes your heads explode.

    Point of this foray into the past is this: When my husband and I found ourselves pregnant with our own uh-oh baby while still in college, I, by then an outed atheist, CHOSE to have my child. So equating xtian = prolife V atheist = baby killer has been proven wrong, at least in this instance.

    40YA, painting all atheists with the same broad brush, stroking your own warped ego while doing so, does not make you right. You are nothing but a propagandist throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks, and I’m sure it sticks like annointed oil to your lemmings who can no more think for themselves than you can. You really are a pathetic and pitiable descendant of ignorance. Worst part is you are not alone.

  43. on 26 Apr 2012 at 7:18 pm 43.The Judge said …

    “Some Atheists attain accreditation in moral superiority; they call themselves “ethicists”.”

    I almost spit out my coffee. I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist. If you need to tell me you are an ethicist, I probably will not be listening to your situational ethics.

    It is nice to read a well reasoned post 40 year.

    “By the way, when looking for a hero to contrast with Carlos the Jackal, you might want to consider that your mind went straight to Tillman — an atheist.”

    RIS,

    A hero? And you call others a liar? I do surprise you no? I expected as much. Some of us have respect for someone who does not believe as they do regarding God and religion. Its called maturity.

  44. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:07 pm 44.MegaByte said …

    40 YA

    I’m glad you brought this up. The fact that we would even discuss after-birth abortion as possibly being ethical is disturbing.

    I suppose babies are way down on the list when it comes to priorities,

    1. My career
    2. Didn’t want it
    3. Too much trouble
    4. Whatever reason I make up.

    Maybe we need to provide fee contraceptives right to the dorms and homes. Call 911 and have them delivered in person. So let us just give mothers up to a year to decide if they want to kill the baby. I knew it was coming, just not in my lifetime. Even most animals have more sense than this.

    The Judge said “Its called maturity.”

    Great retort their Judge!

  45. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:22 pm 45.Prime said …

    43.The Judge said …

    “I almost spit out my coffee. I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist. If you need to tell me you are an ethicist, I probably will not be listening to your situational ethics.”

    Right, because you rely on people calling themselves “minister of God” to provide you with ethical instruction.

    They become qualified to provide it how? By reading a 3000-year-old manifesto of how the Jews thought they had a divine right to conquer a crappy piece of land in the Middle East, filled with all kinds of mythology and distortion, followed by a contradictory set of rambling accounts of a man (or group of men) who may have lived and died in the first century and some of their followers, replete with psychotic visions (or coded messages) about the end of the world (if coded, about the fall of certain Roman emperors).

    Where do people unqualified in essentially everything but rhetoric and self-importance go to get jobs? Clergy.

  46. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:23 pm 46.Prime said …

    Correction, sorry, the clergy are also experts in overcoming reasonable doubt. That’s the other thing in their kit of mastery.

  47. on 26 Apr 2012 at 8:28 pm 47.Godless Monkey said …

    Lemmings who’ve been hit by 40YR’s self-confirming shit, chewed it around a while, orgasmed in delight, swallowed it, burped in gratification, then graciously praised the giver of the feces: The Judge and Megabyte.

  48. on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:50 pm 48.Lou (DFW) said …

    44.MegaByte said …

    “Great retort their Judge!”

    Poor Hor, he simply can’t disguise himself.

  49. on 26 Apr 2012 at 9:59 pm 49.Lou (DFW) said …

    43.The Judge said …

    “I know that Dawkins calls himself an ethicist.”

    If you “know” that, then you shouldn’t have any problem showing us where he called himself an ethicist. Go ahead, we’re waiting.

  50. on 26 Apr 2012 at 10:08 pm 50.Godless Monkey said …

    Megabyte said @44: “Maybe we need to provide free conraceptives right to the dorms and homes.”

    Smart way to keep unwanted children from being born, yes, and any intelligent, rational person would agree, and I realize the debate on the “free” part, but Mega and his ilk don’t “believe” in contraceptives, so there goes that grand plan!

    Plus what would they do — once unwanted pregnancies were fewer — on Saturday afternoons if they couldn’t run down and protest at abortion clinics? They need those unwanted babies getting aborted to feel like they’re putting in the work for god.

    Well, there’s always gonna be homos, right, guys? You’d still have your mission :)

  51. on 26 Apr 2012 at 10:51 pm 51.MegaByte said …

    “Smart way to keep unwanted children from being born, yes, and any intelligent, rational person would agree,”

    Awww, monkey I feel badly for you. You must be so embarrassed. You obviously don’t realize contraceptives are already fee at the local clinics and as cheap as aspirin at Wal-Mart.

    Next trick, we will prepare and feed your ilk as well. The nanny state has turned all your ilk in to mindless leeches on society. Diaper need changing too?

  52. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:01 pm 52.DPK said …

    Ok, so the topic here was:
    “Two questions must be asked:

    Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?
    Do all Christians abide by it? Do even half? One tenth? Less?

    Christians, care to answer? ”

    So far, we seem to have narrowed in on abortion and birth control. Are they both part of the “Christian Moral Code?”
    Oh wait… Catholics (christians) say birth control is a sin. Most other more liberal christian sects don’t agree. Well, so much for that… so we’re back to abortion. I assume everyone will agree that it seems abortion goes against the “thou shalt not kill” part of the christian moral code. Ok, at least we are somewhat on topic with one thing… how about capital punishment and war? Are those killings allowed by the christian moral code?
    Just trying to understand this superior moral code you guys all say we lack. Specifics please?
    How about pre-marital sex??? A sin? Homosexuality.. a sin? Does the christian moral code abide killing of adulterers and homosexuals as specifically commanded by god himself? Or did somebody decide that doesn’t count?
    You guys sure have a lot of explaining to do… lemme grab a cup of coffee and wait for you to not answer…. again.

  53. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:11 pm 53.Godless Monkey said …

    Megabyte, you contrdict yourself…with yourself. But of course contradiction is the forte of your holy book that you swallow hook, line and sinker without question, which speaks highly of your sanity.

    I feel no insults from those that are delusional, so run out and do some gay bashing and get your jollies that way, and do it fast because the winds of change are blowing in the direction of gay acceptance, which must frighten the bejesus out of your ilk :)

  54. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:20 pm 54.MegaByte said …

    “winds of change are blowing in the direction of gay acceptance,”

    Oh no oh no!!!!! Gay acceptance!

    The only wind that blows is from your monkey flatulence. You are so cute. My little monkey, I work, play and live among gays. The ones I know are wonderful people. You seem quite taken with gays and abortions like they are a circus sideshow. Would this be from some under lying childhood trauma?

    Head down to the clinic and get your contraceptives my girl. Check the yellowpages and get directions. Pick up a burger and fries on me. For goodness sake, Please don’t forget to eat.

    Unfortunately your lame stereotyping will only get worse as you approach your late 20s and on into middle age. Grow up and wise up. I can’t be around to hold your hand.

  55. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:34 pm 55.Godless Monkey said …

    So I can then only assume, Mega, playing devil’s (in whom I assume you believe exists, could be wrong) advocate here, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are one of those rare xtians who don’t believe homosexuality is a sin? You don’t spout out horseshit like “Love the sinner, but hate the sin”?

    You are so enlightened!

  56. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:47 pm 56.DPK said …

    “I work, play and live among gays.”

    You want a medal, or a chest to pin it on?
    Don’t think much of him Monkey… he might tolerate them, but he still thinks they are all going to hell, which delights him no end. The only people he would take more delight in watching burn is you and me. So much for his christ-like aspirations, huh? Or maybe not… I mean Jesus loves us unconditionally, but his alter ego Yahweh had no trouble with mass murder and infanticide, and sends people to hell by the billions. Is that part of the christian moral code too? “Love your neighbor, but it’s ok to be mockingly smug while he burns in hell though…..”

    Mega-ego… Still waiting for your answers to 52… guess you’re going to dodge again?

  57. on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:50 pm 57.Godless Monkey said …

    P.S. Mega, just stopped at local vegan cafe and picked up a Boca burger. When can I expect your cash? Or are you lying about that as you lie and generalize about most other things? You did say it was on you, afterall :)

  58. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:03 am 58.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.MegaByte said …

    “Next trick, we will prepare and feed your ilk as well. The nanny state has turned all your ilk in to mindless leeches on society.”

    Yes, similar to the way in which churches suckle at the government tit in the form of tax subsidies. But in your case, you were mindless to begin with.

  59. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:07 am 59.Godless Monkey said …

    DPK, how could I think highly of such a shrill, contradiction-filled whinebag who earlier advocated the bile that 40YA spewed…and then goes on to resort to playground taunts, which his guru earlier ONLY ascribed to atheists? He doesn’t phase me one bit. But, as stated earlier, so much for those great xtian morals!

  60. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:28 am 60.MegaByte said …

    “P.S. Mega, just stopped at local vegan cafe and picked up a Boca burger. When can I expect your cash?”

    You did! I’m so proud. I’m good to my word. Post name address and phone and we will get out a check post haste!

    shrill? That hurts, in point of fact I am a baritone but I don’t deem we have met young lady.

    Now monkey, don’t get so flustered. A maturing young lady reads and gives thought to opposing opinions. That is how good quality girls learn and broaden their horizons. Stop looking at others who purport a differing opinion as your enemy. It is so childish. Then be candid with yourself and others.

    I wish I could say you were one of the atypical atheists who is enlightened and mature but sadly you are just another alex. Now come on, what snappy ad homenim will you come back with?

  61. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:30 am 61.DPK said …

    It is fun watching them twitch and wriggle.
    For people who claim to have such a firm and personal knowledge of their god, they are awfully short on answers about him, and they spend an awful lot of time here looking for validation and acceptance… and correcting typos and grammar as well.
    They also seem to be woefully ignorant of the tenants of their own superior and absolute christian moral code that they spout so adamantly about. Will no one answer?? We got you’re vehemently anti-abortion… ok. What else? We’ve already determined birth control seems to be a maybe/maybe not… so obviously that isn’t spelled out in the absolute moral code you all follow. How about capital punishment? Yes or No? Or is your absolute moral code not clear about that either? How about killing in self defense? That would seem to be ok with most of them… oh, but wait, there’s that whole “turn the other cheek thing, huh?” Ok… how about killing in time of war?? I guess it would depend on who’s side you were on and whether god was on “your” side or the other guys. Oh, yeah, another problem for them… god is always claimed to be on “our” side… even the Nazi’s thought that. Hmmmm… Ok… this should be an easy one… Crusades and Jihad’s… right, or wrong? Oh wait… they can’t both be right huh? Ok, just Crusades and Inquisitions… the OT god sent his people into wars all the time and told them to slaughter everyone, even women and children and animals… unless the girls were virgins, and hot… then they could keep those ones as sex slaves. Sex Slaves!!!??? woah…. you’re allowed to have sex slaves in the absolute christian moral code… oh, that;s right… slavery is ok with the Lord… so I guess sex slaves is a form of slavery and clearly Yahweh has no problem with that as long as you don’t commit adultery… the punishment for that is death… oh, and death for not being a virgin when your father sells you to be married… or working on the Sabbath!! Oh wait!! YES…. that working on the Sabbath IS part of the absolute christian moral code… yeah, you can’t do that. No question there.. it’s written right in the big 10.
    Oh wait.. the only people that actually still obey that absolute moral directive drive horse buggies and use the Sear’s catalog for toilet paper. Problem.
    Oh well, I’m sure Hor and Mega-dick and Ben and the others can explain it all to us perfectly. Let’s wait for it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  62. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:42 am 62.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.MegaByte said …

    “I wish I could say you were one of the atypical atheists who is enlightened and mature…”

    But what we can say without wishing or without any reservation is that you are a typical theist. You NEVER, EVER provide evidence of your imaginary god. You NEVER, EVER answer direct questions about the actual topic. You only provide diversions and distractions in order to avoid the obvious – that your religious belief is a delusion, you have no evidence for your imaginary god. In effect, you are wrong.

  63. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:51 am 63.Godless Monkey said …

    If I ever feel the need of a mentor, Mega, rest assured that I would not choose you. I’d prefer a mentor SMARTER than I, not dumber and delusional. The only thing I’d learn from you I’d easily recognize as complete nonsense, nonsense that any unbrainwashed 5th grader would see through.

    Your casting yourself in the older, wiser Daddy role, to me, makes me want to curl up in a fetal position, sit under the shower, and wash your creepiness away.

    Go mentor some young girl at your church. I’m sure her parents won’t mind a bit.

  64. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:53 am 64.Godless Monkey said …

    And Mega, you’ve yet to answer the question of whether you believe homosexuality is a sin? I’m sure the hordes of homosexual friends you have would love to know how you feel about this too.

  65. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:21 am 65.Godless Monkey said …

    Mega said @54:

    “Oh no oh no!!!!! Gay acceptance!”

    Sounds more “shrill” than “baritone” to me…if I were to imagine you actually saying it outloud :)

  66. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:48 am 66.DPK said …

    Megabyte in his other persona as Hor has told us all about his “Broadway in the Basement” quasi-sexual fantasies in which Lou, and presumably other atheists here, dance with Wiccans to Broadway show tunes in his mom’s basement rec room. Presumably he moves the ping pong table out of his way when it’s show time. But of course, that’s not gay at all……

    D

  67. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:52 am 67.DPK said …

    “And Mega, you’ve yet to answer the question of whether you believe homosexuality is a sin?”

    That and at least 100 other direct questions that NONE of them EVER, EVER answer. Why? Because they can’t answer without opening themselves to a barrage of questions, contradictions, and outright lies about their faith, their supposed absolute morality, and the very nature and existence of their imaginary god.

  68. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:57 am 68.MegaByte said …

    GM

    You are so flustered. You are so silly. Now why would you care about my position on homosexuality? You want to judge me or pat me on the back based on my answer? Frankly, someone as brainwashed as you, obsessed with abortion and homosexuals I find quite disturbed. My homosexual acquaintances are open minded, respectful and humble. They are not looking to you for direction, I feel certain monkey.

    Your elitist arrogant attitude is already acknowledged, no need to trumpet the obvious. You are very young, quite obvious, and female, quite obvious and you think you know it all. So original!

    Your vast database of knowledge and life experience is no match for me. Now how could I even dream of mentoring you:). The fact you think that can/would take place of a blog is even more disturbing. Try logging off and get a life.

    I have wasted enough of my time for the week. Sorry about the unpaid meal. Maybe next time.

    bye bye

  69. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:09 am 69.Godless Monkey said …

    DPK, @66, that is the best laugh I’ve had all day!! Now I can’t get the visual out of my head.

    Now I’m left to wonder which showtunes this Hor/Mega, multiple personalitied chorus boy prefers? Hummm, I’m guessing anything from Rent or Avenue Q, you know, the “gay” shows.

    Mega, you got any jazz slippers? Do you wanna borrow mine :)

  70. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:20 am 70.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Dear site admin/poster/article writer person,

    Please do a post about the Emily Herx story. Fucking stupid Catholics.

  71. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:29 am 71.Godless Monkey said …

    Yes, Mega, that vast database of knowledge you possess must at least fill up half of one 10-page notebook, based on what you’ve posted here, at least. Does that database advocate the belief in fairy tales? Just curious.

    Presumptious of you to assume that I’m some very young, naïve nymphete, but perhaps that is just because you’ve also cast a role for me in your basement production, and you get to play the learned Mr. Higgins to my young, dumb, yet grateful, Eliza.

    You fluster me as much as a fly flusters a lion. Don’t flatter yourself :)

    We know why you won’t answer the question about your homosexual friends and your beliefs about them being sinners. As DPK stated, if you do you open the door to a barage of questions that you cannot answer w/out exposing yourself as the contradictory, lying bigot that you are.

    And on that note, “Good Day to you, Sir! Cite: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

  72. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:35 am 72.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.MegaByte said …

    “I have wasted enough of my time for the week.”

    Where have we heard that before, Hor?

    “Sorry about the unpaid meal. Maybe next time.”

    But of course, no apology for the unanswered questions. And we know that there won’t be “a next time” that you will answer them.

  73. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:21 am 73.Godless Monkey said …

    Just how many names does this Hor/Megabyte go by? And why do you think he does that? Curious.

  74. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:59 am 74.DPK said …

    Not sure. I know we have definitely caught him using at least three. Someone will say something to him as horatiio and he will respond as someone else. Possibly more… But really, there’s not much substance to any of them. Even if they are more than one, they might as well not be.
    Why does he do it. To make it look like other people agree with him, of course. The same reason people go to church, so other people can see that they go to church. Since lots of people go to church, there must be a good reason for it, right?

  75. on 27 Apr 2012 at 5:43 am 75.Godless Monkey said …

    Thanks for the info, DPK. Funny how Mega/Hor/whoever loves to comment about his perception of my maturity level while at the same time basically trying on different costumes…just like a child. But who knows, maybe all his characters here also have major roles in his basement production.

  76. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:00 pm 76.alex said …

    “Now why would you care about my position on homosexuality?”

    I strongly suspect MegaByte is gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but all the bluster and the condescending tones just seem…..

    MegaByte’s position on homosexuality is prolly on the floor on all fours. Ironic God?

  77. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:30 pm 77.Xenon said …

    Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians. The word Christian has been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs. For one who is born-again and has made Jesus Christ Lord of his life it would follow

    “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.””

    The Beattitudes.

    The other teachings of Christ.

    I haven’t seen Horatio post here in a very long time. It is a bit poignant how 3 bloggers remain so captivated by him/her.

  78. on 27 Apr 2012 at 12:56 pm 78.DPK said …

    Finally!
    Ok, thanks for that Xenon. Now, please explain to us, except for the part about loving god, how that differs from the “Golden Rule” that theists claim is inferior to the absolute christian moral code?

    “In their attempt to argue that effective and binding codes can be developed without a deity, atheists often mistake inferior codes – “common decency” – for absolute moral systems.
    The Golden Rule, or doing as you would be done by, is such a code. But the fact that men can arrive at the Golden Rule without religion does not mean that man can arrive at the Christian moral code without religion.”

    While you are at it, please further explain how an “absolute moral code” handed down by an omnipotent being can be “watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.” Doesn’t seem possible to me that you have the exclusive word of god, while billions of others have different ones.

  79. on 27 Apr 2012 at 1:08 pm 79.Lou(DFW) said …

    77.Xenon said …

    “Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians.”

    Yet most theists conveniently pigeon-hole atheists into one group of liberal, left-wing, immoral, abortionists.

    The questions are outside the context of “all Christians,” or any xtians for that matter. One doesn’t have to be an xtian to find the xtian moral code in the bible anymore than one must be a muslim to find a similar code in the qur’an.

    “The Beattitudes.

    The other teachings of Christ.”

    Not exactly “a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code,” are they?

    But let’s go back to the ORIGINAL, original “query” – where is your evidence for your imaginary god?

    “I haven’t seen Horatio post here in a very long time.”

    Then you are easily fooled. Even if the common themes of his comments are ignored, he continuously makes a unique, yet noticeable punctuation mistake in comments by his various pseudonyms.

    “It is a bit poignant how 3 bloggers remain so captivated by him/her.”

    Really? How is it “poignant?”

  80. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:30 pm 80.Xenon said …

    “except for the part about loving god, how that differs from the “Golden Rule”

    Well, except for the artist is no obvious distinction between the Mona Lisa and a fake.

    Then you left out the teachings of Jesus and the Beatitudes.

    But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible? Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule? How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion? Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative? Then one must ask, why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1? Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?

    “Then you are easily fooled.”

    Lou, you have called me Horatio, and I am the one easily fooled? If truth be told, you refer to everyone who is a theist as Hor.

    You have a fascination with Horatio. If he is here posting under dissimilar pseudonyms who cares? If it is so evident, why point it out?

  81. on 27 Apr 2012 at 2:35 pm 81.Tom said …

    The Golden Rule was part of the Judeo-Christian worldview way before Buddha, Confusious, and many others wrote about it. In fact, the earliest written reference to the Golden Rule is found in the book of Leviticus dated to about 1400 B.C

    “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:18

  82. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:17 pm 82.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Xenon said …

    “Then you left out the teachings of Jesus and the Beatitudes.”

    I didn’t – “Not exactly “a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code,” are they?”

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    Do you deny that it has not been claimed that god is the source of absolute morality?

  83. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:24 pm 83.Prime said …

    Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?

    Your answer was extremely vague, unfortunately, and doesn’t deal with an awful lot.

    Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs. That particular issue seems to be causing us quite a bit of trouble in this new digital-information age, and I couldn’t find it in my bible. I mean, it says “do not steal,” but it doesn’t define what stealing means except in terms of things like donkeys and wives.

  84. on 27 Apr 2012 at 3:41 pm 84.Lou (DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Your answer was extremely vague, unfortunately, and doesn’t deal with an awful lot.”

    77.Xenon said …

    “Going back to the original query, I cannot respond for all Christians. The word Christian has been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.”

    In other words, there is no “succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code.” Furthermore, like their religion, the so-called xtian moral code has also “been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.”

  85. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:08 pm 85.Xenon said …

    Tom

    Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all. I have found most morality does go back to scripture.

    “Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs.”

    “And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal,”

    For the definition of stealing see this link. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stealing

    Next, since I would not my property stolen or used without permission, I would not do so to others including digital work.

    I noticed not one of you answered one of my questions I asked in 80. That would violate the golden rule.

  86. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:20 pm 86.Severin said …

    83 Prime
    “Please also indicate to me where Jesus or his moral code comment on copyright laws and where the line between fair-use and intellectual property theft occurs.”

    And please indicate where god says slavery is wrong!?

    Or, if we take in account that there are NO such words of god in the Bible, and that god, in fact, gives us detailed instructions about how to beat our slaves, is slavery moral?

  87. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:24 pm 87.Lou (DFW) said …

    80.Xenon said …

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    In effect, yes. Theists here claim that only their (imaginary) god is the source of absolute morality. The bible is allegedly the word of god. Or do you claim that god speaks directly to you (or anybody else)?

    “Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule?”

    Me personally or people in general?

    “How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion?”

    First of all, it’s irrelevant. Second, I don’t think it can be discerned where it didn’t come from, but only where it comes from. BTW – religion and god are two different things.

    “Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative?”

    I give-up, why not?

    “Then one must ask..”

    No, one mustn’t. That’s simply a condition that you set.

    “…why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1?”

    Do you mean is there an absolute reason or a personal reason?

    “Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?”

    The majority. I think that it’s basically indisputable that a greater percentage of atheists follow the Golden Rule than do theists. How many atheists are in prison? How many theists?

  88. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:25 pm 88.Severin said …

    85 Xenon
    “Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    It probably has not.

    As we discussed some 2 years ago, Bible was written far before Christ, and was written through hundreds of years.
    I mean, many great civilizations survived millenniums without Christianity having the “golden rule” in THEIR moral codes.

    As everything in Christianity, “golden rule” was stolen from others.
    Unfortunately it was not followed long enough.

  89. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:32 pm 89.Lou (DFW) said …

    88.Severin said …

    85 Xenon
    “Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    “It probably has not.”

    Of course it doesn’t. To claim so is absurd, and is part of their delusion.

  90. on 27 Apr 2012 at 4:42 pm 90.Prime said …

    84.Lou (DFW) said …

    “In other words, there is no “succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code.” Furthermore, like their religion, the so-called xtian moral code has also “been watered down to include all sorts of beliefs.””

    Indeed, like karma.

    Now a lot of other interesting stuff has happened too, so sorry for not quoting it all.

    Why not Kant? Good question. The point isn’t solid, though, because *NO ONE WORSHIPS KANT AND SAYS HIS IDEAS COME FROM THE PERFECT CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE*
    In other words, Kant’s ideas are out there for criticism and discussion, not mindlessly followed by billions of ditto heads who think the world might end any day and take all the bad people (read: people doing things they wish they were doing) to hell to suffer forever for living their lives.

    The Golden Rule shows up also in Leviticus (a Jewish book) and in Tobit and Serach (other Jewish books). It was well-known to be a proverb at the time of Jesus, indicating that he learned it the same way you did. It’s not got its roots in Christianity, and as demonstrated here, it doesn’t have its roots in Judaism even: every culture that had writing is known to have had it.

    It’s also not that great of a moral code.
    If I like getting slapped in the face and wished people would do it to me, does that mean I should get to slap people in the face?

  91. on 27 Apr 2012 at 5:20 pm 91.Tom said …

    “Tom
    Thank you, I did not realize the golden rule has it roots in Christianity after all.”

    You are welcome Xenon. The only source to the Hebrew origin, older than Leviticus, is Hinduism’s karmic law. However, Hinduism earliest written record is dated around 500 BC. while Leviticus was written well before that. Jesus would have grown up memorizing God’s written word in Leviticus.

    Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.

  92. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:00 pm 92.DPK said …

    “Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.”

    And since Prime demonstrated clearly in 90 that it is NOT absolute, your claim of divine origin is meaningless. I mean really… you cannot apply the golden rule in any kind of moral way without some form of relativism. If someone likes having hot wax dripped on their private parts, does that mean you should go around pouring hot wax down people’s trousers? Of course not. But if you ascribe an absolutism to the rule, them that is what you must do. But we all know this is wrong…. why is that?
    Because morality does not come from an absolute moral power. If it did, we would unquestionably still be stoning adulterers at the city gates, selling our daughters into prostitution, and collecting slaves from conquered nations. Do you deny that god instructed us to do these things?
    If he provides an absolute divine morality… what happened? Did he change his mind at some point??
    Doesn’t sound very omniscient to me.

  93. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:19 pm 93.Xenon said …

    “If someone likes having hot wax dripped on their private parts, does that mean you should go around pouring hot wax down people’s trousers?”

    DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it. Just don’t do business with me.

    Now, I answered many questions. When will you answer those in 80?

    Thanks again Tom. True, only the designer and author of the universe can impose absolute laws.

  94. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:24 pm 94.Lou (DFW) said …

    91.Tom said …

    “The only source to the Hebrew origin, older than Leviticus, is Hinduism’s karmic law. However, Hinduism earliest written record is dated around 500 BC. while Leviticus was written well before that. Jesus would have grown up memorizing God’s written word in Leviticus.”

    This the same argument as “god exists unless you can prove he doesn’t.”

    “Any morality without a divine origin could never be absolute. The supposed golden rule does have divine origin.”

    Then why is it “supposed?”

  95. on 27 Apr 2012 at 6:25 pm 95.Lou (DFW) said …

    93.Xenon said …

    “Now, I answered many questions. When will you answer those in 80?”

    I did answer them in #87.

  96. on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:06 pm 96.Prime said …

    93.Xenon said …

    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it. Just don’t do business with me.”

    Oh, so the Golden Rule “do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” is meant to apply very broadly to “forcing anything upon others.”

    I don’t want cigarette smoke in my face, so no one should ever smoke anywhere ever in any circumstance in any environment anywhere within any radius in which I might smell or otherwise be subjected to that smoke? I don’t like the sound of lawnmowers while I’m relaxing or working, so people shouldn’t be allowed to mow their own lawns within any audibility radius of anyone’s house, just in case someone inside feels that way?

    This is what happens when you take your “golden rule” to an absolutist position. It is also the fundamental problem with the notion of liberty that you get when you try to make it absolute through this “libertarian” approach. You have to emphasize “negative liberties” over positive ones, and the result is that no one is ever ethically allowed to do anything that causes anyone the least bit of discomfort in any way. This would apply to poverty as well, and thus this position, taken absolutely and to its logical conclusion, forbids any economic position than strict communism.

    Way to try to “simplify” things and still lose. The simple-enough example wasn’t good for you, so we had to push it all the way to show you how idiotic the entire concept of a moral absolute is.

  97. on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:37 pm 97.Xenon said …

    Prime

    You sound more like a crank. I never claimed the golden rule was absolute source for morality. That was your group.

    I used Jesus’s teachings
    The Beatitudes
    The Great Commandment and the second.

    Jesus teaches me not to just look out for my needs but also for the needs of others. Although I may not like smoke or mowers, I am tolerant of those who do. Christ teaches me such.

    But you have pointed out well how morality, the golden rule, outside of a divine moralist just doesn’t work.

    Lou,

    You didn’t answer my questions but thanks for trying. I expected DPK and Prime to answer but they don’t even follow their golden rule.

  98. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:13 pm 98.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Xenon said …

    “You didn’t answer my questions but thanks for trying. I expected DPK and Prime to answer but they don’t even follow their golden rule.”

    I expected as much from you.

  99. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:25 pm 99.Lou (DFW) said …

    97.Xenon said …

    “Prime

    You sound more like a crank.”

    Right, but to him 40YA doesn’t?

  100. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:27 pm 100.DPK said …

    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you.”

    Oh, I see. So, if I don’t like paying taxes, it is immoral for someone to make me pay them?

    You are so silly Xenon. In order for you to rationalize your “absolute” moral code you must look at the world from only one perspective. Let me ask you to look at it this way. An enemy combatant certainly does not want anyone to shoot at him. Is firing upon the enemy in war contrary to the absolute moral code? It couldn’t be any simpler. And why do you xtians always skirt the issue of slavery? Clearly your god is in favor of it… why don’t you ever respond.
    I saw many rhetorical questions in #80. To which one are you referring? Why we point out Horatiio’s sock puppets, or how many atheists follow the golden rule?
    To answer the former… because we like showing what a liar and intellectually dishonest person Hor is. To answer the former, I have no idea. Why does it matter any more than how many xtians cheat on their wives? Does doing so invalidate your god contention? Then why would you imply that an atheist who commits an immoral act is any different than a christian who performs an immoral act. You offer such ridiculous diversions. No doubt to draw attention from the fact that your claim of an “absolute moral code” is so full of holes.

  101. on 27 Apr 2012 at 8:53 pm 101.Levi said …

    You have went to great length, in attempt to disprove GOD, which you can’t[.]

    “Great love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

    Most people these days, love there DOG, more than there neighbor, it wasn’t supposed to be so.

    Friends, lol, there is not many, oh you claim a million plus cuz your all that, blah blah blah, you have very few friends[completely trust], thats right completely…don’t have many do ya!

    Friendship, is love., today if you claim to love someone, your dubbed queer or lesbians. what idiots, those peeps has many people they know as there friend , truth is they have very few, possibly none.

    I like how GOD has allowed me to read his word that you do not understand at all,GOD said you wouldn’t, there a pooof for ya.

  102. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:24 pm 102.Prime said …

    FFS…

    80.Xenon said …

    “But all that aside, did someone here maintain morality could not be had without the Bible?”

    Not yet. Give it time, unless you’re finally wising up about playing that card. Usually it comes in the form of “…without God,” which requires proof of God and that the morals come from God, yadda yadda. What’s your moral code?

    “Everyone has morality but why should you pursue the golden rule?”

    You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion. It’s pretty low-level in terms of understanding ethics. Cases above have been presented as to what’s wrong with it.

    “How do you discern it didn’t derive from a religion?”

    Burden of proof that it did is on you, not the negative claim. Evidence, however, was presented that it was known to every culture with writing, some predating the Western religions. Then again, you’re vague here. Even if it came from religions, which is how ancient people understood a world they couldn’t grasp scientifically, there’s no reason to believe it came from a divine source, which I’m assuming is what you really mean by this (although you’ll play a technicality card on me because you’re dishonest like that).

    “Why not Kant’s Categorical Imperative?”

    Covered above. Why not… where it applies? You’re making our point for us: without ideas of divinely given morals, atheists are free to use Kant’s imperative when it applies, the Golden Rule when it apples, etc., and to reject them when they don’t.

    “Then one must ask, why should someone follow the golden rule rather than just looking out for number 1?”

    Because (s)he’s not a juvenile asshole.

    “Then ask how many atheists actually follow the golden rule?”

    By not doing things to other people that we wouldn’t want done to ourselves, usually.

    “Lou, you have called me Horatio, and I am the one easily fooled?”

    Well, perhaps not on this point, but generally yes. You believe in magic moral sky daddies.

    “You have a fascination with Horatio. If he is here posting under dissimilar pseudonyms who cares?”

    Because it’s annoying as hell for him to post something, then post a congratulatory statement of himself as another identity. It’s also exposing him as the fraud that he is, although technically it doesn’t really matter.

    “If it is so evident, why point it out?”

    Not everyone that visits a forum is forum-savvy and could be tricked by this disingenuous tactic.

  103. on 27 Apr 2012 at 9:27 pm 103.DPK said …

    Whaaaaat?

    My diswasher gnome told me you wouldn’t believe he is real either… is that proof that he is?

    Levi… wherever you went, or go to school… ask for your money back.

  104. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:45 am 104.Severin said …

    943 Xenon
    “Now, I answered many questions.”

    An example, please?

    I never saw anyone’s answer to extremely simple question:
    You, gentlemen (including you Xenon), claim that god, through the Bible is the source of absolute morality.
    Right or not?

    Fine, now SHOW US Biblical verses we can read and learn that code of absolute morality!
    HOW, the hell, can I learn the code of absolute morality if I don’t read it?
    And I can’t read it if I can’t find it.

    After I first heard that there is absolute morality and that it can be founding in Bible, I am trying and trying to find it, asking and asking theist to help me to find it, but no trace of it ever.

    Is it SO difficult and complicated?

    There is absolute moral code, you say, so please simply SHOW ME.

  105. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:58 am 105.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    “I used Jesus’s teachings
    The Beatitudes
    The Great Commandment and the second.”

    I’ve read them all.

    Now, where can I buy a slave? I necessarily need one.
    I mean, your Jesus never said slavery was wrong, did he?

    IF one part of the Bible instructs me how to buy and how to beat slaves, and the second part of it says nothing about slavery (but does say power comes directly from god!), what can I conclude but that slavery is O.K.

  106. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:06 am 106.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    Matthew 22:36-40
    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Perfect!
    I’ve read it!
    I love god with all my heart … etc.
    I also adore my neighbor like myself.
    BUT I am preparing to stone him tomorrow, because he works on Sabbath (Sunday)?
    I will keep loving him while I stone him, don’t you worry!

  107. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:08 am 107.Xenon said …

    “You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion.”

    The burden of proof that we should is on you. Why?

    “Evidence, however, was presented that it was known to every culture with writing, some predating the Western religions.”

    No actually no proof was presented. Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its fact. If u don’t believe look it up.

    “By not doing things to other people that we wouldn’t want done to ourselves, usually.”

    I asked how many atheist follow the golden rule. You failed to answer and again burden of proof on you. Charities would indicate very few.

    “Because it’s annoying as hell for him to post something, then post a congratulatory statement of himself as another identity.”

    You haven’t met the burden of proof again. Following your example, I suspect you have more than one identity. Am I warm? Calling everyone Hor is not proof.

    “Not everyone that visits a forum is forum-savvy”

    So you are savvy? Then stop doing the same as you accuse others.

  108. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:18 am 108.Severin said …

    97 Xenon
    “Jesus teaches me not to just look out for my needs but also for the needs of others.”

    Looking for needs of others is an essential social rule. No society would survive without more or less respecting taking care about needs of others. Reasons aren’t altruistic but rather practical: to keep society strong for survival.
    I wonder whether Amazonian Indians, Aborigines, Micronesian people, or Eskimos ever heard that rule from Jesus.
    Ancient Egyptians?

    I follow that rule without from far before I ever heard Jesus said it too. How is it possible?

    Muslims follow that rule. Did Jesus teach them too?

  109. on 28 Apr 2012 at 6:27 am 109.Severin said …

    107 Xenon,

    I promise I will never call you Horatio, but I do kindly expect you to put things on their places for me (have in mind, please, that I am not as versed in Bible, Jesus, Bible/Jesus moral code, etc, as I expect you are!):

    As Jesus never said the law of stoning people for working on Sabbath was wrong, on the contrary, he said old laws will be kept valid for eternity (!!!), AND he also said us to love our neighbors, shall I stone my neighbor who works on Sundays?
    I promise I will keep loving him all the time.

  110. on 28 Apr 2012 at 12:27 pm 110.Lou(DFW) said …

    107.Xenon said …

    “No actually no proof was presented.”

    You have a problem with that, but you NEVER, EVER provide evidence for your imaginary god.

    “Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its [sic] fact. If u don’t believe look it up.”

    The Golden Rule “can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”, the rule is “sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own”. – Simon Blackburn, Ethics: A Very Short Introduction.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc2.htm

    The “Golden Rule” (a/k.a. Ethics of Reciprocity)
    Passages from various religious texts

    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 – 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.

    http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/school_curriculum.php#section3

    ANCIENT EGYPT
    The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:
    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)

  111. on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:07 pm 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?”

    Yes, I wonder why it is that none of the xtians here have quoted Deuteronomy?

  112. on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:37 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    83.Prime said …

    “Since Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in his Sermon on the Mount, which is also where the Beatitudes come from (in Matthew, at least), does that include the entirety of the Deutero-Levitical laws or not in the Christian moral code?”

    85.Xenon said …

    “I noticed not one of you answered one of my questions I asked in 80. That would violate the golden rule.”

    We have, but I noticed that you, Xenon, didn’t answer his question in #83.

    Why not?

  113. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:04 pm 113.Thor said …

    I noticed that there is no way to email whomever runs this site. Let me demonstrate just one area where this site breaks down in its criticism of the Bible. It was stated that many gods were also born on December 25th. If someone did a simple, cursory reading of the Bible, you would discover that the Bible itself does not list December 25th as the day Christ was born. That became oral tradition. My question is: did any of those who tried to disprove the Bible actually take the time to research the original language or the historical context. It would appear that most of the critique came from reading the Bible only in the English translation. Not very good scholarship.

  114. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:43 pm 114.Vince said …

    Thor

    This is not a scholarly site; it is a site to encourage others to continue being agnostic/atheist or whatever combination they like to see themselves.

    Christ was born somewhere around March/April 3BC which would be know by even most not involved in scholarly research.

  115. on 28 Apr 2012 at 2:54 pm 115.Lou(DFW) said …

    113.Thor said …

    “I noticed that there is no way to email whomever runs this site.”

    This blog or http://whywontgodhealamputees.com ?

    There is a way to email that person, you haven’t found it. It might take even an unintelligent person all of ten seconds.

    “Let me demonstrate just one area where this site breaks down in its criticism of the Bible.”

    Please show us where on http://whywontgodhealamputees.com “It was stated that many gods were also born on December 25th.”

    But if you are referring to this blog, then any “criticism of the Bible” is mostly, if not entirely, posted by people like us, not “whomever runs this site.”

  116. on 28 Apr 2012 at 4:03 pm 116.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    Thor Marshall Brain does not accept feedback here or respond to posts unless it is stealthy. Vince is right about the site purpose.

    He does spread his wit to other sites like below, maybe you could catch him there. It is obvious even there he attempts to get more traffic flowing here. Eh, he is about making money, you can’t blame him.

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?116355-Why-Won-t-God-Heal-Amputees

  117. on 28 Apr 2012 at 4:48 pm 117.Prime said …

    107.Xenon said …

    ME: “You should, but intelligently. Meaning it’s not a moral absolute. It’s more of a suggestion.”

    YOU: “The burden of proof that we should is on you. Why?”

    That proof was provided–there are copious ways to construct examples of why that is a piss-poor moral absolute above. Go read them again.

    YOU: “No actually no proof was presented. Tom actually provided the evidence that the oldest recorded writings of this golden rule are in Leviticus. Its fact. If u don’t believe look it up.”

    I did. Lou(DFW) did most of the work for me above, but I’ll add to that that Leviticus is dated to c. 500 BCE. We have written evidence from the Babylonians of the Golden Rule to c. 1400 BCE, from the Chinese (Confucius) c. 600 BCE, and Egypt at more than 2000 BCE. Also from Greece before 600 BCE, Hinduism in the Mahabharata c. 800 BCE, The Inca Civilization appears to have been built upon the idea. More recently, Frans de Waal has demonstrated that some animals behave as if they understand this rule, even if they cannot articulate it. Great job, Jesus: repeat a well-known proverb that’s obvious enough that chimps can figure it out all by themselves and somehow land a reputation as the world’s greatest ethicist ever for it. For his next trick, he might win a gold medal in the Olympics for sitting on the couch.

    YOU: “I asked how many atheist follow the golden rule. You failed to answer and again burden of proof on you. Charities would indicate very few.”

    First, you’re lying. Atheists just don’t identify with the term atheist (plus it’s a black mark against us because of bigots like you these days). Second, I’m not a sociologist. Third, what the hell does it matter? Atheists that give to charity do so because they know it’s right, not because they’re afraid to burn in hell or want to buy points with an invisible scorekeeper. What does giving to charity have to do with proving God exists or that Christians have a superior moral code.

    I wonder how much “charity giving” Christians exhibit if you don’t include charity to religious organizations.

    The rest of what you asked me about is a ridiculous distraction. Get over your pettiness and get on to describing your clear Christian moral code. Explain what it contains and what it doesn’t and how it answers harder questions on ethics in the modern day.

  118. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:08 pm 118.Lou(DFW) said …

    116.Debunking NeoDarwinism said …

    “Thor Marshall Brain does not accept feedback here or respond to posts unless it is stealthy.”

    Claims another Hor sock-puppet. Don’t you see how it’s so obvious?

    “Vince is right about the site purpose.”

    No, he isn’t. Atheists don’t require any such encouragement. The site encourages and helps to show believers just what it says – that god is imaginary. It helps people more thoroughly think about the god delusion.

    Study: Analytic thinking can decrease religious belief

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/27/study-analytic-thinking-can-decrease-religious-belief/?hpt=hp_c2

  119. on 28 Apr 2012 at 5:19 pm 119.Prime said …

    You know what my favorite part of the Bible’s Moral Code is?

    It’s the part where Jesus tells his followers that they are free to do whatever they want while they live so long as they accept him before they die, even murder and rape and massive warcrimes against humanity.

    It’s in there. Look it up!

  120. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:16 pm 120.Xenon said …

    Prime:”That proof was provided–there are copious ways to construct examples of why that is a piss-poor moral absolute above.”

    No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.

    Prime:
    “I did. Lou(DFW) did most of the work for me above, but I’ll add to that that Leviticus is dated to c. 500 BCE.”

    Me:Incorrect.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/when-was-the-bible-written.htm

    http://www.thechristianalert.org/index.php/Bibliography/goldenrulehistory

    Prime:”First, you’re lying. Atheists just don’t identify with the term atheist”

    me: You exhibit anger and incoherence which indicates a sore spot. Still no answer but numerous excuses.

  121. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:38 pm 121.Prime said …

    120.Xenon said …

    “No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.”

    Lou provided links. If “Confucious had it at least 100 years before Leviticus thousands of miles away in a completely independent culture” doesn’t meet your standards of burden of evidence, then your standards have to be set at “unless it supports my claim, it’s wrong,” which is not a real standard for anyone but a deluded denier.

    “Me:Incorrect.”

    Ooh… a link war:
    http://www.arthuralevinebooks.com/book.asp?bookid=6
    and ‘An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.”‘ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt

    “me: You exhibit anger and incoherence which indicates a sore spot. Still no answer but numerous excuses.”

    Answers! Yes answers! That you don’t like them doesn’t mean that they weren’t given!
    Sore spot? Yes, sore spot! That you constantly lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and then expect to be treated like anything but a liar!

  122. on 28 Apr 2012 at 8:59 pm 122.Xenon said …

    Prime

    Do you read your links? No, you do not. Your link for Confucius claims the golden rule predates Jesus. Duh! Yes, we know this.

    Let me quote 3 scholars. I read my links.

    “the Golden Rule was part of the Judeo-Christian worldview way before Buddha, Confusious, and many others wrote about it. In fact, the earliest written reference to the Golden Rule is found in the book of Leviticus dated to about 1400 B.C. (Davis, MacArthur, Kaiser ).”

    Personally, it is immaterial. I know from the Bible that God writes his moral law in the heats of man. He creates man therefore man would have a tendency toward these truths.

    But, you are a very dishonest individual. Look it up is not an answer. You refuse to answer the same questions you require answers for. You seem to be a very confused individual. I hope you can get it together.

  123. on 28 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 123.Prime said …

    I love how Leviticus is part of the Christian moral code when it’s the Golden Rule and not when it’s stoning teenagers to death for drinking.

  124. on 28 Apr 2012 at 11:14 pm 124.Prime said …

    Let’s play duelling citations (not that they prove anything more than that you’re a fool).

    “The oldest written record of a recognizable Golden Rule comes from Egypt around 4,000 years ago (2000 BCE). One translation reads:
    “Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do.” (R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, Griffith Institute, Oxford, pp. 109-110)”

    Hmm… predates “Judeo-Christian” (nice absorption of a religion yours hates, btw, to try to prove your point about Jesus’ ethics) Leviticus by a good six centuries.

    And you claim God writes his moral code on the hearts of men? Care to elaborate on what that means? Or why some men seem to be sociopaths beyond their choice or control? Or why no two religious organizations in the world can agree upon a set of common morals despite putting a huge amount of time and effort into discovering these laws “written on their hearts”?

  125. on 29 Apr 2012 at 12:19 am 125.Lou (DFW) said …

    120.Xenon said …

    “No proof was not. You have the burden of proof which you have not met. Try again. Lou’s word is not proof.”

    First of all, it wasn’t “my word.” That comment along goes to show you how desperate he is to defend this stupid discussion.

    Prime, no matter how much “proof” you provide to Xenon and his ilk, they will continue to move the goal post because they are intellectually dishonest. We might as well go to an astrology convention and provide evidence that astrology, like their religion, is pure bunk. They will simply ignore it and make illogical arguments against it because that is their gig, just like this is Xenon’s gig.

    But the only relevant FACT here is this – Xenon and his ilk will NEVER, EVER provide evidence for their imaginary god. In order to avoid facing this indisputable fact, they will make meaningless arguments about meaningless b.s. to avoid admitting that they are nothing but frauds.

    Xenon, PROVE ME WRONG – provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  126. on 29 Apr 2012 at 2:29 am 126.Prime said …

    Do me a favor also, Xenon, while you’re proving Lou wrong.

    Explain to me the morals written on your heart by God, or in the Christian code, or whatever, on one small issue.

    If you will, explain to me what the Christian moral code says about human-caused global climate change. NASA scientist and “father of climate science” Prof. Jim Hansen says that the climate change issue is as big a moral issue as slavery, if not bigger.

    What, pray tell, did Jesus say about that? The first thing that comes to mind for me is “take no thought for the morrow,” but what do I know? I’m a godless heathen.

  127. on 29 Apr 2012 at 4:56 pm 127.John said …

    So what is the atheist moral code?

  128. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:31 pm 128.Prime said …

    127.John said …

    “So what is the atheist moral code?”

    This is how you show a fundamental lack of understanding of just about everything this whole post and thread are trying to teach you.

    1. Atheism is not a positive position. It has no codes in and of its own. That doesn’t mean that atheists are people without morals, though, unless you’re a complete simpleton. To say so is like saying “John doesn’t collect stamps, so he has absolutely no hobbies.”

    Many atheists, like many theists as well, are humanists, which provides a moral code: do what promotes the well-being of humans present and future as well as possible while diminishing their suffering. Many extend that to all sentient creatures with some amount of prioritization (usually depending on apparent level of sentience).

    2. A “moral code” is a silly thing anyway, the way that’s usually meant. Most people use it to mean some absolute code of conduct that tells them how to be and behave (and in some cases (e.g. Christianity), how to think!). That doesn’t mean all atheists (or anyone else for that matter) is without moral sense.

    Morality proves itself again and again to be situational, connected to matters of intention, and extremely complex (and becoming more so as human interactions and increasing technological ability create more difficult moral questions with more subtle nuances to them). An absolute code is ridiculous because it cannot account for the current complexity or the fact that human interaction and behavior necessarily has changing constraints as technology and other avenues of human investigation open them up.

    In other words, your question fails to even make sense on at least two fronts. It simply doesn’t apply and is about as meaningful as “what color is music?”

    You might try to turn this around and say “why can we expect Christianity to have a moral code, then?” Well, first because Christianity is a positive identification (unlike atheism): you say you sign up to believe a certain set of propositions, many of which are moral precepts. Secondly, Christians often claim to possess a moral superiority via “Christian morals” or “Christian values” and try to demonize atheists for not subscribing to that (as you’ve seen here repeatedly). Those “Christian morals” are said to come from a morally perfect God and are usually claimed to be absolute, with tremendous consequences for violating them.

    Thus, the onus is on Christians to explain, at least,
    1. What exactly are these Christian morals? In full detail.
    2. What makes them superior? If divine source is claimed here, then proving such a divine source exists is also required.
    3. How are they to be applied absolutely? (This is why the full detail is required).
    4. Do all Christians follow them? Some of them? Varying amounts of them? Why? Why? Why?

    The point of the entire like of questioning, though, is not to discover what “Christian morals” means but rather to expose the ridiculousness of making the claim that they exist or that anyone has them to begin with.

  129. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:34 pm 129.Prime said …

    *Correction: The last paragraph should begin: “The point of the entire *line* of questioning…”

    My apologies.

  130. on 29 Apr 2012 at 5:44 pm 130.Biff said …

    John

    I can sum up the moral code this way. Whatever each atheist believes is right is the moral thing to do.

    Consequently, if an atheist believes murdering a pastor lets say because the pastor might lead others astray toward religion then that would be morally OK. Each has their opinion, no higher authority therefore no basis for absolute morality. This was practiced under Communist regimes without consequences.

    They will never admit this to be true, but they will not provide an alternative. Moral relativism leads to immoral acts.

    John, I advise caution. You are coming close to being the called the next horatio.

  131. on 29 Apr 2012 at 6:56 pm 131.Prime said …

    130.Biff meant to say …

    “John

    I can sum up the Christian moral code this way. Whatever each Christian believes is right is the moral thing to do, as long as it furthers belief in the religion.

    Consequently, if a Christian believes murdering a non-Christian, let’s say because that person might lead others astray, away from Christianity, then that would be morally OK. History validates this point repeatedly. Each has their opinion on the higher authority and therefore claims a basis for absolute morality. This was practiced under Christian regimes without consequences for centuries.

    They will never admit this to be true, but they will not provide an alternative. Moral absolutism leads to immoral acts.

  132. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:03 pm 132.Godless Monkey said …

    And they then go on to cite atheistic regimes, somehow deluding themselves that atheism was THE ONLY reason that terror was perpetrated, while conviently forgetting that, I don’t know, let’s take dear Adolph as an example, thought of himself as a good, bible-believing xtian, etc. So typical.

  133. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:17 pm 133.John said …

    You guys are really funny.

    This is like listening to Vizzini.

    Let me explain. No let me summarize: “There are no morals that are absolute and we are “absolutely sure” absolutes don’t exist. But we can be moral, but moral is whatever you make it, so my moral may not be moral to you, but it’s still moral. We do ascribe to your morality to justify we can be moral without God, we just don’t know why it matters in the first place. The “point” is it makes a good “point”.”

    Also note, how many times you use words that require a universal moral compass to even understand the meaning of your posts. Your language itself justifies my opinion.

  134. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:28 pm 134.Biff said …

    John

    Did I predict they would not provide an alternative? They don’t even trust their own kind so it is much easier to attack others with absolutes and claim we don’t all live by them. Human beings have flaws in such a fresh argument.

    Watching a BBC program last Sunday when they bring in an atheist geologist. He started by telling us 3 times I know creation looks designed but you must remember that it was not. In other words, we don’t know how we got here but please don’t believe a deity put creation here.

    No answers, therefore attack those who have one.

  135. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:30 pm 135.Biff said …

    “somehow deluding themselves that atheism was THE ONLY reason”

    No atheism plus delusions equals mass murdering dictators. But Mr monkey thank you for acknowledging atheism was a factor in the murdering regimes. Few atheist have the courage to at least admit that much.

  136. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:30 pm 136.Prime said …

    Your “opinion” being what?

    That you cannot know that God doesn’t exist and provide morals and therefore God exists and provides morals?

    Burden of proof fail.

    Our case is: “Don’t be a sucker.”
    Your case is: “You can’t prove I shouldn’t be a sucker, so I can be a sucker if I want to!”

    What’s your moral code, John?

  137. on 29 Apr 2012 at 7:59 pm 137.Prime said …

    134.Biff said …

    “No answers, therefore attack those who have one.”

    No. Wrong.
    “No answers, therefore require people who pretend to have one to put up or shut up.”
    That’s how you needed to word that, at least if you wanted it to have a meaning that is accurate.

  138. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:00 pm 138.Prime said …

    134.Biff said …

    “No answers, therefore attack those who have one.”

    Or shall we do this in your hypocrisy?

    No answers. Therefore attack the science (evolution) that answers many of those questions.

  139. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:03 pm 139.Godless Monkey said …

    And Biff, that’s Ms. Monkey to you :)

    Biff, so you will now also acknowledge that religion/theocracy is the reason millions have been killed, both past, present, and most likely someone somewhere in the world right at this minute, right? Seems tit for tat.

    But how does any of that prove that the man-made god of the bible is real?

  140. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:23 pm 140.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.Biff said …

    “Moral relativism leads to immoral acts.”

    As do xtian morals. So what?

    This entire theist argument is 100% irrelevant until you provide evidence that the god who is their source exists. So far, you haven’t done that. You might as well be arguing that xtian morals are provided by Santa Claus.

  141. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:25 pm 141.Lou (DFW) said …

    130.Biff said …

    “John, I advise caution. You are coming close to being the called the next horatio.”

    No he isn’t Hor – not unless Hor recently completed a remedial writing class.

  142. on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:41 pm 142.Lou (DFW) said …

    ATTENTION EVERYONE:

    I am officially announcing the source of absolute morality. It is:

    a small leprechaun who wears a green coat, makes shoes, and has a pot of gold stored at the end of the rainbow. He told me that if we follow his moral code we will receive all of his gold.

    Now, all of you theists who believe that your imaginary god is the source of absolute morality, I dare you to prove that I am incorrect about the source of absolute morality. Go ahead, try! I KNOW you can’t because the leprechaun told me so.

  143. on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:11 pm 143.Godless Monkey said …

    Hey, I want some of that gold!

    So what do I have to do, just declare in my heart (that heart that the leprechaun has “written on”) that I believe it to be true, then believe with all my being that it is true, without any evidence, of course, and then declare my belief to the world…and then will I get my reward of gold? Sounds easy enough and totally reasonable. Count me in!

  144. on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:03 pm 144.John said …

    142 and 143:

    Every worldview has the burden of proof. Not just theism. This comments within this article does a good job of exposing the contradictions within the religion of atheism.

    There are some good articles addressing this line of thought of elves, etc. The last I read was a thesis. Try reading a few. Your challenge has already been answered, but you will need to dive a little deeper than just your parroting your atheist evangelists. Sorry there is no spoon feeding answer that you can tear up.

    If you want an original challenge, I encourage you to dig into the religion of atheism and evolution and make logical predications of morality based on it. The question is NOT “can you live a good life?”, the question is, “why do you live a good life and where is good derived?”

    I want to thank you for engaging in conversation with me. It really helps me understand the mindset of evolution.

  145. on 29 Apr 2012 at 10:17 pm 145.Godless Monkey said …

    What does a lack of belief in the supernatural have to do with the “mindset of evolution”?

    And I know this is pointless to address, once again, but atheism is not a religion. Why do theists always insist this is so?

    And while I’m sure the thesis you read on elves was interesting, you do realize that elves do not exist, right? Now I’m just confused, and curious, as to your suggestion that we read about elves.

  146. on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:07 pm 146.John said …

    145:

    Atheism is a religion. I have responded to you in other articles on this issue.

    Elves – read previous posts. You are either being lazy, don’t understand the premise of the leprechaun argument, or just spouting off what you think is clever.

    Also play catchup on the mindset of evolution. No offense, but you guys already skim theism and it looks like you don’t even really know atheism other than one phrase, “We don’t believe in God”.

    I was hoping you guys were a little more intellectual. But you just paraphrase your atheists’ leaders. You do so more than any religion I have experienced. The local agnostics I talk to have unique ideas and have thought through things a little more. You guys just want to complain and talk about how superior you are to other worldviews.

    Wow, imagine that… people hanging out and feeding their egos as the enlightened ones….

  147. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:33 am 147.Godless Monkey said …

    John, just because you believe that all atheists think and believe the same way does not make it true. Just because you believe an atheist is somehow religious that does not make it true.

    Is it really so hard for you to believe that a person can intellectually choose to not believe in the supernatural… without ascribing to all the attributes you thrust upon them?

    You sound like 40YA who imagines every type of “ism” attached to an atheist.

    And yes, the one phrase, “We don’t believe in God,” is a great definition of atheism. I also don’t believe in ghosts, satan, incubi, sucubi, angels, the chupacabra, esp, magic, reincarnation and a whole host of other supernatural things.

    Theists like to attach a worldview to something that is really quite simple, then convolute it and call it a religon.

  148. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:42 am 148.John said …

    Godless… I need to apologize first. My last post was a little harsh. Sorry about that.

    I concede the first point and not just because i was a #*%! on the last post. :)

    When I get into these sites, the attacks come fast and furious so I do make certain assumptions at points. So I won’t assume things about you and you don’t assume I am a 6,000 year old, Kirk Cameron watching, creation museum attending Christian and I won’t assume you are an “ism”. Deal? :)

    Of course I don’t agree on the last point (at least in one case) and I am glad to know you are hunting ghosts and worshipping satan riding on a chupacabra. :)

  149. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:03 am 149.Biff said …

    Ok Ms Monkey, you asked:

    “But how does any of that prove that the man-made god of the bible is real?”

    good question. What would you accept as evidence for God? Would your standards be less, the same or more as say for First Cause?

    One other point. You must define atheism as a lack of belief in God. I have been advised that is the definition at least here.

    I agree with John. Atheism is a religion and is protected as a religion in the US.

  150. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:20 am 150.Godless Monkey said …

    Apology accepted :)

    And you’ll most likely not agree with this, but the truth is out there (Cite: The X-Files) and is more likely to be based on science, the great advances being made in quantum physics, than Mr. Magicman in the sky. If you’re at all interested, a great book to read is “Universe from Nothing, Why there is Something from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. Yes, now you may accuse ME of confirmation bias and take a pass on the reccomendation ;)

    I seriously doubt that all the answers will be found in my lifetime, but I know there are answers that require no belief in the supernatural.

    Let’s agree to disagree :)

  151. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:40 am 151.Prime said …

    As a religion, exactly which rights do American atheists have protected?

  152. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:47 am 152.Godless Monkey said …

    Biff,

    The last thing I consider myself is religious. I am simply on a life-long journey of discovery, and as has been stated earlier about following the evidence, that is what I do. The evidence from science continues to elucidate while the unscientific and magic-filled explanations in the holy books remain static. That is what I see. That is where the evidence takes me.

    That that journey has led me away from theism and mythology is not a mark against me. It is a mark against the proofs offered in theism. As has been stated here numerous times, the onus is not on me as an unbeliever to prove the existence of the supernatural.

  153. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:55 am 153.Biff said …

    Prime

    U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit protected the rights of an inmate not to attend rehab since it violated his religion by acknowledging a higher power.

    Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled prison officials violated an inmates rights by not treating atheism as a religion.

    Now how about the other question you and Ms Monkey avoided? What would you accept as evidence for God? Would your standards be less, the same or more as say for First Cause?

  154. on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:57 am 154.Biff said …

    Ms Monkey

    Missed your post. Good enough. Maybe Prime can provide some guidelines for acceptable proof.

  155. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:35 am 155.Lou (DFW) said …

    154.Biff said …

    “Maybe Prime can provide some guidelines for acceptable proof.”

    We all know what acceptable proof is. That’s why you keep questioning what is acceptable proof.

    Theists – forever moving the goal post.

  156. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:45 am 156.Lou (DFW) said …

    “149.Biff said …

    “Atheism is a religion and is protected as a religion in the US.”

    Oh Biff, we’ve all been down this road before with the way you guys misrepresenting these court cases as something they’re not.

    You saying that “atheism” is a religion doesn’t make it so. By definition, “atheism” is precisely NOT a religion. It’s not even an “ism.” Just because you can’t defend your faith-based delusion doesn’t mean you can call our rejection of your religion a religion.

    Show me your god, and I will believe in him. It’s that simple.

  157. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:57 am 157.Lou (DFW) said …

    148.John said …

    “Godless… I need to apologize first. My last post[s] was a little harsh.”

    Harsh? John, how much had you been drinking before you bombarded his blog with your tirades?

  158. on 30 Apr 2012 at 2:58 am 158.Prime said …

    153.Biff said …

    “U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Second Circuit protected the rights of an inmate not to attend rehab since it violated his religion by acknowledging a higher power.
    Kaufman v. McCaughtry in the 7th Circuit Courtof Appeals ruled prison officials violated an inmates rights by not treating atheism as a religion.”

    Could you detail in KvM there how atheism had to be treated as a religion? What rights, exactly, other than rights *not* to have to do something (as in the first example) are atheists guaranteed by religion?

    Are the only rights of atheists as a “religion” the rights “not to have to do anything religious”? That’s weird.

    Hmm… acceptable proof. I ignored that question because your piss-poor grammar made it confusing. I figured you were baiting me.

    I’d accept physical proof, like how you’d prove you have a rabbit in your hands. Show me proof of God physically by praying Jesus into the room like he came into the room for Thomas in the Gospel of made up, I mean John.

    I’d accept proof by necessity, which means you prove that a God is the only possible explanation for a set of phenomena. Don’t get lost here and try to pull a complexity argument on me (the eye would be a stupid one, the laws of physics or “free will” or beauty would be a slightly more sophisticated but still pathetic one). The ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION has to be God, or at least the most parsimonious. (Hint: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parsimony?s=t). This will also require a *clear and unambiguous* definition of the God you’re attempting to prove, so you can bubble one of those up while you’re at it.

    I’d accept strong philosophical proof, even–if it satisfied parsimony and necessity–although all that can prove is that God is an abstract metaphor, not a real entity, so it doesn’t really get you anywhere. (Pro tip: the ontological argument, Pascal’s wager, the teleological (that’s smart-speak for “First Cause”) and cosmological arguments all fail necessity as well as parsimony, so don’t try those). If you want to establish the existence of a particular god this way, you will require a *clear and unambiguous* definition of this God, so you can bubble one of those up while you’re diddling yourself or whatever it is you do while you try to think up your bs.

    See… we’re not unreasonable. We’re also not dogmatically adhered to any idea other than “you shouldn’t believe stuff like a schmuck; demand evidence.”

  159. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:01 am 159.Prime said …

    I was reading my bible and found this verse: “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not.” 1 Cor. 7:29. How does this fit with Christian morals?

  160. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:08 am 160.Severin said …

    93 Xenon
    “DPK this cannot be any simpler. If a person wishes not to have something done to them, hot wax, you don’t because you don’t want an act forced upon you. Its the whole reason men should not rape woman. No means no. If you like your relativism, have at it.”

    What if the person says “yes”?
    Sadists?
    People who tend to suicide but have no courage to do it?

    Would it be immoral to help them?

    I think it would.
    How about you?

  161. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:53 am 161.Severin said …

    128 Prime
    “Atheism is not a positive position. It has no codes in and of its own.“

    No such thing as „atheist moral code“, because atheism is NOT a „position“ of any kind, “positive” or “negative”, but nothing more and nothing less but disbelief (lack of believing) in something claimed by someone else.
    You say there is Santa, I say I don’t believe unless you prove it.
    I say there is a Spaghetti Monster who created the universe and answers prayers, you say you don’t believe it untill I give some evidences for my claim.
    Fair!
    Only you call me atheist, I will never understand why, and I don’t call you anything but non-believer in Spaghetti Monster.
    As simple as that, no complications!
    I will start believing in your Santa/God/Allah/Odin/Ra/… as soon as yoy bring some evidences they (or some of them) are real.
    I swear I will!
    I am a reasonable human being!
    Yet, you never provide any evidences for your (positive!) claims! So don’t, for example Muslims, and I don’t believe them either.

    I already told you all that I have very well established moral code myself, although I do not believe in any god and do not practice any religion.
    I AM a good man although I do not believe in gods.
    There is absolutely no doubt I spontaniously follow many, if not all, UNWRITTEN moral rules, and many moral rules never presented/told to me by anyone.
    For example, my mother never told me not to rape ladies, but I feel disgust to raping, and my natural, spontanious feeling that raping is wrong, keeps me far of such deeds, and keeps my lust „on leash“. 55 years so, and did not change! I will die disgusting raping.

    All you need is to explain to me WHERE my perfectly working moral code is coming from!
    (I do not lie, steal, rape, kill, cheat, offend people, I am always kind, I, in no way, endanger needs of other people, but help people a lot, spontaneously, disregarding their faith, race, social status, education, …)
    WHERE it all comes from?
    And we both, you and I, know a lot of such GOOD people, with perfectly working moral code, both religious and “atheists”, and many highly immoral people from both sides: religious and atheists!

    Of course, you have to tell us also why many theists DO wrong things! Where their „moral code“, which does NOT stop them to kill and rape, comes from, although they DO believe in god?

  162. on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:17 am 162.Severin said …

    Prime,

    I misunderstood your post, probably because of my poor English.
    I apologize, my words in my post # 161 are for Xenon, Biff, John, not for you.

    One can make mistakes, sorry!

    Anyway, I stay by my opinion that atheism is no “position”, although it is of no great importance for further debate.

  163. on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:09 am 163.Severin said …

    133 John
    134 Biff
    1. I am a good man with perfectly “adjusted” moral code that works for some 65 years.
    I am positive you would approve most of my moral rules: do not lie, do not steal, do not kill, do not torture, do not rape, do not offend, be kind, be tolerant, have in mind needs of other people and help them, …

    I do not believe in any god, I never god any written “moral code” to learn, and although my mother, my father and my grandies did teach me SOME rules, they never mentioned some other ones (for example “do not rape ladies”), which I accepted anywhere, spontaneously, I would not exactly know how and when it happened.

  164. on 30 Apr 2012 at 9:16 am 164.Severin said …

    133 John
    134 Biff

    Sorry, I clicked wrong button.

    Now please tell us where my morality comes from?

    In few words, please!

    The fact that there are very moral atheists and very immoral theists, and v.v., confirms the conclusion that morality has nothing to do with gods.

    How is it possible to conclude that religion and religious books are the sources of morality, if you have huge number of moral and immoral atheists and moral and immoral theists of all possible religions.

  165. on 30 Apr 2012 at 11:45 am 165.Biff said …

    OK Prime, so your requirements are much greater than for your other beliefs. I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.

    “I’d accept physical proof, like how you’d prove you have a rabbit in your hands.”

    OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.

    “I’d accept proof by necessity, which means you prove that a God is the only possible explanation for a set of phenomena.”

    Origins, again that has been met.

    “I’d accept strong philosophical proof, even–if it satisfied parsimony and necessity”

    Another easy one.

    “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” Alvin Plantiga.

    “Could you detail in KvM there how atheism had to be treated as a religion?”

    You mean other than declaring that his rights were violated because atheism was not treated as a religion?

    When you complete the elementary step of acknowledging God exists, you will be ready to narrow that down to the one true God. Did I mention what a privilege it is to dialogue with someone so highly intelligent? Thank you.

  166. on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:27 pm 166.Lou (DFW) said …

    165.Biff said …

    “I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.”

    That statement is an absolutely absurd cop-out. Humans are born without belief in gods, Santa Claus, or any other imaginary beliefs. Humans look for reasons to believe things, NOT disbelieve in them. What this is “case” of is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    “OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.”

    And Zeus and Ganesha. Your evidence of J.C. is marginal, and that he was god or the son of god is non-existent. Oh, by the way, do ever hear about anyone arguing about the existence of rabbits? I wonder why that is that you don’t?

    “Origins, again that has been met.”

    No, “origins” was explained by the flying spaghetti monster. Oh yea, and Zeus and Ganesha and hundreds of other gods.

    “Another easy one.”

    Easy? Yes, it’s easy to invent imaginary evidence for an imaginary god. But it’s not easy to defend the fact that you don’t have any evidence for your imaginary god.

    “When you complete the elementary step of acknowledging God exists, you will be ready to narrow that down to the one true God.”

    Here we go with the classic circular reasoning that theists use to defend the fact that they have no evidence for their imaginary god.

  167. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:29 pm 167.Lou (DFW) said …

    165.Biff said …

    “OK Prime, so your requirements are much greater than for your other beliefs.”

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim for a supernatural being is, by definition, extraordinary. Therefore, your evidence must be extraordinary. Anecdotal evidence and bible stories (myth) are not extraordinary evidence. Neither is arguments against/about Big Bang, evolution, xtian morals, U.S. court cases, and all the other irrelevant b.s. that you present here.

  168. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:54 pm 168.Prime said …

    162.Severin said …

    “Anyway, I stay by my opinion that atheism is no “position”, although it is of no great importance for further debate.”

    I agree. That, indeed, is what I meant by a “negative” position. I didn’t realize until after I posted that those words could be meant in more than one way.

    Atheism is a null position, not a “positive” claim upon reality, so we agree.

  169. on 30 Apr 2012 at 3:57 pm 169.Prime said …

    Biff,

    All you’ve done is say that the evidence is there. You haven’t shown me or anyone else any evidence.

    I’ve read Platinga. He’s smart, seems to be a good man, and well-written, but his arguments are not sufficiently air-tight to be convincing. They either fall for question-begging (circularity) or complexity (argument from ignorance) or, in other cases, they fail necessity (which is really still an argument from ignorance) or parsimony.

    Platinga is a decent scholar, but he assumes what he wants to establish. No matter how hard he works to establish it, then, he cannot.

    My standards for evidence are equal across the board. I’d like for you to try to indicate for me a single idea that I hold a weaker standard of evidence for. I’m sure you’re about to say “evolution” or something stupid like that, but nay, I hold the same standard there. That scientific theory passes the muster.

  170. on 30 Apr 2012 at 4:31 pm 170.Lou (DFW) said …

    169.Prime said …

    “I’m sure you’re about to say “evolution” or something stupid like that, but nay, I hold the same standard there. That scientific theory passes the muster.”

    With all do respect, evolution is not a “scientific theory.” It is a fact. The “scientific theory” to which you refer explains how evolution operates, not whether or not it does.

  171. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:18 pm 171.Prime said …

    170.Lou (DFW) said …

    “With all due respect, evolution is not a “scientific theory.” It is a fact. The “scientific theory” to which you refer explains how evolution operates, not whether or not it does.”

    Well said.

  172. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:32 pm 172.Anonymous said …

    We’ve been here before.

    It doesn’t matter what ID he posts under, it’s the same game.

    He throws out a bunch of nonsense about atheists and tries to divert the conversation by getting you to repeatedly defend the same charges. When that’s not working he wants a definition of evidence or to know in advance what evidence you’ll accept.

    Then he tries to derail the conversation by arguing about what does or does not constitute evidence. At the same time he lays the ground work for not presenting his case by saying you won’t believe him and that your standards are somehow unfair or unreasonable.

    All along he’ll say the evidence is there but there’s always a reason why he won’t present his side in the same detail and manner as he demands from others.

    It’s a game. If he actually had something he’d post it.

  173. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:38 pm 173.Biff said …

    “Platinga is a decent scholar, but he assumes what he wants to establish.”

    Like you do? Prime anyone can see you have a position and it is No God.

    Atheism is not a null position. At best agnosticism would be a null position. How often do atheist write books/blogs and establish billboards in response to agnostics? To quote Severin, it is a cop out and you are delusional if you think anyone is buying it.

    At least Godless Monkey is honest.

  174. on 30 Apr 2012 at 5:41 pm 174.Biff said …

    “evolution” or something stupid like that,”

    well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit. Can you hold it in you hat like a rabbit Prime?

  175. on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:59 pm 175.Lou (DFW) said …

    174.Biff, aka Hor said …

    “evolution” or something stupid like that,”

    “well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit. Can you hold it in you hat like a rabbit Prime?”

    Don’t be so stupid. Can you hold gravity in your hand?

  176. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:00 pm 176.Prime said …

    Biff, you might be the stupidest person on here. Hor is going to be jealous.

  177. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:18 pm 177.Biff said …

    I thought I was quite chic.

    But you never answered weather you can hold it like a rabbit Prime?

  178. on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:47 pm 178.Lou (DFW) said …

    177.Biff, aka Hor said …

    “But you never answered weather you can hold it like a rabbit Prime?”

    Yes, he did. So much for you being “chic.” Maybe the “weather” is affecting you.”

  179. on 01 May 2012 at 2:36 am 179.Prime said …

    If you think I never address the “holding it in your hand like a rabbit” thing, you’re either stupid or missing what I said in my original post.

    If you’re wondering why I haven’t addressed it since you worded it so ineloquently, it’s because you did such a poor job of phrasing your question that I wasn’t able to decipher the nonsense you were asking me but guessed correctly at what it might be.

    I second Lou(DFW), then, can you hold any process in your hand like a rabbit? For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold the Krebs cycle in your hand like a rabbit? Can you hold gamma decay in your hand like a rabbit?

    I’m almost feeling embarrassment for you.

  180. on 01 May 2012 at 3:31 am 180.Prime said …

    Biff: “Can’t hold evolution in you hat like a rabbit. Checkmate, atheists.”

  181. on 01 May 2012 at 5:19 am 181.Severin said …

    174 Biff
    “well, yes unless you can hold it in your hand like a rabbit.”

    Neither can you hold your god in your hand like a rabbit.
    Double standards, again (of course, what else?!):
    We say something you have to accept without any proofs and we expect you to believe and to accept it.
    If you did not accept it, some 150 years ago we would have burnt you (or torture you until you accept it).
    If you don’t accept it today, we will keep forcing our claims on you and expect YOU to prove us wrong.

    Is it the way how your logic works?

    Yes, it is!
    It is the way how ALL religions function.

  182. on 01 May 2012 at 5:44 am 182.Severin said …

    165 Biff
    “I felt this would be the case since you are looking for reasons not to believe.“

    I, and every single normal human being, is always looking for reasons to BELIEVE something, not to disbelieve it. There is no need for me to look for „reasons not to believe“.
    I „automatically“ don’t believe without proofs. It is not an effort, it is not „looking for reasons“ to disbelieve something.
    I would consider myself an idiot if I accepted every idiotic claim someone told me, and THEN looked for reasons to disbelieve it. It is NOT the way how logic works. It works much simpler way: you say something, then you prove it to make others believe it.
    If you tell me you walked over the water in your shoes, I need no effort and no need to look for „reasons not to believe“ it, to disbelieve it, I just don’t, as it does not fit in my positive knowledge of universe I am living in (physics, for example), my experiaence, logic, … It is YOU who have to show me how, the hell, you realized walking over the water. I will never look for evidences to disbelieve your ability to walk over water! I will just, simply, refuse it as possibility, totally “automatically”.
    THEN, if YOU bring enough proofs, I might accept your claim.

    Same with (any) god.
    Are you looking for reasons to reject the idea of Quetzalcoatl as your god and creator of universe, who answers your prayers, or you reject it “automatically”, without even thinking about the possibility?

    Why don’t you apply the same logic on YOUR god?

  183. on 01 May 2012 at 6:00 am 183.Severin said …

    165 Biff
    “„OK, that has been met in Jesus Christ.“”

    I can’t see how the existence or non-existence of a tramp can be the proof for existence of god.
    Someone said he was a god and we all have to drop on our asses, goggle our eyes out, snivel, and accept it?
    Ridiculous!

    You may have billions of proofs for existence of Jesus Christ, yet you still have to prove he was a god.

  184. on 01 May 2012 at 11:17 am 184.Biff said …

    “For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit?”

    Well of course not, but I didn’t make that as a requirement for belief. But curiously, you need to hold God in your hand, like a rabbit in order to believe. This illustrates the hypocrisy of atheists.

  185. on 01 May 2012 at 11:47 am 185.Lou (DFW) said …

    184.Biff said …

    “For instance, can you hold photosynthesis in your hand like a rabbit?”

    “Well of course not, but I didn’t make that as a requirement for belief. But curiously, you need to hold God in your hand, like a rabbit in order to believe. This illustrates the hypocrisy of atheists.”

    No, it illustrates your stupidity and illogical thought process.

  186. on 01 May 2012 at 4:44 pm 186.Doug Fo said …

    ERRRNNNT: Wrong Biff. Photosynthesis has demonstrable objective evidence and predictive power.

    Please show us how the hypothesis that Yahweh created and rules the universe lives up to the same standard.

  187. on 01 May 2012 at 5:20 pm 187.John said …

    164… You are missing the entire point. The point is not rather atheists are theists uphold a moral code, the point is you realize there is a moral code. Stop and think about it. You can claim you don’t, but daily life proves the opposite. Now most atheists claim its a social evolution that accompanied human evolution. Would you agree?

    150 Godless… thanks. I will try and check out your book. Personally, do you feel what you are seeing within the scientific method? Not trying to catch you with an aha moment, just more curious.

    Thanks,

  188. on 01 May 2012 at 6:53 pm 188.Lou (DFW) said …

    187.John said …

    “164… You [Severin] are missing the entire point. The point is not rather [whether] atheists are [or] theists uphold a moral code, the point is you realize there is a moral code. Stop and think about it. You can claim you don’t, but daily life proves the opposite.”

    Except that he stated otherwise. In fact he wrote “I have a very solid moral code.”

    http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/blog/?p=2190&cpage=2

    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.”

    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.”

    John, I don’t know if you are someone posting under a new name or not. But you came in here one day and posted replies to almost every topic in here, some that hadn’t been active for weeks. Perhaps you should read more and post less about specific posters until you get to “know” everybody here.

    Besides that, this entire discussion about morality is moot. Before anyone claims that god is the source of morality they must provide evidence that god exists. Otherwise, such a claim for morality is no more valid than claiming Santa Claus is the source.

    John, it’s very simple and it will resolve all the problems with your comments – provide evidence for your imaginary god.

  189. on 09 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 189.Chris said …

    Easy:

    Love God, Love your neighbor (including enemies). And yes, it’s right there in the Bible look it up.

    2) No, NONE of us abide by it completely. We fail often. But thats agains us, not God.

    To blame God for that is to take a cop out on our own responsibility. Especially when he made those very clear statements.

    Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?

  190. on 09 May 2012 at 8:20 pm 190.Anonymous said …

    Chris, the question in (1) was “Where in the Bible, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    You didn’t actually answer the “where” though, you simply provided a circular answer to “where in the bible” by replying “in the bible”

    Let’s now examine your answer. You said “Love God, Love your neighbor (including enemies). And yes, it’s right there in the Bible look it up.”

    So, is your answer that what you said above is the *complete* Christian moral code?

  191. on 09 May 2012 at 8:25 pm 191.DPK said …

    Fair enough Chris.
    Two questions for you now.
    Would you agree with your fellow theists here, that that is an ABSOLUTE moral code, and not subject to relativism, because it is given by god, and not open to discussion or thought?
    In other words, are you an absolute pacifist? Do you think there is EVER a moral reason to kill or do harm to someone? Not a “failing” but an instance when it would be more moral “not” to love your neighbor? Be careful, because if you answer “No” you have then discounted the idea of an absolute morality from a supreme being. If you answer “Yes” you are going to be challenged with specific examples that you will likely find tough to defend. Or, you can cede the point now that there is absolutely nothing absolute about your absolute moral code, and it simply evolved from human social order, without need for a magic man in the sky.

    And secondly, what is it about “love your neighbor” that is philosophically so profound, that you feel it had to come from a divine source, because no mortal human could ever have conceived of such a notion? Specifics, please. Time to back your simplistic claims with actual reasons….
    D

  192. on 09 May 2012 at 8:46 pm 192.Lou(DFW) said …

    189.Chris said …

    “Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?”

    Here we go again with someone with a reading comprehension problem.

    First, the topic is not OUR code. The topic is about THE XTIAN ORAL CODE.

    Second, NOBODY claimed that you or anyone else must follow anyone else’s code.

    Now, once you understand that, can you answer the questions or not?

    “Where IN THE BIBLE, or anywhere, is there a succinct, complete description of the Christian Moral Code?”

    If you don’t understand “succinct,” then don’t bother to answer.

  193. on 09 May 2012 at 8:46 pm 193.Lou(DFW) said …

    192.Lou(DFW) said …

    Correction: “The topic is about THE XTIAN MORAL CODE.”

  194. on 10 May 2012 at 2:16 am 194.A said …

    “Where isYOUR code? Why must we follow it?”

    Chris,

    Their code is whatever each of them think is right. That is the reason they name call and question the intelligence of their enemy.

    As 40 Year Atheist has pointed out here in great detail, count your silverware if one leaves your home. They might just find a way to justify relieving you of the burden.

    Google some of his post here, they are quite good and well though out.

  195. on 10 May 2012 at 2:28 am 195.Doug Fo said …

    And A, once again, decides to avoid the subject and make cheap shots; demonstrating the fact they are a scumbag

  196. on 10 May 2012 at 2:47 am 196.DPK said …

    “Their code is whatever each of them think is right.”

    And yours is not??

    Let’s see if you have balls enough to answer this. Is it moral to stone hom0sexuals and adulterers to death? Yes, or No.

    I predict none of them will answer.

  197. on 10 May 2012 at 3:08 am 197.Lou(DFW) said …

    194.ASTROPHYSICIST said …

    “Their code is whatever each of them think is right.”

    As is yours (that apparently encourages lying) and everybody elses’s.

    “That is the reason they name call and question the intelligence of their enemy.”

    OK everybody, here’s a lesson in what a Non-Sequitur is. ASTROPHYSICIST thinks that because you choose your moral code that’s why you “name call” and “question the intelligence of [your] enemy.”

    A, for an “Astrophysicist,” you’re incredibly stupid or drunk, or possibly both.

  198. on 10 May 2012 at 4:09 am 198.DPK said …

    I have yet to meet a person who think their moral code is “whatever they think is wrong…”
    Isn’t, “what you think is right” what EVERYONES moral code is? Kind of the definition of morality, no?
    How idiotic are these people? Yet they claim their absolute moral code comes from a god, the same god that commands them to kill people for trivial offenses and ” sins” and instructs them on how to beat their slaves and prostitute their daughters. But somehow, without consulting their OWN sense of morality, they know that THOSE parts of gods specific instructions are to be ignored. I wonder how they come to THAT conclusion, since they state that morality can ONLY come from that same god who once told us to murder insolent and disobedient children.
    Puts a whole new meaning to the word ” assinine”.

  199. on 10 May 2012 at 1:45 pm 199.Chris said …

    If there is no “right code” – that is, we all get our own – then how do any of us get to point to another and say theirs is WRONG?

    In short, we dont’ – however that doesn’t stop us from doing so does it? No, as just shown on here, folks think the Christian code is “wrong” however, it has just been admitted (sans and authority – God) no one can be wrong, only different.

    If I don’t have to follow yours, then why am I wrong for following mine?

  200. on 10 May 2012 at 1:52 pm 200.Chris said …

    “Is it moral to stone hom0sexuals and adulterers to death? Yes, or No.”

    Easy question, however, one needs a bit of OT understanding to fully get the answer.

    Short answer: No.

    Longer answer: The Jews were the chosen nation by God. Part of this “being chosen” – covenant, meant that there were certain rules they had to follow. Certainly with our modern eyes – of which you are looking at ANE times with – many of these rules look barbaric.

    Well, they were barbaric times! However, when one actually starts looking at and comparing many of the rules God laid down for the Jews (at THAT time) many of the rules 1) makes sense for THAT time, 2) move the Jews toward a less barbaric society, 3) was an improvement on what many other nations were doing.

    Yes, this requires a bit of work and study – but when one does, these clearly fall into place.

    So, why don’t we stone people now?

    Easy again: 1) ONLY the Jews were given this “order” as it were. You and I (gentiles, if not a Jew) were not. It was part of THEIR covenant with God – one we are NOT, were NOT a part of.
    2) Jesus made a NEW covenant with EVERYONE – thus chucking out the old one – yes even the one WITH the Jews.

    I could go on, but there’s a quick little answer.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply