I have always believed that morality comes from critical thought and larger society. How else could our own morality surpass what is written in several thousand year old religious texts?

Anonymous wrote:

I feel that I am communicating with you respectfully. I only ask that you do the same in turn. I think this thread is going very well for DCUM, so I hope we can do away with the need to insult.

Now, to address your post: How were the laws formed? You say it's based on the state and federal government, but how did they determine what laws were needed? Based on what?

They emerge from the evolving societal beliefs. Some had a basis in religion, but many did not. Laws governing the separation of Church and state, for example clearly did not stem from a religion, but from the human experience of how best to live together in peace and ensure the maximum benefit to society. Prohibitions on murder - some people may be against killing because of religion, some people may be in favor of killing because of religion. Humans have found, by trial and error, that prohibiting killing is the best way to ensure peace and maximise our utility. Likewise for protecting property rights and so on. They emerge from an evolving discourse in society. For this reason we have thrown away many laws - like prohibitions on sodomy - that would still be enforced if we allowed religion to be the source of our laws.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why we constantly indulge this troll. She pops up every few months with the exact same question, and it always boils down to the same thing. If there's no God to tell us what's right, we should naturally ignore morality and rape and kill one another. This time it's the Lawgiver. The last few times it's been Absolute Truth. She starts with the premise that there can be no morality without God, and no amount of patient explanations will ever satisfy her.

Here's a question for you, Crazy-I'd-Kill-You-All-If-God-Didn't-Tell-Me-Not-To-Lady (CIKYAIGDTMNTL): Who decided that 1+1=2? This is a mathematical truth. It's an Absolute Truth, if you will, that is true throughout the universe for all time. I'm sure your answer will be God, but why do we need God to tell us that 1+1=2? Even the first Neanderthal could pick up one rock and then a second rock, and realize that he now had two rocks. Why does anyone need to "decide" that 1+1 is going to equal 2?

Don't really know how to address your entire post, but just want to say that I'm the OP and I've never started a thread about atheism. I'm sure Jeff can confirm.

I think that "believers" should understand that something like:

"Where you realize it or not, your morality (and that of your mother) was formed by religion not an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil."

Is every bit as insulting to non-believers as a non-believer who calls (what he believes) a non-existent diety a "make-believe diety." Or "imaginary god" or what have you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most morally corrupt people I have met consider themselves "good Christians". Some of the kindest, most philanthropic people I have met are agnostic/atheist.

For me, my morals came from my mother. Her morals came from her parents and to her parents from their parents and so on. My family is Jewish, but my Mom raised me pretty much without religion and was able to instill in me good morals and values. Perhaps religion molded her, but I believe it was mostly from watching her parents do good, be kind and treat others with the same respect that they expected for themselves.

I think a lot of it is socially driven as well. I am pretty sure that the morals and values in Congo differs from what we believe to be morally acceptable here, regardless if they have religion or not.

Where you realize it or not, your morality (and that of your mother) was formed by religion not an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil.

This is just insulting to the intelligence of your readers. If you have an argument to make in this direction you should do it. Otherwise you'll drag this thread down into the muck pretty quickly.

I meant no disrespect. I was simply pointing out how the pp said her morals came from her mother and had nothing to do with religion. Yet her mother is Jewish and was raised in the faith, so her concept of morality probably came from what she was taught as a child. And it's what formed what she taught her child.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't know why we constantly indulge this troll. She pops up every few months with the exact same question, and it always boils down to the same thing. If there's no God to tell us what's right, we should naturally ignore morality and rape and kill one another. This time it's the Lawgiver. The last few times it's been Absolute Truth. She starts with the premise that there can be no morality without God, and no amount of patient explanations will ever satisfy her.

Here's a question for you, Crazy-I'd-Kill-You-All-If-God-Didn't-Tell-Me-Not-To-Lady (CIKYAIGDTMNTL): Who decided that 1+1=2? This is a mathematical truth. It's an Absolute Truth, if you will, that is true throughout the universe for all time. I'm sure your answer will be God, but why do we need God to tell us that 1+1=2? Even the first Neanderthal could pick up one rock and then a second rock, and realize that he now had two rocks. Why does anyone need to "decide" that 1+1 is going to equal 2?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but bees have no concept of good and evil (I guess, I don't really know). Humans have this concept. Why? What originally dictated what is good and what is evil? To simply say that society dictates it speaks to the product, not the creator.

Do you understand that good and evil are not constant - that different societies interpret them differently? So how is this compatible with one creator determing what they were?

Actually, they are. Can you name acts that were once totally good that are now totally evil?

Yes. Thousands. Slaughtering children to appease the rain god. Good for the Aztecs, now, not so much.

I said totally good (meaning for all mankind), not just for "some".

OK, so if not slaughtering babies is not "totally good", then what use is your universal morality? It is meaningless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very glad that most local atheists have "consciences," which they listen to, and which compel them to choose good and not evil.

But you don't HAVE to do that, if there is no Creator and there is nothing more than the material world. No one is going to ultimately hold you accountable for your actions. If there is no Lawgiver, no Absolute Standard (also called God), nothing ultimately matters.

That guy in Ohio? If he hadn't gotten caught? If he had woken up one morning, raped everyone one last time before slowing torturing them to death in front of one another before eating a fine meal and fallen peacefully asleep in his warm bed before dying in his sleep? They are all just dust. He just got the evolutionary upper hand, he had the power and he wasn't afraid to use it.

That's just as ok a life choice as any other. If there is no Lawgiver.

How was he caught and stopped? It wasn't Jesus that caught him and stopped him. In fact, the Catholic religion, to name but one, has a long and illustrious history of raping children without being held accountable for their actions. So clearly religion is not going to do the job of stopping kids being raped. In fact, if religion still reigned supreme I can guarantee you a lot more kids would be being raped.

What stopped him was that we have such a thing as society, as government, and as laws. The young girl signalled for help and a neighbor intervened. The police were called and arrested him. He will be put on trial and punished. Because of society, because of our ability and willingness to cooperate and work together, and to enforce mutually advantageous rules of behavior.

You mention the laws we have. How were those laws formed? Based on what principles? If they are based on principles you don't believe in, why adhere to them or be forced to adhere to them?

If there is truly no one to hold us accountable for our actions, then ultimately there is no good or bad. Instead of doing things that are pleasing to God, we only seek to please ourselves.

Sure, but when you decide what is "pleasing to God" through prayer, Bible study, what have you, it's no different than what atheists do--there's just an extra layer of obfuscation. This is something that seems obscure to religious believers--probably because of he pomp and circumstance and tradition of religion.

No, many Christians do what is pleasing to God by obeying his commandments. Has nothing to do with prayer, Bible study, etc. Just obeying his commandments. Which are really the same "laws" dictated by society.

You mention the laws we have. How were those laws formed? Based on what principles? If they are based on principles you don't believe in, why adhere to them or be forced to adhere to them?

If there is truly no one to hold us accountable for our actions, then ultimately there is no good or bad. Instead of doing things that are pleasing to God, we only seek to please ourselves.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think it's great that we are all being civil on this thread, so I don't mean to be, well, mean. But I feel like some of the posters on this thread (or maybe it's just one) are being intentionally obtuse.

I don't know how many times we can repeat the same, simple, logical answers to these questions that you want to make difficult.

We don't need to be forced to be good. We choose to adhere to "do no harm" because it feels good, it feels right.

We've already told you how the rules in a cooperative society evolve, and why.

We've already told you that we don't need anyone outside of ourselves to hold us accountable. WE don't need a "higher power" to "make" us be good. The higher power is my conscience.

We've already explained where a conscience comes from.

It seems as if you are just belaboring this for no good reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most morally corrupt people I have met consider themselves "good Christians". Some of the kindest, most philanthropic people I have met are agnostic/atheist.

For me, my morals came from my mother. Her morals came from her parents and to her parents from their parents and so on. My family is Jewish, but my Mom raised me pretty much without religion and was able to instill in me good morals and values. Perhaps religion molded her, but I believe it was mostly from watching her parents do good, be kind and treat others with the same respect that they expected for themselves.

I think a lot of it is socially driven as well. I am pretty sure that the morals and values in Congo differs from what we believe to be morally acceptable here, regardless if they have religion or not.

Where you realize it or not, your morality (and that of your mother) was formed by religion not an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil.

This is just insulting to the intelligence of your readers. If you have an argument to make in this direction you should do it. Otherwise you'll drag this thread down into the muck pretty quickly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, but bees have no concept of good and evil (I guess, I don't really know). Humans have this concept. Why? What originally dictated what is good and what is evil? To simply say that society dictates it speaks to the product, not the creator.

Do you understand that good and evil are not constant - that different societies interpret them differently? So how is this compatible with one creator determing what they were?

Actually, they are. Can you name acts that were once totally good that are now totally evil?

Yes. Thousands. Slaughtering children to appease the rain god. Good for the Aztecs, now, not so much.

I said totally good (meaning for all mankind), not just for "some".

OK, so if not slaughtering babies is not "totally good", then what use is your universal morality? It is meaningless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very glad that most local atheists have "consciences," which they listen to, and which compel them to choose good and not evil.

But you don't HAVE to do that, if there is no Creator and there is nothing more than the material world. No one is going to ultimately hold you accountable for your actions. If there is no Lawgiver, no Absolute Standard (also called God), nothing ultimately matters.

That guy in Ohio? If he hadn't gotten caught? If he had woken up one morning, raped everyone one last time before slowing torturing them to death in front of one another before eating a fine meal and fallen peacefully asleep in his warm bed before dying in his sleep? They are all just dust. He just got the evolutionary upper hand, he had the power and he wasn't afraid to use it.

That's just as ok a life choice as any other. If there is no Lawgiver.

How was he caught and stopped? It wasn't Jesus that caught him and stopped him. In fact, the Catholic religion, to name but one, has a long and illustrious history of raping children without being held accountable for their actions. So clearly religion is not going to do the job of stopping kids being raped. In fact, if religion still reigned supreme I can guarantee you a lot more kids would be being raped.

What stopped him was that we have such a thing as society, as government, and as laws. The young girl signalled for help and a neighbor intervened. The police were called and arrested him. He will be put on trial and punished. Because of society, because of our ability and willingness to cooperate and work together, and to enforce mutually advantageous rules of behavior.

You mention the laws we have. How were those laws formed? Based on what principles? If they are based on principles you don't believe in, why adhere to them or be forced to adhere to them?

If there is truly no one to hold us accountable for our actions, then ultimately there is no good or bad. Instead of doing things that are pleasing to God, we only seek to please ourselves.

So, do you understand that this guy is being held accountable according to laws voted on and agreed by the State and Federal government, based on the authority of the people? And do you understand that your God did nothing to stop this guy from raping and kidnapping? If we are relying on a big guy in the sky to tell us what to do, then any madman can go out and do whatever he wants because "God told him to".

No, we rely on laws based on popular will emerging from the democratic discourse. They are enforced by society, by the police, and by the courts.

Your imaginary deities are fine with rape. Our society is not, and does its best to stop it from happening and punishing offenders when it does.

I feel that I am communicating with you respectfully. I only ask that you do the same in turn. I think this thread is going very well for DCUM, so I hope we can do away with the need to insult.

Now, to address your post: How were the laws formed? You say it's based on the state and federal government, but how did they determine what laws were needed? Based on what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very glad that most local atheists have "consciences," which they listen to, and which compel them to choose good and not evil.

But you don't HAVE to do that, if there is no Creator and there is nothing more than the material world. No one is going to ultimately hold you accountable for your actions. If there is no Lawgiver, no Absolute Standard (also called God), nothing ultimately matters.

That guy in Ohio? If he hadn't gotten caught? If he had woken up one morning, raped everyone one last time before slowing torturing them to death in front of one another before eating a fine meal and fallen peacefully asleep in his warm bed before dying in his sleep? They are all just dust. He just got the evolutionary upper hand, he had the power and he wasn't afraid to use it.

That's just as ok a life choice as any other. If there is no Lawgiver.

How was he caught and stopped? It wasn't Jesus that caught him and stopped him. In fact, the Catholic religion, to name but one, has a long and illustrious history of raping children without being held accountable for their actions. So clearly religion is not going to do the job of stopping kids being raped. In fact, if religion still reigned supreme I can guarantee you a lot more kids would be being raped.

What stopped him was that we have such a thing as society, as government, and as laws. The young girl signalled for help and a neighbor intervened. The police were called and arrested him. He will be put on trial and punished. Because of society, because of our ability and willingness to cooperate and work together, and to enforce mutually advantageous rules of behavior.

You mention the laws we have. How were those laws formed? Based on what principles? If they are based on principles you don't believe in, why adhere to them or be forced to adhere to them?

If there is truly no one to hold us accountable for our actions, then ultimately there is no good or bad. Instead of doing things that are pleasing to God, we only seek to please ourselves.

Sure, but when you decide what is "pleasing to God" through prayer, Bible study, what have you, it's no different than what atheists do--there's just an extra layer of obfuscation. This is something that seems obscure to religious believers--probably because of he pomp and circumstance and tradition of religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very glad that most local atheists have "consciences," which they listen to, and which compel them to choose good and not evil.

But you don't HAVE to do that, if there is no Creator and there is nothing more than the material world. No one is going to ultimately hold you accountable for your actions. If there is no Lawgiver, no Absolute Standard (also called God), nothing ultimately matters.

That guy in Ohio? If he hadn't gotten caught? If he had woken up one morning, raped everyone one last time before slowing torturing them to death in front of one another before eating a fine meal and fallen peacefully asleep in his warm bed before dying in his sleep? They are all just dust. He just got the evolutionary upper hand, he had the power and he wasn't afraid to use it.

That's just as ok a life choice as any other. If there is no Lawgiver.

How was he caught and stopped? It wasn't Jesus that caught him and stopped him. In fact, the Catholic religion, to name but one, has a long and illustrious history of raping children without being held accountable for their actions. So clearly religion is not going to do the job of stopping kids being raped. In fact, if religion still reigned supreme I can guarantee you a lot more kids would be being raped.

What stopped him was that we have such a thing as society, as government, and as laws. The young girl signalled for help and a neighbor intervened. The police were called and arrested him. He will be put on trial and punished. Because of society, because of our ability and willingness to cooperate and work together, and to enforce mutually advantageous rules of behavior.

You mention the laws we have. How were those laws formed? Based on what principles? If they are based on principles you don't believe in, why adhere to them or be forced to adhere to them?

If there is truly no one to hold us accountable for our actions, then ultimately there is no good or bad. Instead of doing things that are pleasing to God, we only seek to please ourselves.

So, do you understand that this guy is being held accountable according to laws voted on and agreed by the State and Federal government, based on the authority of the people? And do you understand that your God did nothing to stop this guy from raping and kidnapping? If we are relying on a big guy in the sky to tell us what to do, then any madman can go out and do whatever he wants because "God told him to".

No, we rely on laws based on popular will emerging from the democratic discourse. They are enforced by society, by the police, and by the courts.

Your imaginary deities are fine with rape. Our society is not, and does its best to stop it from happening and punishing offenders when it does.

Anonymous wrote:Some of the most morally corrupt people I have met consider themselves "good Christians". Some of the kindest, most philanthropic people I have met are agnostic/atheist.

For me, my morals came from my mother. Her morals came from her parents and to her parents from their parents and so on. My family is Jewish, but my Mom raised me pretty much without religion and was able to instill in me good morals and values. Perhaps religion molded her, but I believe it was mostly from watching her parents do good, be kind and treat others with the same respect that they expected for themselves.

I think a lot of it is socially driven as well. I am pretty sure that the morals and values in Congo differs from what we believe to be morally acceptable here, regardless if they have religion or not.

Where you realize it or not, your morality (and that of your mother) was formed by religion not an innate ability to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil.