814 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

Many people here like to voice the opinion that religion is wrong for the world, that when the world is free of religion, it will be a better place. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris…they’re making a fortune feeding this to the masses minorities.

This view begs the question of how do you value whether something is right or wrong?

Why is one thing right and another wrong?

Why is stealing a car wrong, but helping a stripper off the ledge is right.

In fact the truth is that the atheist movement is denying their parasitical existence feasting on the morality in our society brought by religious institutions, from God. They like to claim that morality is a quality that exists separate from God, but there is no basis for this assumption other than it’s the only answer they got.

Hitchens is the guy that likes to make the case that morality ‘evolved’ on its own. That morals such as compassion, empathy, forgiveness and honesty are the traits that survived in the pod of people that eventually became Canadians, but the pods that failed to incorporate these traits died off. Thus morality became a surviving gene? Dna? Amino Acid? Or is the contention that society is a living organism that can hold to these morals, foster them, make them grow as they watch Oprah together?

I contend that this is worse than rubbish, it’s poppycock. Without a benchmark standard, there is no right and wrong. No one can judge anyone’s actions with authority because there is no authority.

At least Michael Onfray is honest about this. Of all the atheist apologetics, he seems to be the only one that admits that the consequences of atheism, is nihilism.


In fact history shows us that the normal ‘evolution’ of a civilization always passes it apex and begins it’s downward spiral of decay to eventual ruin, with decadence…or a refusal to accommodate morality.

Once a society begins to disregard the morality foundations laid down by religion, it begins to decay from within. Once the people in the society decide to ‘shuck off the shackles of morality’ they seal the fate of their society. And so far nihilism: 0, Morality: 100


So if morality exists, and we all agree it does…where did it come from if not God?

And who are you to tell me that your morality is greater than mine, or that any morality should be imposed on anyone by anybody?

[Spademan]

Many people here like to voice the opinion that religion is wrong for the world, that when the world is free of religion, it will be a better place. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris…they’re making a fortune feeding this to the masses minorities.

This view begs the question of how do you value whether something is right or wrong?

Why is one thing right and another wrong?

Why is stealing a car wrong, but helping a stripper off the ledge is right.

In fact the truth is that the atheist movement is denying their parasitical existence feasting on the morality in our society brought by religious institutions, from God. They like to claim that morality is a quality that exists separate from God, but there is no basis for this assumption other than it’s the only answer they got.

Hitchens is the guy that likes to make the case that morality ‘evolved’ on its own. That morals such as compassion, empathy, forgiveness and honesty are the traits that survived in the pod of people that eventually became Canadians, but the pods that failed to incorporate these traits died off. Thus morality became a surviving gene? Dna? Amino Acid? Or is the contention that society is a living organism that can hold to these morals, foster them, make them grow as they watch Oprah together?

I contend that this is worse than rubbish, it’s poppycock. Without a benchmark standard, there is no right and wrong. No one can judge anyone’s actions with authority because there is no authority.

At least Michael Onfray is honest about this. Of all the atheist apologetics, he seems to be the only one that admits that the consequences of atheism, is nihilism.


In fact history shows us that the normal ‘evolution’ of a civilization always passes it apex and begins it’s downward spiral of decay to eventual ruin, with decadence…or a refusal to accommodate morality.

Once a society begins to disregard the morality foundations laid down by religion, it begins to decay from within. Once the people in the society decide to ‘shuck off the shackles of morality’ they seal the fate of their society. And so far nihilism: 0, Morality: 100


So if morality exists, and we all agree it does…where did it come from if not God?

And who are you to tell me that your morality is greater than mine, or that any morality should be imposed on anyone by anybody?

I love this argument because it makes whoever uses it a child rapist at heart.

[Spademan]

Ok, now that I've called you a child rapist, I'll explain.

Your argument is that there would be no morality without your particular Magic Space Zombie.

We'll put aside that every culture has had a set of ethics whether they believe in your Space Zombie or not.

Even before your particular Space Zombie was dreamed up.

Let's leave that aside.

Your argument amounts to, it is the same as saying, it is equivalent to: If there were no god I might rape babies.

You are saying that without your god you might do any old thing.

You are saying your god is the only thing that stops you from doing "immoral things".

You are a sick individual if you truly have no other compass other than your Space Daddy telling you "no".

Fuck you.

[Balloon guy]

Ok, now that I've called you a child rapist, I'll explain.

Your argument is that there would be no morality without your particular Magic Space Zombie.

We'll put aside that every culture has had a set of ethics whether they believe in your Space Zombie or not.

Even before your particular Space Zombie was dreamed up.

Let's leave that aside.

Your argument amounts to, it is the same as saying, it is equivalent to: If there were no god I might rape babies.

You are saying that without your god you might do any old thing.

You are saying your god is the only thing that stops you from doing "immoral things".

You are a sick individual if you truly have no other compass other than your Space Daddy telling you "no".

.

Well you knocked that straw man out of the park...luckily the park you create was small.

But if you want to continue to argue that nihlism always equals child rapist, than I will grant you this point from now on out.

Michael Onfray is going to be bummed...of course he's French so he might already agree with you.

[Spademan]

Well you knocked that straw man out of the park...luckily the park you create was small.

But if you want to continue to argue that nihlism always equals child rapist, than I will grant you this point from now on out.

Michael Onfray is going to be bummed...of course he's French so he might already agree with you.

Your way out of your disgusting argument is not going to be so easy.

You're going to have to explain all of the sick-ass, frightening impulses you apparently have that only fear of your god stops you from acting out upon.

If your god weren't there, what disturbing things would you be doing because of your lack of any personal morality?

[Balloon guy]

Your way out of your disgusting argument is not going to be so easy.

You're going to have to explain all of your sick ass, disgusting impulses you apparently have that only fear of your god stops you from acting out upon.

If your god weren't there, what disturbing things would you be doing because of your lack of any personal morality?

You are making the argument that the motive for an action changes the value of the action.

If a guy sees a person bleeding on the street, and takes him to a hospital, he's considered to have done a good act.

If a paramedic responds to a call and picks the guy up and takes him to the hospital, and recieves a check for doing this, is his actions some how less morally correct?

If I don't lie to the IRS because I don't want to face the consequense, are those action worse than someone who doesn't lie to the IRS because he doesn't know how?



How about I admit that many people who hold to the flawed atheist belief system are of higher moral fiber than many Christians that I know?

Now where did morality come from?

[El Guapo]

I have talked about this before, but one of the most interesting idea's regarding this was presented to me years ago, apparently there is a guy who wrote a book about it, but for life of me I cannot remember who he is or the name of the book.


The concept is, as mankind was developing, somewhere after the neanderthal, that morality began to set in. It was the development of the subconscious. At this time, the primitive man could not discern the thoughts in their head from outside influences. So this eventually got interpreted as a God telling them what was right or wrong. Sort of speaking to them through their thoughts. Not realizing it was the development of their own subconscious, and with that a certain morality and ethics on a very basic scale developed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I always thought it was a very interesting interpretation of the development of the subconscious and a possible explanation of where the idea of God came from, assuming there is not one.

[Balloon guy]

I have talked about this before, but one of the most interesting idea's regarding this was presented to me years ago, apparently there is a guy who wrote a book about it, but for life of me I cannot remember who he is or the name of the book.


The concept is, as mankind was developing, somewhere after the neanderthal, that morality began to set in. It was the development of the subconscious. At this time, the primitive man could not discern the thoughts in their head from outside influences. So this eventually got interpreted as a God telling them what was right or wrong. Sort of speaking to them through their thoughts. Not realizing it was the development of their own subconscious, and with that a certain morality and ethics on a very basic scale developed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I always thought it was a very interesting interpretation of the development of the subconscious and a possible explanation of where the idea of God came from, assuming there is not one.

Of course this is conjecture, but reasonable conjecture as an explanation. But it's flaw is that at it's core, it holds no standards, which is kind of important in regards to morality.

It could be equally expressed that one set of complex chemical reactions secreting something that we falsely believe to be arguments to another set of complex chemical reactions who falsely believes that he is right.

In other words, it transforms morality into nothing but chance and condition. Which is stuck with a value set of nil.

[Spademan]

How about I admit that many people who hold to the flawed atheist belief system are of higher moral fiber than many Christians that I know?

Now where did morality come from?

Well, I'd say we were, remarkably, getting somewhere.

There is an intrinsic morality based on the propagation of the species.

It is more reasonable to work together than to work against each other.

This is basic and fundamental. It is reasonable and evident in itself.

People are stupid and ignorant often, so this basic understanding is often unheeded (by religious and non-religious alike), but that doesn't change the fact that it is there.

More later, I have to eat.

[Balloon guy]

Well, I'd say we were, remarkably, getting somewhere.

There is an intrinsic morality based on the propagation of the species.
It is more reasonable to work together than to work against each other.

This is basic and fundamental. It is reasonable and evident in itself.

People are stupid and ignorant often, so this basic understanding is often unheeded (by religious and non-religious alike), but that doesn't change the fact that it is there.

More later, I have to eat.

I have to go to work, but this is what I think you are flawed in.

Morality and evolution are opposed to each other

[rjkdb8]

Information about rational or secular ethics (that do not depend on invisible authorities) is not hard to find. I literally can't imagine requiring someone else to tell me what is right and what is wrong, much less finding such a situation desirable. Why is it difficult to understand that it is in my best interest to treat others the way that i wish to be treated?

How pathetic that you require someone else to tell you how to behave in every context.

[rjkdb8]

Morality and evolution are opposed to each other

Oh. See I didn't realize that. Nice to have that resolved once and for all.

[BaseJester]

I have talked about this before, but one of the most interesting idea's regarding this was presented to me years ago, apparently there is a guy who wrote a book about it, but for life of me I cannot remember who he is or the name of the book.


The concept is, as mankind was developing, somewhere after the neanderthal, that morality began to set in. It was the development of the subconscious. At this time, the primitive man could not discern the thoughts in their head from outside influences.

I argue it's older than that. It's ethical to care for one's young children. Right? This isn't self-interest at work. It's an instinct we share with many animals.

[KramitDaToad]

Morality is doing what is right not matter what you are told

Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right

[KramitDaToad]

Oh. See I didn't realize that. Nice to have that resolved once and for all.

This is where BG wraps up eugenics and trys to sell it as evolution.

[vbnautilus]

I have talked about this before, but one of the most interesting idea's regarding this was presented to me years ago, apparently there is a guy who wrote a book about it, but for life of me I cannot remember who he is or the name of the book.


The concept is, as mankind was developing, somewhere after the neanderthal, that morality began to set in. It was the development of the subconscious. At this time, the primitive man could not discern the thoughts in their head from outside influences. So this eventually got interpreted as a God telling them what was right or wrong. Sort of speaking to them through their thoughts. Not realizing it was the development of their own subconscious, and with that a certain morality and ethics on a very basic scale developed.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I always thought it was a very interesting interpretation of the development of the subconscious and a possible explanation of where the idea of God came from, assuming there is not one.

It was Julian Jaynes and his theory is called bicameralism. (Although note that Guapo did not know of this when he independently had the idea, which is kind of interesting)

I have much more to say on this morality issue later. Good post BG.

[El Guapo]

It was Julian Jaynes and his theory is called bicameralism. (Although note that Guapo did not know of this when he independently had the idea, which is kind of interesting)

I have much more to say on this morality issue later. Good post BG.

That's right, you and I had a very long discussion about this in that past.

[crowTrobot]

So if morality exists, and we all agree it does…

we don't agree morality exists in the sense you're talking about. what we call morality is an (often subjective) judgment of the benefit or detriment of
certain behavior for either individual, social group, or species, or by extension environment. your argument is hinged on morality being a "thing"
existing unto itself as an intrinsic component of behavior, which is easily demonstrated to be false if you're forced to define specifically what
you mean by the term.

[Plus one]

I love this argument because it makes whoever uses it a child rapist at heart.

I do not understand why anyone engages this clown in serious debate. He is just a hateful dunce with a large vocabulary,who does nothing more than throw intellectual stinkbombs and ad hominem attacks which cannot be seriously argued.

As the old saying goes, somewhat, never engage a pig in debate, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.


Wait, nevermind, I think this one enjoys it.

[crowTrobot]

Why is one thing right and another wrong?

Why is stealing a car wrong, but helping a stripper off the ledge is right.

assuming you value life and social harmony, the right or wrong of those actions reduces to basic common sense.
presumably you don't need god to tell you it would lead to social chaos if stealing were tolerated.