BS: The 'moral' Atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 10:51 PM

Dick,

I agree, it would be easier, but people would still find things to argue about. ;-)

Thanks John P. You make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM

Ok Jack, I hear you. But please accept that I am not convinced your curiosity is quite as objective as you feel it is.

regarding good and evil. I am minded to use everyday examples of what is good and bad for me, or you, or a lady in Iran, or a petrochemical engineer in Alaska.

But then I thought of hornets that get into a beehive and kill off the bees for no apparent reason. They are not interested in the honey, they do not (or should not) see the bees as competitors. They just kill. Cats can do the same. Orca whales appear to play tennis using dead baby seals as a ball. They don't wait for a seal to die first either.

Maybe the departure into physics in the other atheism thread is not a bad idea after all, as it appears to me that right / wrong, good / bad, saintly / evil is all relative? Relativity seems to answer most things in the non quantum experience if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:41 AM

How are they different from the religious commandments we see all around us?

Why should they be different? Just because one religion or another has laid claim to certain principles doesn't mean that you have to believe in a god in order to see the good sense in them (or some of them, anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

>>But then I thought of hornets that get into a beehive and kill off the bees for no apparent reason. They are not interested in the honey, they do not (or should not) see the bees as competitors. They just kill. Cats can do the same. Orca whales appear to play tennis using dead baby seals as a ball. They don't wait for a seal to die first either.<<

I just used that point to say that there was no good and evil in nature. Are you taking the piss?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:27 PM

Dick, just think of all the wars that could be avoided if people agreed on definitions.

The problem is that words are often used as weapons or tools to convince sometimes by condign means. Definitions then become irrelevant.

"Morality" is one of those words that is used as a weapon of accusation or promulgating
convictions.

Many of the words offered by religionists must be questioned in terms of the definitions that they are given. The Manichean view of "good and evil" must be continuously be redefined or in some cases outright rejected.

Asking for agreement on definitions in a way is impossible. You can go to Oxford and
Websters and still not find agreement.

A lot has been said about "agreeing to disagree" but maybe not enough about "agreeing to find agreement".

For the latter to occur, you have to have an open mind and a willingness to listen and evaluate a point-of-view that you might not agree with.

Even when people are pitted against each other ideologically there are elements in counter-arguments that are potentially points of agreement. I think this is what
Jon Stewart is trying to promote.

We can all "get it" wrong and we can all "get it" right.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM

I think Jon Stewart is trying to promote his show. He has said as much on his publicity tour for "Earth" in interviews with Terri Gross and Larry King.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 03:29 AM

Well, actually no, Jack. I don't think I was taking the piss. I genuinely thought that noting wanton destruction without motive in creatures other than humans undermines many theological arguments. Likewise, altruism in other creatures, (including plants) tends to throw the "in his image" into a cocked hat.

I don't know what the answers to life are, and goodness knows I try to to take an interest, hence the fascination in quantum mechanics. But I will say this much;

Religious scriptures, whether portrayed as truth or parable, are all based on the concept of intelligent intervention. Advancement in our understanding of the universe in which we "live" does not vindicate those scriptures.

As people in general become more educated, they question more, so religion as a mainstream part of peoples' lives becomes less. Sadly, the revivals tend to be at the more fundamental end of a belief system. I deduce from that the control of the masses tool that religion can offer is thankfully taken by those in power, hence religion perpetuates.

Nowhere do I see an argument that religion and morality are hand in hand. The stories make good analogies for people to base their own decisions on, and for that, religion can be a worthwhile comfort blanket. But the control elements of religion are neither needed nor relevant in an educated society. Neither are they the answer when society is breaking down.

Morality and religion may share an entry in the odd dictionary and in the minds of those for whom the relationship is useful to sustain a system, but they are also mutually exclusive.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:30 AM

..."We believe that there is no absolute truth,
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth".

Steve Turner, from Creed

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM

"I believe in everything - a little bit."
Marilyn Monroe

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:33 AM

I do not think that animals are capable of evil.

Having lived with cats, having watched a mother cat training kittens to hunt, I came to the conclusion that while a cat playing with a mouse seems cruel to me, it seems to serve a training role for the cat.

I have faith that most behavior that we see in nature that we perceive as cruel serves a purpose to the animal.

Charles Darwin said he lost faith when he saw one insect being cruel to another.

"To Darwin, Natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design, and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs."

Why he did not see the same thing much earlier in man slaughtering sheep is a wonder to me.

The man knows the sheep suffers. The wasp does not known the same about the caterpillar. I probably should mention the story about eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil here. But would you understand that I take it as a clever little story that illustrates a profound philosophical point rather than a factual account of a talking snake? I think that Charles Darwin was much smarter than me and before he went on the Beagle he studied theology. I wonder why he didn't see that philosophical point?

I think that maybe he did but he was looking at each new aspect of nature he discovered and asking "Does this evidence support the God I have learned about or does it not?" Lucky for me, I live in a time when the average person has access to far more information about nature than Darwin did, including 150 years of the study of his own theories. I don't feel qualified to question God.

I feel awe and wonder at the fact that so much can be explained by a few simple theories. Gravity, inertia, natural selection, the phases of water, the "shape" of the carbon atom. In "A Brief History of Time" I think I remember Hawking saying that he saw God in elegant laws.

I'm not saying that I do. I don't know. I can't know, I am not equipped to know.

I do know this about belief and Atheism. If Jesus came back today, leading a host of angels and killed all of his enemies with a wave of his hands and if he brought peace and prosperity to the whole world curing all wants and greed and evil lust. A lot of people would still be skeptical. They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely. Or they would think it was an illusion or a hoax or a coincidence. They might even question their own mental health.

People can't be argued into believing. They can't be argued into not believing.

To the ardent atheist I would say that railing against someones beliefs is counterproductive and in the long run erodes society.

Most people do not have the time or inclination to seek the answers for themselves. Most people need and want reinforcement of what they do believe.

In an increasingly atheist society, the closest thing to filling the role of religion and The Church is the popular media. Most of the message of popular culture is in advertising.

Is it really less desirable for people to believe in an invisible God who loves them than believing that if they drink "Lite" beer they will be surrounded by beautiful, available women? And when the beer destroys their libido and plumps up their bodies, the is a little blue pill, and liposuction.....

People are inclined to fill their minds with crap. Be it Pat Robertson Crap or Brittney Spears crap or for this forum maybe Bob Dylan crap or murder ballad crap.

If you don't like the effects of religion, offer something better that fills the same needs.

Between 64% and 65% of Japanese are atheists. Apparently some fill religious needs with elaborate rituals and codes of behavior. But note that this did not come without a price. The price in the not so distant past, being a caste of heavily armed warriors chopping the heads off non-conformists.

RINGO STARR lyrics - It Don't Come Easy

(Richard Starkey)

It don't come easy,
You know it don't come easy.

It don't come easy,
You know it don't come easy.

Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues,
And you know it don't come easy.
You don't have to shout or leap about,
You can even play them easy.

Forget about the past and all your sorrows,
The future won't last,
It will soon be over tomorrow.

I don't ask for much, i only want your trust,
And you know it don't come easy.
And this love of mine keeps growing all the time,
And you know it just ain't easy.

Open up your heart, let's come together,
Use a little love
And we will make it work out better.

(ah -)
(ah -)
(ooh-ooh)
(ah-ooh-ooh)

Got to pay your dues if you wanna sing the blues,
And you know it don't come easy.
You don't have to shout or leap about,
You can even play them easy.

Peace, remember peace is how we make it,
Here within your reach
If you're big enough to take it.

I don't ask for much, i only want your trust,
And you know it don't come easy.
And this love of mine keeps growing all the time,
And you know it don't come easy.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:39 AM

Well, If Steve Turner believes it, it must be true.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:48 AM

Who would have thunk it, that Ringo Starr thought that deep.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

They would say it was space aliens, as if a host of beings traveling over light years of distance were less unlikely.

We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

Turner's Creed
An excerpt from Ravi Zacharias' book "Can Man Live Without God?" Steve Turner says "No!"...But we try all the time....



Creed
by Steve Turner



We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

as long as you don't hurt anyone

to the best of your definition of hurt,

and to the best of your knowledge.



We believe in sex before, during, and

after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy's OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.



We believe that everything's getting better

despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated

And you can prove anything with evidence.



We believe there's something in horoscopes

UFO's and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think

His good morals were bad.



We believe that all religions are basically the same-

at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,

sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.



We believe that after death comes the Nothing

Because when you ask the dead what happens

they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

compulsory heaven for all

excepting perhaps

Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn



We believe in Masters and Johnson

What's selected is average.

What's average is normal.

What's normal is good.



We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.



We believe that man is essentially good.

It's only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.



We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.



We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.



If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear



State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:16 AM

>>We actually have hard evidence that there is sentient life in the universe. With what we know so far, aliens are a LOT more likely than gods.<<

We do NOT have hard evidence that there is OTHER sentient life in the universe besides ourselves and maybe dolphins. We have "probabilities" of intelligent like based upon some very dodgy assumptions.

We also have the respected "atheist" thinker Einstein and everything he wrote about cosmology implying that it would take them (the aliens) hundreds of thousands of years to get here, unless they can bend the immutable laws of nature to their own ends. And if they can do that, who is to say that they are not "gods?" Who is to say that one of them is not Jesus if he/she/it says so? We have no way of knowing. Just as we have no way of knowing what (or who) started the big bang. Because the big bang supposedly began with a singularity and up to now at least, with our current information, we cannot know what is within a singularity.

I really, really, really do not have much use for Ravi Zacharias', time and resource wasting ministry of arguing for God. But can't we at least open our eyes to the nonsense on both sides of the debate?

Invisible God, act of faith and wishful thinking, defying evidence and laws of physics.

Visits from aliens, act of faith and wishful thinking, defying evidence and laws of physics.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:29 AM

>>>Who would have thunk it, that Ringo Starr thought that deep.

I actually think that it is pretty deep.

These lines put a slick little "Beatle-esque" twist on the rest of the lyrics adding a spiritual dimension to what apparently is a love song.

Peace, remember peace is how we make it,
Here within your reach
If you're big enough to take it.

I still don't know if Ringo was ever that deep. The website where I got the lyrics said that George Harrison "helped" him with the writing.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM

Yes, if truth is not undergirded by love, it makes the possessor of that truth obnoxious and the truth repulsive.

Ravi Zacharias

I was just reading some quotes of his. When it it not wrapped up in long arguing sermons, some of the things he says are pretty clever.

The above quote made me think of some of the discussion on this forum of this topic. I think I have been not sufficiently undergirded. I must try harder.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM

Yeah, and who helped him with the drumming?

Hang on sailor.. What was all that about this Jesus dude slaying his enemies? As christianity goes, that sounds more like Crusades than my mother in law running the local Sunday School. If not having an imaginary friend makes me an enemy of his, then pass me some nails, I'm off up the ladder!

Darwin studied theology, yes. I have read the odd comic myself for that matter. Darwin was learned in such matters for two reasons as I saw it;

1. It served as the critical friend for his research.

2. It got him a shag with his pious cousin.

The laws of physics are defied all the time. Mainly because we have to have two sets of laws; the laws we can experience and measure, and the laws governing quantum mechanics. Now.. the laws of physics for the observable universe have been honed and tested over the years, so it holds that Newton got it right regarding what we can see, but the main plank of The Principia, that of constant state, proved to be wrong, although with the tools and prior knowledge he had available to him, we can forgive him that one. Max Planck saw that things were down to small quantities (quanta) rather than continuous but it took others to see beyond that, Einstein leading the way.

if the work of Newton, Galileo, Planck et al was revered in the same way as many would want the bible, q'ran or tora to be respected, I doubt we would have got much further in advancing knowledge.

Of course, the dolphins have their own creed. Smells a bit fishy to me..... I looked up a definition of sentient; my dog is a sentient being.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 11:42 AM

The Misconceptions of Ravi Zacharias

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 11:53 AM

Willie,

I am in awe of your dog. But I doubt he is what John P had in mind. Don't you?

Don't get your shorts in a twist about Darwin, I only mentioned that he studied Theology to show that he knew more about it than me.

I guess you realize that I was not denigrating the state of our knowledge. I was pointing out that the current state of the art of our science makes Aliens visiting us just as unlikely as Jesus being sent to us unless you see the Apostles as less reliable witnesses than a bunch of hippies hanging around Roswell, unless you see Billy Graham or the Dalai Lama as less reliable than Shirley McLaine.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:29 PM

"Invisibility" is of course a function of the detector being used; it would be pretty arrogant to assume that something with the attributes of God (omnipresent, permeating all existence, etc.) had to operate in the bandwidth of .5x10 ^-6 to 10^-8 (i.e., visible light) or else it did not exist. We have no idea what space looks like to, say, a terahertz sensor or above, except in the crudest way. Furthermore, the notion that some frequency of detection would enable you to see this "God" stuff is problematic and rests on the assumption that all perception is constrained to physical vibration, which is a brash assumption.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

Ed did you watch that video by any chance?

It accuses Ravi Zacharias of mis-defining "Enlightenment" by misusing the word defining and it does so in a very boring , tedious and self-righteous manner.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:24 PM

"Ed did you watch that video by any chance?"


I watched it, but, outside the music and some of what what you mention...there did not seem to be much content to match the time taken to do the production.

But, not knowing much about Ravi Zacharias (whom someone else raised earlier), or where the debate in the video comes from, I suspected others would understand the issue that seem to be raised. But, on reflection, possibly not. IO will read up more on this person.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:25 PM

A line spoken in a fictional future universe (also, a future fictional universe) where nobody believes in deity any more, or if you do, people think it's silly:

Kill the wise one!

Maybe, to find that as roaringly funny as I did at the time, you had to be watching the show.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:30 PM

"Invisibility" is of course a function of the detector being used"

Exactly. Consider all the cell phone and other happenings passing one by (and, luckly so), if you do not have a detector (cell phone). It is reasonable that we have not yet perceived all the "detectors" possible to be used and more may be revealed in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:02 PM

Are you saying that God may only be detectable by a large vat of water at the bottom of a mine? Or a supercollider?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:26 PM

Hilary Putnam-Brains in a Vat

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:30 PM

Jack, one thing I do believe is that we are unlikely to be able to create a "god detector box".

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:33 PM

Ed, I think he must be a writer for Futurama.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:35 PM

Jon,

Do I have to improve my communication of irony? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:44 PM

God in Futurama

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM

Ed, I was thinking about the heads in the jars.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:46 PM

God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. - J.B. Phillips

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:26 PM

If science was to discover, prove and quantify God, I wonder who would be most disappointed?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM

If science was to discover, prove and quantify God

I am sure that many would reject the proof.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:49 PM

So am I, Jack, but on both sides.

Personally, I'd laugh for a week.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:03 PM

Finding WIMPS at the bottom of a mine shaft laboratory is tedious work. They can only open the detetor and look once per year.
In 2008 nothing. In 2009 there were 3 hits. In 2010, the detector box has not yet been opened. Anyway a Boson is not really a God particle. Wealy interacting pariticles maight be dark matter or something unimagined from an entwined dimension, such as dandruf from your 5th dimensional doppleganger.


I get that atheists are often exeedingly moral. Some of the worst immoral acts I have personally seen were commited by exceedingly fundamentalist evangelicals who were formally known as Jews for Jesus.
I sensed that they had a conscience but were unable to express it properly due to religious doctrine pushing them to do the opposite of their instinct, which in this case was to let a child suffocate in a hot unlocked car because they thought poorly of the father who was a athiest humanist out looking for the child in the wrong direction.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:51 AM

Methinks the term "God" is being used freely here.

If God is the old guy with the big beard who is displeased by individual humans, then please forgive me when I don't take you seriously.

If God is a metaphor for ultimate purpose, then properties of a bosun (to put a positive spin on things, sorry..) or properties of a dimension beyond the four we perceive could, I suppose, if nobody got too excited, be wrapped up in a bundle we call God until we have sufficient evidence to call it something else.

The problem is that the metaphor helps perpetuate the interventionist delusion we have crafted from ancient writings.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:22 AM

Most people have a 'moral code' of sorts to live by or we could not co-exist we each other or live in harmony. It is more of an unspoken moral code of kindness, listening, understanding and not speaking out of turn and generally treating others with respect complying to certain rules like not stealing your neighbours bicycle or returning his lawnmower after borrowing it etc. Simple things which makes the difference to everyone, offering to help a neighbour if he/she needs transport to go to a hospital appointment or offer some support. It wouldn't occur to me to ask what someones religion was just because they have been kind or helpful, hopefully I would be able to return the kindness some day.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 08:25 AM

Galileo Galilei         I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:00 AM

I might these days suggest that God could be both the essence of nature, etc. and a living creature in his own right.

I don't think old man with white beard now - does not fit with a timeless immortality..

If he really exists, he is beyond our imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

"I get that atheists are often exeedingly moral. Some of the worst immoral acts I have personally seen were commited by exceedingly fundamentalist evangelicals who were formally known as Jews for Jesus."

Scott Roeder who was convicted of murdering Dr. Tiller was part of this group. They profess wanting to protect the "unborn" but don't give a damn for actual human life.
Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization.

The joke is that Jews, by in large, think that Jews for Jesus is an abomination. It runs counter to their belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 01:09 AM

John P: "How do YOU decide what is "moral?"
I decide what is moral by the rules that my society places on our behavior. I decide which of those rules to follow based on whether or not they are ethical or whether or not they apply to me. I decide what is ethical by thinking about it and deciding. It's usually pretty easy. Do no harm. The Golden Rule. Act in ways that the world be better if everyone acted in that way.
Do you have commandments or at least guidelines that you follow or is it all seat of the pants?
Do no harm. The Golden Rule. Act in ways that the world be better if everyone acted in that way. "

Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:36 AM

"I don't think old man with white beard now - does not fit with a timeless immortality"

What's wrong with Santa?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 06:40 AM

What's wrong with Santa, EdT asks.

C'mon, Ed, switch the letters around - can't you see it spells Satan   ?

....not that I have any idea what difference that makes...

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

GfS: Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before???

I assume you are trying to say that I'm inconsistent or something because I try to live my life according to a precept that Jesus also lived by? And my doing so would be a problem because . . . .?? It sounds like you assume that I hate any idea that also happens to be a Christian ideal. What a jerk. Get your head out of your preconceptions and start paying attention to what's actually going on around you.

And, not surprisingly, I seem to know more about Christianity than you do. Jesus missed by a few centuries being the first person to speak the Golden Rule.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:43 AM

"Gosh, 'The Golden Rule'...isn't that "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you'??....Hmmm, where have I heard that before???"

Can you demonstrate that he was the first person ever to say this, or that people didn't do it until he said it?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:50 AM

Nice timing, John. More than eight hours after he posted and we post the same thought within a minute of each other! You could almost come to think that God had a hand...tee hee.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Green Man
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:06 AM

Someone said they would be interested to hear how an atheist decides what is right or wrong/moral or immoral. Its pretty basic. That which hurts me hurts other people. Don't hurt other people and they (probably) won't hurt you. Likewise moral systems are usually developed by groups as part of their infrastructure. Imposed morals such as churches no matter what church are sometimes looked at as 'a good idea' or not!

The common denominator that binds all of us is the thrust toward survival. It is counter survival behaviour to make enemies. Most people don't like pain (physical or mental) and react negatively to it. Whether this means sticking a spear in your back because that's how you murdered his brother or by writing a letter to the press to protest your behaviour.

I was brought up in a Christian household. As I grew up I realised that the tenets of this faith weren't generally followed by most people and subsequently I left to look for answers elsewhere. I have travelled extensively and found some answers but not a complete one. Folks is Folks and mainly they are a nice bunch. Religion is a business that causes wars. I want no part of it. I realise that to say I am unaffected is naive as I live in the real world and am far from being a hermit.

I ask you, for all the high ideals of whatever church or religion that you belong to, can you say unequivecably that you have found the answer when there are so many that disagree.

One mans salvation is another mans hell. I forget who's quote that is but it does sort of sum up what's happening at on our world at the moment.

The Koran says that to kill innocents and children in the pursuit of war is sinful and will send you to hell. Thou shalt Not Kill will be familiar to Christians, I could go on and have for far too long so I will end with this.

The Journey is the reward.

Peace to you all

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:17 AM

What's wrong with Santa?

I think Saint Nicolas himself would agree he was not God.