BS: The 'moral' Atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:06 AM

Jesus is a bit like a poet - he has the knack of hitting the nail on the head, like poets occasionally do with their bon mots, of articulating things that are hard to articulate. That doesn't mean I have to be a follower or take him as an infallible guide (I'm not keen on the bit about turning the other cheek for starters, and I do think that just a little providing for the morrow is no bad thing). It would be a pretty idiotic atheist who failed to recognise the goodness in Jesus' teachings. Or the committee that was Jesus, or whatever it was. What a shame we have to have it all mixed up with son-of-God claims and miracles which insult the intelligence. But, when we say that, we get the knee-jerk accusation that we're cherry-picking, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM

"and I do think that just a little providing for the morrow is no bad thing"

I don't think he was telling everyone to go be the grasshopper and stop being ants.

I think he was saying that if you go out and preach the gospel you will be provided for. I think that is true even today. You don't see many Pastors and Priests starving to death.


"Turn the other cheek" worked for Ghandi and for Martin Luther King. Look how much they accomplished without bloodshed.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM



Personal responsibility and choice is hard work, but it sure beats the alternatives by a country mile.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM

"....Martin Luther King. Look how much they accomplished without bloodshed."

Well, King needed 2-3 more cheeks.....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM

I agree with Smokey's 5 year old.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:46 PM

Arthur C. Clarke once said something like The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the hijacking of morality by religion.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 02:04 PM

For the most part, religious moral codes are quite rational, too. Seven of the ten commandments make good sense to everyone, even atheists. "Turning the other cheek" may not appeal to everyone, but there's a lot of sense in it - using something other than combat for conflict resolution would seem to be a good way to preserve the species. It seems to make better long-term sense than "an eye for an eye."

But yes, there are problems in religious moral codes. Since people tend to obey religious codes without thinking out their own moral decisions, there is a tendency for the understanding of religious moral codes to drift toward absurdity.

When you do things only because you were told to do them, you can end up doing some pretty stupid things.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:14 PM

Which Seven, Joe?

Jesus said some pretty destructive things in the bible as well, such as if you don't believe in him you'll wither and die.

The problem King had is that he based his principles on religion. This ultimately has the effect of holding back the advancement of the Civil Rights Movement. This is what Stokeley Carmicheal and Malcolm X were talking about.

Non-violence is always the best policy. This doesn't mean passivity. And it doesn't necessarily mean religion either.

No, Jack but you see a lot of Pastors and Priests starving other people to death.
particularly in Theocratic countries.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 03:26 PM

I've always thought that the "eye for an eye" quote has been taken out of context. It doesn't mean that you are justified to take an eye for an eye. It means that an eye is the maximum you can take in retaliation. It dosn't mean you should - it just gives you a limit.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 04:03 PM

Morality is a built-in societal concept that comes naturally but is extended by thought.
It has to do not necessarily with a Manichean view of good and evil but a code of workable ethics.

Animal herd behavior depends on which animal. Human? It turns out that apes have a certain moral code. This is shown by behavioral studies. Check out Franz de Waal at Yerkes Primate Center. An interesting book is his "The Age of Empathy".

Evolution has to do with the ability to rationalize and determine what is moral and ethical.
The human brain has evolved to take care of this.

As to the survival of value systems, it depends entirely on what they are. The fact that we have value systems at all is evidence that Darwinian evolution has made us capable of this ability to create them. I can't prove it but it is possible that war is our specialization that could lead to the extinction of our species and this is certainly based on a value system.
Our ability to survive and adapt may depend on our ability to seek alternatives to war.

I think that war is immoral. It has been lauded and utilized by every religion in the world except for maybe Janism and some pacifist religions such as the Friends.

The "eye for an eye" quote is subject to a variety of interpretations. Wesley, yours is just one of them. Its usage today generally refers to revenge. It may not mean you should retaliate with violence but it does give you permission to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:23 PM

Jack, you've said you used to an atheist. How did you make decisions about right and wrong before you got religion?

Taking off on something that was said up-thread a ways, how can a Christian who believes in the literal truth of the Bible decide what's moral? Given the contradictions and horrors in the Bible, it seems like it would be pretty hard.

The best answer so far about how to choose between right and wrong is "with my brain". In most cases it's not really that hard to figure out whether or not an action is good or evil. Sometimes you have to think about it for a bit, though.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM

"an eye is the maximum you can take in retaliation"

That limit was to stop endless blood feuds. (The typo said blond feuds...)

Medieval monks lived so well that the obese monk became a stock figure - they just didn't eat red meat at times, just any other living thing such as dolphin, oysters, etc no way were they 'vegetarian'!

QUOTE
I asked, given that morality is based on ideas of right and wrong, where an atheist gets morality.
UNQUOTE

... which logically and semantically assumes the starting point that they can't (because they can't have those concepts), only the theists can (cause only they can have those concepts).

QUOTE
your morality needs to go beyond its religious base
UNQUOTE

Nope - you've got it back-asswards again. It doesn't need to go as far as a religious base.


"followers of Jesus' philosophy"

Sadly, he can't hold a patent on any such ideas - due to the principle of 'previous disclosure' in history ... :-) hence the statements about the 'arrogant ignorant smugness' of such self deluded professed followers...

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:40 PM

This is a quote from a film the name of which I forget. Ben Kingsley utters the following:

It's not hard to do the right thing -- it's hard to know what the right thing is. But once you know, it's hard not to do it.

That's ethics. You got `em or you don't. Morality (by which I mean a set of externally defined rules of conduct) doesn't come into it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: kendall
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:12 PM

The film was Gandhi.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:20 PM

Oh - and Medieval Religious based 'fasting' had nothing to do with 'not eating' - merely 'what to eat' not 'less to eat' - it was social control, pure and simple, allegedly red meat 'inflamed the passions' but the Hanseatic League made political submissions to the Pope to increase the amount of fish in the diet, so they could make more money - nothing 'religiously moral' about that ... even Muslim 'fasting' merely means to not eat solid food during daylight hours, you can stuff yourself comatose after sunset.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM

Actually, if Atheists were the sort of people that those who decry and try to obliterate them are, they might note that the use of quote marks around the word 'moral' in this thread title could be taken as a deliberate put down by the anti-atheists.

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Janie
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:32 PM

Good question, Jack. It is a question I have personally explored for myself, having arrived at the conclusion I am atheistic in my perspective only a few years ago.

I found myself cruising definitions of "atheist." Wikipedia seems to sum up the various definitions well enough.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]    full article here

I have, over the past several years, arrived at the position that I have an absence of belief that deities exist.

I also like Wikepedia's concise definition of belief, i.e. "the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

I don't hold my premise to be true. I consider it a rational and logical conclusion based on the information available to me to the extent I have the tools and capacity to comprehend the information available to me.

I think concepts of good and evil are just that - concepts. From an evolutionary perspective they are essential constructs, especially for creatures who have evolved to be social creatures.   I don't think existence has any moral basis. I think it just is. I try to operate in the world from the notion that all existence has intrinsic value. I choose that only partially, because I am willing to eat, which means I am willing to kill other life-forms, be they animal or vegetable.

I think any moral imperatives are evolutionary in their origin and their function, and have to do with adaptation and survival. I think concepts of right and wrong/good and evil are relative because what it takes for a species to survive depends on an infinite number of variables. Beyond that, what it takes for an individual within a species to survive and perpetuate it's own particular genes adds another layer of complexity.

I have a very clear sense of values that govern the way I operate in the world. Most of these are inherited cultural and familial values. Many of them continue to make very good sense after examination, and I tend to operate from them pretty automatically, treating them as truth. I also have an innate drive to survive individually.

What I often experience as moral dilemmas arise out of the complex matrix of adaptation on a species-wide basis vs. adaptation to foster the continuation of my own particular gene pool. Most of my values are socially inherited and programmed. The vast majority of those values are ones I think most individuals and cultures in the world hold in common - at least within our own families, tribes, cultures.

All a very long-winded way of saying "What Ed T said."

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:15 PM

Kendall -- sorry cap'n, the film was The Confession, made long after Gandhi.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:40 PM

Stringsinger sez that Jesus sez: if you don't believe in him you'll wither and die.

It ain't in my Bible, Frank. I'll admit Jesus was pretty hard on fig trees that don't bear fruit, but it's unclear exactly what the application of the fig tree story should be. It seems to me to be teaching that if you have faith, you can do superhero stuff like moving mountains and withering fig trees. I think fig trees are ugly, and they make me itch; so I don't get particularly offended by the story. You'll find the story in Matthew 21:18-22 and Mark 11:12-14; Mark 11:19-25.

My wife the gardener is a lover of all living things, and she always wants to give her failed plantings a second chance. As a result, we have a number of dead trees and bushes in the yard.....

As for the Ten Commandments, the first three (or four, depending on how you count) have to do with worship of God, so I don't think they'd be particularly pertinent to atheists. The final seven (6?) make good sense for most everyone - you know, the ones about honoring your parents, killing, adultery, stealing, telling lies, and coveting. Pretty usual stuff for moral codes, I'd say. If you do those things to your neighbor, your neighbor is likely to be upset with you.

Still, I get peeved at people who insist it's a good idea to post the Ten Commandments on publicly-owned property in the United States.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:00 AM

Joe, I've never been into coveting my neighbor's ass....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:28 AM

See? And it's a darn good thing you DON'T covet it, Robin! Covetousness doth not a satisfied soul engender....[The Book of Joe 23:316]

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 01:14 AM

Well, he doesn't own one anyway ....

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 06:37 AM

can an Atheist have a concept of good and evil?

well now can an deeply religious man be moral?
let us start with Colin Myler - editor of numerous Newspapers, one in New York well US anyway)
Rupert Murdock was forced to sack him from editorships of Newscorps papers three times for publishing news and pictures that turned out to be scandalously false. The implication is knowingly false. Given the re-employment at the next newspaper. And what we observe of Bruno Merde's track record.

And this is a man who goes to church not just on Sundays but several times mid-week too.

Morals is for the common man. Amorality is not a word that has currency with the amoral. And the ME generation are in the ascendancy. Thinking of the neighbour is not in the cannon of the ME people.

Religion has the propensity to define and control morality, and the propensity for excess of it. But it is propensity as a statistical artefact. Not as absolute as its other dicta.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:41 AM

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion. Arthur C. Clarke

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 11:07 AM

Interesting definitions, Janie; especially the "at least one..." clause.

At the other end of the spectrum, or all the way around the circle depending on how you weigh such things, is presumably the notion that trillions of deities exist. I am reminded of the common greeting used by the members of Michael Valentine Smith's church in Stranger in a Strange Land:

"Thou art God".


I kinda like that view of things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 11:39 AM

**pedant alert**

Valentine Michael Smith

**end pedant alert**

(I liked "Stranger" a lot...it was quite an influence on my generation.)

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM

Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: SINSULL
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse.
In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 03:59 PM

Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong?

I dearly wish I could say yes to that, but it appears not necessarily to be the case, although, I suppose, knowing the difference and acting on that knowledge are two separate things.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: gnu
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 05:07 PM

SINS... "Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse. In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled."

That is absolutely priceless!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

There was discussion of this subject on the British Christian radio station Premier today. I was not convinced by the speakers, who seemed to start fom the premise of the title of this thread, that religion is necessary for morality, and stay there. One comment referred back to an interview with Richard Dawkins (who holds that altruism has been essential in the evolution of humanity - the speakers felt this meant he contained contradictions within himself). In this interview he had been asked what would be the case if we had evolved to consider rape to be a good thing, and it was reported that he had had no very convincing answer. Apparently, he said that if that had happened, then that would be what we believed.

My first reaction was to think that there is plenty of evidence that there has been, and still is, a strand of human development with exactly that belief - a leader in the Congo explains his men's behaviour as due to being human, for example.

As the debate moved on to abortion, as it always does, without considering it to be a very, very difficult issue, it occurred to me that insisting on rape victims bearing any child conceived that way is not going to reduce that attitude. Perhaps a trivial reaction to what is a horrendous dilemma, but one the debaters did not spot.

When we discuss atheism, I feel that we need two words. One for the people who bother to describe themselves as such, who are prepared to discuss morality. These are likely to have thought out their morality, and probably have done so by regarding other human beings as as fully human as they are themselves, and as deserving of consideration and respect as they are themselves. (That is all other humans, not only the ones resembling themselves.)

The other sort are not simply atheists, but people without any awareness of the issue of whether to believe in God or not, or, possibly, of any need to think of others.

When the religious start this sort of debate, they assume that all atheists are the second sort, who probably do not know the word.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM

Yes, indeed, we all can; it's how we have such a thing at all, despite efforts to disguise the provenance.

But there is also a wide spectrum of counterforces available in the human breast and some folks are more swamped by them than other folks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: CapriUni
Date: 16 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM

Ed T.:

My parents raised me with Kant's Catagorical Imperitive as the core of our family's moral code. ... My father, especially, talked about the Imperitive, and how he believed its First Formulation (paraphrased as: "Act in such a way as you would like to see become univesal") was a step higher on the moral ladder than even the Golden Rule as spelled out by Jesus of Nazereth. The Golden Rule, he said, was still rooted in solipsism -- everything is judged according to your own limited desires and needs, but the Catagorical Imperitive requires you to step back from your own Id, and look at the world as a whole, and act according to the benefit of others.

Many years later, I came across the Second Formulation, and I really like the way that is worded:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end"

And I also really like this passage from The Vatican Sayings, a 14th C manuscript collecting 80 maxims from Epicurus, and later philosophers of the Epicurean School:

While we are on the road, we must try to make what is before us better than what is past; when we come to the road's end, we feel a smooth contentment.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:00 AM

CapriUni

Very interesting.

I suspect very few people have had the benefit of such broad thinking early in life.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: kendall
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 12:44 PM

Sinsull nailed it.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM

"Can't we all just use our intelligence to come up with right and wrong?"

I would say that the answer to that would be "Yes. Of course." but my question deals with atheists use their intelligence to decide that.

Dawkins, seems to me to be very Naive about the issue when he often argues that there is no logical path from atheism to committing atrocities. (I know that is a paraphrase, but it is close enough and brief enough to serve this discussion.)

The very basis of what one considers to be an atrocity seems too wrapped up in one's knowledge to allow one to independently what is right or wrong.

I don't endorse any of the practices to be described. I am saying there is no "LOGICAL" reason not to engage in them.

1. One could eat the meat, properly screened for pathogens, of humans not slaughtered for that purpose.

2. One could have non-child bearing sex with close relatives.

3. As a society people with genetic flaws and low IQs could be sterilized or terminated.

4. One could use the meat generated in 3. to feed people in 1.
Or as spare parts for transplants,

No Mr. Dawkins would seem not to be the best spokesperson for Atheism because of his stunted imagination. That is an odd thought for me because I thought that most scientists would have at least a basic knowledge of speculative fiction.

There is no biological reason not to do any of the above. There is good historical evidence that people can come to think these things. So why do these ideas seem so repulsive?

In this thread Foolestroupe and Shaw, like Dawkins seem to be defining their own beliefs in terms of their differences from and criticisms of popular religion rather than from any morality or set of beliefs separate from religion. They are actually "anti-theists" rather than atheists. I will say to them as I would say to the Republicans and Tea Party about politics. It is easy to cherry pick criticisms and rage for something better. The true test of an Atheist might be to come up with something that IS better and showing how and why it is better.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:23 PM

>>Yes we can M. Since religion was invented by man, it stands to reason that man knew of right and wrong and then codified it into religion - for better or worse.
In this case, the chicken came before the egg got scrambled. <<

I believe in evolution and the natural history and pre-history of man as described by science.

The formation of early religion is nicely described by Joseph Campbell. in the myths and legends of hunting and gathering people. When man depended solely on the bounty of nature and the seemingly random migration of game, his religion reflected that. As technology progress, man's goals changed, society evolved.

A big part of religion is giving individuals the ability to see beyond the pleasures of right here and right now and to defer pleasure, and to work for the larger good and for the society.

The small societies with the "better" ie the more survival and growth suited values grew and prospered and the ones that were less so whithered and died or were assimilated.

Ancient Greece was great incubator of such ideas, hundreds of small states each trying different values, societal norms, different versions of and perspectives on their Gods, DIFFERENT IDEAS OF MORALITY, DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, until one small state went out and conquered most of the known world.

Note that the Spartans and the Athenians had very different concepts of right and wrong when it came to the treatment of women and children and both sets of values seemed to work within the short term goals of each society and their ideas were assimilated into the values of the Macedonians after Phillip and Alexander came along.

I guess what I am saying is that there were many different chickens, many different eggs and the scrambling was far from a singular process.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

Cannibalism is usually seen as wrong, not because we can catch diseases from the meat,but because it is wrong to kill people for food. If they die of disease, it *is* stupid to eat them. If they die of natural causes, why eat them if there are other meats around? And if there aren't, then it isn't a bad thing to do, look at those rugby players whose plane crashed in the Andes. Nothing reprehensible about *their* cannibalism.

The funniest thing about cannibalism is that the brits apparently pronounce it canNIBBLEism.

Sex with close relativers is usually gross to people, which is a great biological holdover from the days before contraception. It's generally a bad idea to do things that are gross; we got wired that way for a reason. With adult consent and all, I wouldn't think you were IMMORAL for sleeping with your sibling, but I would think it gross.

It may well *be* immoral for people with genetic defects to insist on having children. But it's definitely immoral to impose sterilization on them for that reason. And anyway, who *doesn't* have a genetic defect? I am of the opinion that it is a biological(rather than moral) imperative for people with good vision, good teeth, and good senses of humor to have many, many, many children - to prepare for the fall of civilization.

And if you want organ banks, read Larry Niven's tales of known space - people pass laws calling for the death penalty for jaywalking, as long as the condemned go into the organ banks.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:29 PM

Well there ya go. Mrrzy clearly pinpoints the difference between moral codes (sets of agreements about what is allowable) versus the life individual sense of ethics which generates real moral sense.

Viva la difference.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Ed T
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM

I suspect the reason sex between close relatives is generally viewed negatively in most societies (but not in all scoieties) is mainly because it weakens the gene pool. It is likely that more genetic abnormalities resulted and was seen as a bad thing to do. As to incest, the same reason likely was a factor, and obvious other reasons based on the parents role in raising their children.

incest

Here is some information on cannibalism and its history in many societies.

cannibalism

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: CapriUni
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM

Jack the Sailor --

Can I just say that, just as not all Christians agree with Pat Robertson, not all atheists agree with Richard Dawkins.

Just because they talk louder than everybody, doesn't mean they talk for everybody.

Personally, I put Dawkins and Robertson in the same camp; they're trying convince us that: "Anyone who doesn't agree with my world view is either evil or deluded."

Robertson believes, at his most charitable, that those who disagree are deluded by Satan.

Dawkins believes those who disagree are deluded by Robertson.

Sounds like the same song, to me, albeit in a different key. ...And it's more tiresome than "100 bottles of beer."

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

"They are actually "anti-theists" rather than atheists."

Actually I'm a 'non-theist' (constantly misrepresented as an anti-theist) - a 'non-something' is defined as just saying 'no to the concept'. The 'a' bit means 'not part of' from the Latin to mean away'. It is simply represented by a Venn Diagram having a circle inside of an area. Inside the circle is all 'theism' (where the 'theists' live) all outside the circle is 'non-theism', which is where the 'a-theists' live. Never the twain shall (and can) meet or overlap, but they both exist simultaneously, if one lets the other live...

What part of just saying 'no' to a whole concept cannot they who are brainwashed to have the concept so deeply embedded in their thought processes understand?

One wonders whether they are consciously trying to pervert the meaning of things they are uncomfortable with, or whether they don't even have a clue... perhaps they NEED to misrepresent Logic - oh wait, they obsessively believe in non-logical things 'beyond all human understanding', don't they, so their brains just can't work any other way ...

~~~~~~~~~~
On TV at the moment...
"You'll look more like a man with a quarter pounder in your hand"

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 09:39 PM

No Foolestroupe you are anti-theist, represented by a ven diagram of a circle representing all theists and a cartoon of you beating that circle with a metaphorical stick and tarring it with the same metaphorical brush.

We are known by our actions. Those are your actions.

Capri-Uni,

I agree to a degree. But I don't think that Dawkins has been discredited to the same degree that Robertson has. But give him time and let him speak and he will. The more he speaks the more people will speak against what he is saying as I have.

Mrrzy,

I am well aware of Niven, who writes as Foolstoupes, concept of a non-theist would. Theism is simply not a part of his visions of a future Earth. Niven certainly does have the imagination to draw many lines from non-theism to atrocities. In short, Niven's writing refutes
Dawkin's argument.

I think I have made the point that different versions of morality can be generated from different personal circumstances.

I don't think that I will get ideas from Steve or Foolstroupe how they see morality independently form their dislike of Christian practice. Other people like Bill and Capri have given logical and satisfying answers so obviously the flaw is not in Atheism as a whole. I think my question has been answered as much as it is going to be. Thanks all. It has been a stimulating and informative discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 10:17 PM

Jack, your comments aren't really making any sense to me. Your wording is a bit obtuse, and the only meaning I can draw from it is weird. Are you really saying there is a logical path from atheism to atrocity? More so than from any other position on the existence of god(s) to atrocity?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 17 Oct 10 - 11:30 PM

Has anyone encountered Rousseau's concept of a social contract?

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 03:24 AM

This thread is founded on two misconceptions.

The first is that morality can only be founded on a religious code. The other is that adherence to a religious code necessarily results in moral actions.

Neither is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:44 AM

The majority of sane rational people should know the difference between right and wrong and have a moral code whether they are religious or not.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:04 AM

Dawkins main argument is that there is NO logical path from atheism to atrocity. None at all. He keeps repeating that point. Therefor Atheism is superior.

I am saying that Dawkins does not know what he is talking about in that there are plenty of paths from Atheism to atrocity.

People are people.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: Smokey.
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM

Atrocities seem to be attributable to idealist beliefs, be they religious or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: The 'moral' Atheist?
From: John P
Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM

Dawkins main argument is that there is NO logical path from atheism to atrocity.

Well, there isn't any logical path there. The two aren't really related in any way, and even the most cursory look at the question tells us that lots of people, religious or not, are capable of atrocity. Are you sure Dawkins wasn't saying that there isn't AUTOMATICALLY a connection? That would make some kind of sense if used in response to the common Christian belief that the only way to have any moral sense is through belief in god. Otherwise, trying to draw any connection between disbelief (or belief) in god and the willingness to commit atrocity is both offensive and ignorant. Or perhaps he was saying that religious belief lends itself more readily to the kind of thinking that causes people to commit atrocity? I don't think that's a logical conclusion either, but there's probably more evidence for that than for the other.

I'm not really very concerned about what Dawkins thinks anyway, since he's not part of this discussion. What do YOU think?