The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ there is simply no good argument in favor of God's existence.

I thought this was obvious.  The difference is there are people for whom this matters, and people for whom it does not.

Epignosis wrote: Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder).  Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?).  Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there.  He makes a point:  If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder?

That's the position of a sociopath ... not that of an Atheist.

Morality is innate in our species. It is not something invented by religion, or given to us by a divine creator. What religious people for some reason can't understand is that there does not have to be an absolute point of reference for morality. A society can establish and maintain moral values without religion. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie ... those values are built into everyone, except for, like I said above, sociopaths, or psychopaths or possibly other persons with psychological disorders. But you can't use those people as an example for a point against Atheism.

Epignosis wrote: And yes, I've read the business about morality being a social/evolutionary/developed concept, but Dahmer's absolutely right.  If we truly are all evolutionary products and nothing holds us accountable for our actions.  You can posit morality on other philosophical grounds (utilitarianism, etc.), but in the end, all of those grounds are just as arbitrary.

It's surely interesting that you would agree with a serial killer.

And as Christopher Hitchens would probably put it: If in your opinion all that keeps you from committing those crimes is the fear of God and eternal punishment ... how could that be a moral concept? It seems highly immoral to me.

I repeat my central point above: There is no need for an absolute point of reference. Any large community of rational people (meaning: not believing in divine instructions) will establish acceptable, secular laws on their own. It's my opinion, I can't prove it, you can't disprove it. I leave it to the reader to judge which is more probable.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mike wanted a situation where dogma (call it what you will) is the impetus for antisocial activity (for example, murder).  Dahmer referenced there being no God as at least one justification for his actions (if we die and that's it, why not do what you want?).  Dahmer's mental insanity is neither here nor there.  He makes a point:  If there is no God, why not do what you want, including murder? Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie ... those values are built into everyone, except for, like I said above, sociopaths, or psychopaths or possibly other persons with psychological disorders.

stonebeard wrote: I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality.

Says who?  You?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: "No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over." Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.

I didn't say it.  An atheist did.

My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it.  Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion).  Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay.  Either it's evil, or it's not.  Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: "No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over." Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement. I didn't say it.  An atheist did.

A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that.

This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.

Epignosis wrote: My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it.  Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion).  Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay.  Either it's evil, or it's not.  Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.

"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine.

I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok.

You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality. Says who?  You?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: stonebeard wrote: But what about: 1) "Kill when your family is threatened" / "Never kill under any circumstances whatsoever." 2) "Never steal" / "Steal if you will die without the food" 3) "Never lie" / "Lie to a killer who wants to know where your daughter is so he can kill her" A vague sense of innate herd morality cannot even come close to accounting for all of what we consider moral/immoral actions today. I think that you underestimate humans. We're not simply upright walking apes, our brains advanced significantly, too, and that includes the ability to reason and make plans about the future. As I would put it - and I don't have a degree in neuroscience, please keep that in mind - humans have empathy. They also have innate mechanisms for protecting kin. Of course all those mechanisms are not hardwired and absolute - there's also our abilities to reason and to make plans. I'm not saying that for example an archaic society of homo sapiens 50000 years ago would have been totally peaceful. In fact I think that violence was common back then, since no doubt resources were scarce and people probably lived in conflicting clans or tribes. What I'm saying is that the idea of how to live a peaceful life is clear to us. We have defined it in our laws, and we don't need divine authority to agree on them, or to change them if we don't feel they're just. Equal rights for women, abolishing of slavery, banning racism ... those have become the basis of civilization not only without divine intervention, but indeed in spite of religion.

Edited by stonebeard - December 28 2009 at 18:58

^^ I didn't said that it had. Cultures and societies evolve as well, and no doubt early societies were much more crude than out modern, civil societies.

The fact remains that our modern societies evolved, despite of religion. A rule against racism can certainly not be derived of religious teachings. Wherever it came from, it did. Why should I explain exactly where it came from? I simply outlined that it could have developed by itself, gradually, since the stone age. That is my opinion.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 28 2009 at 18:56

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: "No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over." Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement. I didn't say it.  An atheist did. A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that. But an atheist before.  His conversion later did not lead him to kill. He was a sociopath, maybe also a psychopath. In normal persons, empathy will prevent them from harming others for no good reason. Empathy is a well researched attribute of humans and other animals. So if a person is for whatever reason born without the ability to empathize, they are morally excused from murder? Epignosis wrote: This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time. I too am reminded.  You rip things people say out of context: 1. Insinuating I'm a sociopath when I clearly did not say such a thing.  I am not thrown off by your apparent inability to read. I insinuate that you would have to be a sociopath to agree with such a statement. And I insinuate that you would have to be illiterate to think that I would agree with such a statement.  Epignosis wrote: 2. Using an "argument" you know to be weak to prove a point ("Thou shalt not kill"...  "Of course, I know that can be translated 'Thou shalt not murder'"). Any Christian country which uses capital punishment uses that argument ... or how else could they rationalize it? So what?  It's what the language says.  You remind me of a juvenile who will make wisecracks about an old person who might say "We had a gay old time the other night." Except in this case, it's not the same word changing its meaning over time, it's three completely different Hebrew words. Epignosis wrote: 3. Arguing that New Atheism has no dogma and yet insisting that there are clear moral boundaries one must adhere to (else, Dahmer would not be a sociopath unworthy of representing atheism ). Atheism has no dogma, and does not imply any morality. If Dahmer believed that there is no god, then he was an Atheist ... nobody is arguing that. So why then is he disqualified from speaking about atheism? Epignosis wrote: Epignosis wrote: Epignosis wrote: My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it.  Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion).  Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay.  Either it's evil, or it's not.  Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another. "Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine. I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok. You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest. Abortion is murder and therefore evil.  On what basis do you claim anything is evil?  Right...you don't.  It's either socially accepted or it isn't. Oh right...female circumcision.... Societies can - and should - evolve. Abortion can be considered to be murder depending on whether you consider the fetus a human being or not, or at which point during its development you consider it to be a human being. I'm sorry, the world is simply more complex than you claim it to be. Even in scripture abortion is allowed under certain conditions (for example in Jewish teachings, in early stages when the life of the mother is in danger).

Could you point out a Bible verse where abortion is "allowed under certain circumstances?"




I'm going to watch George Lopez.  I'll be back either tonight or tomorrow at some point.