yguy

Look man, I'm pretty much on your side of this...but that's painting with too broad a brush. Some of these people are likely arguing against not the God they presumably know unconsciously, but against the God they've seen in HypoChristians. Let's say you have a brother who's a homosexual, and the first "Christian" you ever hear of is Fred Phelps. Is a God who hates your brother one that you want anything to do with? Heck no - more likely you hate "His" guts, not knowing that Phelps and his "God" are both frauds. There's no way in the world you can communicate with somebody who has had such a prejudice ground into them unless you can somehow convince them that there is another God besides that of Fred Phelps. Whether you can do that on a BB is doubtful, especially considering there's no one on the face of the earth, atheist or otherwise, who doesn't have a bit of an ego problem.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Keith:

This is likely what you believe, but who cares? I believe that Christians have a constant latent (and often concious as well, of course) fear of everything about reality (living, dying, every action, every decision), a fear that runs much deeper than any love they claim. Now, of course, this is in no way a constitutes a convincing argument of any kind, but I'll stick to it dogmatically and apply it universally, and naturally I'll refuse to offer any evidence of any kind, as well.

Gee, is that Jesus I feel? I think you may have convinced me after all-no, wait, it's just gall.

Your statements thus far have been composed of repetitions, contradictions, and comments that are at best completely unsubstantiated, at worst outright falsehoods.

You claim that morality needs an objective source (unsubstantiated). You follow up with the claim that Christianity has this objectivity which you haven't yet even shown necessary (unsubstantiated). You claim that atheists all "know god", but that they suppress it (wildly unsubstantiated).

Are you going to bother forming an actual argument, or just continue to make empty condescending assertations?

I think the real problem at hand is not the founding of atheist morality, but your inability to understand morality without a magical being to ultimately punish the wicked and reward the righteous.

You're the only one here who has a problem with differences in morals and subjectivity (and also, not-so-coincidentally, the only one whose position is damaged by these).

If god's morality is "written" in everyone, why are there so many differences in "objective morals" even within single religions? A more subjective system of morality accounts for this perfectly, yours, on the other hand, it contradicts. If your position is so obviously correct, why does it fail to match the data?

Vorkosigan

Yes, I can imagine the Dalai Lama up late at night, sweating over the topic. I live with an Asian, Keith, and she has no inner knowledge of gods of any kind. Don't impute your weaknesses and fears to others.

Vorkosigan

Mageth

Heck, bees do, why can't humans?

What's best for your group or species is generally best for you. Like I said, I don't want others of my species killing me or my children, so I don't kill others of my species or their children.

When species become social, any species, they adapt "moral guides" for group behavior. Examine baboon, gorilla, or chimpanzee group behavior sometimes. Heck, even solitary species have "rules of engagement" - typically, confrontations don't end in death or even serious injury.

It's quite simple, really. And you've brought up god being evident all around us in nature. The benefits of social rules for species is something that's actually really evidend in nature.

And I said Nature has no Purpose, with a capital P. Individuals, groups and species have a drive to survive and reproduce, but this hardly equates to a Purpose for Nature as in some kind of divine plan - it's simply inherent in Nature. Species that didn't have this drive wouldn't survive. There's no goal other than to continue the species.

Mageth

This was in response to:

Why does God need some external moral restraint? God is only "limited" by his nature. God can only be what he is by his nature.

And you say that God has no external moral guideline to go by - only his own Nature. This makes god amoral.

God, supposedly, is the only God, thus his "nature" would not include any rules for interacting with others (if you believe in the trinity, then you could argue that God's nature may include rules for interacting within the trinity, but since the three are also "one", these rules would be quite different than the rules, say, for governing three human individuals in a social situation). God is supposedly not "human", not a species interacting with other species, doesn't need to worry about survival, not a sexual creature that reproduces by mating, doesn't eat or drink, doesn't have a creator to worry about, etc., and thus his "nature" would not include any rules for governing any of these activities for him.

Thus, any moral dictates handed down to us by God are subjective and arbitrary. He has nothing to base them on but his own whim. If he desired, he could create totally different rules than the ones he supposedly wants us to live by (you know, the ones you apparently can't produce).

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
I was a strong atheist. I denied that any gods exist, or can exist.

Many atheists, myself included, were once strong Chrisitians.

But at some level, like all Christians, I knew of God's non-existence, and I desparately sought to suppress this knowledge, just as all Christians do.

So Christianity is claimed as an actual viewpoint that people hold, but in reality, there are no Christians, because there is absolutely no evidence of God's existence.

Gee, making unfounded, offensive generalizations is easy.

But I meant no insult. I believe that what I said is true, and if it's true, it would still be true even if it offends billions of people.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
O.K., a bit of evidence. Why are atheists arguing with theists (here and elsewhere) over whether God exists?

Umm, could it possibly be because so many Christians make statements such as "So, atheism is claimed as an actual viewpoint that people hold, but in reality, there are no atheists, for God has made his existence plain to us all", that atheists have no basis for morality and thus apparently should be running around wantonly murdering, and the many other unfounded, unsupportable, evidence-less statements that you've made here?

Notice that this is an Infidel board. What arguing we do here is with Christians (and other believers - Christianity is the primary, but not the only, religion we argue against) that voluntarily come here to defend their beliefs.

And it's a fun topic. I'm fascinated that people still hold such superstitious beliefs based on 2000+ year old myths.

For Christians to argue their case makes perfect sense--many of us Christians believe that it is our God-given duty to defend our faith to those who say that God doesn't exist, and to those who's view of God is warped. In fact, God used a few Christians who were busy defending their faith, to save me.

I feel it's my reason-given duty to fight against superstition for the betterment of the human species. It's high time we're shed of such superstition. Just look at all the misery religion (esp. the exclusive, hate-filled Abrahamic religions) is causing in the world today, and has caused in the past. I'd like our future to be better.

In fact, "reason" used a few Atheists who were busy defending reason to "save" me from the clutches of superstition.

But why do so many atheists want to participate in discussions about their "lack of belief" in God? If belief in a sky-daddy (God) is really that silly, why spend even one minute discussing it?

I, and many others here, also participate in discussions about other "silly" topics; UFOs, bigfoot, reincarnation, you name it. Humans are a strange lot, capable of strongly believing and defending all sorts of nonsense. As a skeptic, I feel I'm obligated to argue against such superstitions and myths.

And we've had our successes at freeing others of their superstitions here; score some points for skepticism!

The obvious fact that atheists as a group are thoroughly obsessed with God is clear evidence that on some level, atheists know God--and they shudder.

How, exactly, is that obvious? Do you have ESP? It would take ESP for you to know that, at some leve, all atheists "know" god and shudder.

Trust me, I don't know God, and I'm not the least bit scared of the Imaginary Almighty One. Those that believe in him (in one of his many incarnations), though, scare the living s**t out of me sometimes.

One more reason to fight against such superstitions.

Keith

I agree with your point. That's why I said... "and those who's view of God is warped."

Keith

Why should that be so fascinating? If you really lacked belief in God, wouldn't you attribute wierd beliefs to the fact that everyone's brains and brain chemistry is somewhat different? IOW, if you believe what you claim to believe, you would "reason" that no one can help being an atheist or a Christian. It's all a matter of brain chemistry, genetics, and so on. What we believe is dictated by our brain chemistry. End of story. So, why the fascination?

Keith

Your reason-given duty? Who's reasoning do you base this on? God's, yours, the Democrats? How do you decide what is reasonable to lack belief in? Hitler thought it reasonable to commit mass-murder. So, again, who gets to set the standard for what is/isn't reasonable to believe?

Is superstition bad because you dislike it? Why are hate-filled Abrahamic religions bad? Because you personally don't like them? I'm just trying to understand how, apart from God, you can make such judgements intelligible generally--as opposed to just yourself. Who are you to say that certain things (such as certain religions) are "bad" for "the world today"?