Is the Religious Right in America gunning for you?

[Sand Dancer]

Jesus gives his reasons and explains why the many reasons for his many ' woes ' pronounced at Matthew 23:13-35
Jesus nor his followers tried to overthrow authority, nor try to operate the machinery of government.
Jesus and his followers did Not get involved in the 'issues of the day' between the Jews verses the Romans.
Jesus and his followers remained politically neutral.

But not religiously neutral, and back then, religion and politics were mixed.

 

[Sheldon]

There's no basis for morality in the atheist world...that doesn't mean atheists can't be moral, of course.

So a meaningless claim then.

 

[Sheldon]

If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality.

Yet atheists manage to be moral, go figure. It also seems oddly inconsistent to claim free will essential to morality, then insist the only basis for morality is to surrender it. and blindly follow rules cherry picked from an archaic unevidenced superstition.

 

[Sheldon]

You haven't demonstrated that atheists have any basis for morality.

Of course they have, they choose it subjectively. For instance mine must necessarily examine the outcome of actions, and try to avoid, and wherever possible prevent all unnecessary suffering in other humans, and to a lesser extent all other conscious animals.

The basis for my morality is no less subjective than those who have a subjective belief they must please a deity they imagine exists, and as you have admitted, at least as efficacious in making me moral.

The precursors for human morality are clearly evolved instincts, and all animals that live in societal groups have been shown to possess an ability to make moral choices. As indeed they would have to, in order to coexist in a societal group.

 

[Sheldon]

Only in a world where there's no God. That's the missing piece of the puzzle.

Well that is not what you said, you said "no free will, no basis for morality".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they have, they choose it subjectively. For instance mine must necessarily examine the outcome of actions, and try to avoid, and wherever possible prevent all unnecessary suffering in other humans, and to a lesser extent all other conscious animals.

The basis for my morality is no less subjective than those who have a subjective belief they must please a deity they imagine exists, and as you have admitted, at least as efficacious in making me moral.

I would say that atheist morality is objectively based upon subjective values. But then so is Christian morality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Whoosh! I didn't say they don't have morals. I said they have no basis for morality.

Humans are social creatures. We don't like to hurt the pack, in general. The Golden Rule has been around longer than Christianity.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Humans are social creatures. We don't like to hurt the pack, in general. The Golden Rule has been around longer than Christianity.

So all we are are packs of animals?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well that is not what you said, you said "no free will, no basis for morality".

I don't believe there's no free will obviously... that's an atheistic idea.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course they have, they choose it subjectively.

Sigh ... which proves it's not morality, but just opinion.

 

[Sand Dancer]

So all we are are packs of animals?

Just using a term.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yet atheists manage to be moral, go figure. It also seems oddly inconsistent to claim free will essential to morality, then insist the only basis for morality is to surrender it. and blindly follow rules cherry picked from an archaic unevidenced superstition.

The choice to follow God is freely made. Without a God, everything is blind causation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So a meaningless claim then.

You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?

 

[Sheldon]

So all we are are packs of animals?

We are no longer feral, but it is absurd to deny we are animals. The ignorance of biology and genetics would only be trumped by the imbecilic inability to Google the word animal, ad see it described us.

noun

1. a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It's absurd to imagine we are not pack animals. Go to any sports ground...

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Yet atheists manage to be moral, go figure. It also seems oddly inconsistent to claim free will essential to morality, then insist the only basis for morality is to surrender it. and blindly follow rules cherry picked from an archaic unevidenced superstition.

The choice to follow God is freely made.

Rubbish, for most of human history and even now in most parts of the world, religion is little more than an accident of the geography of your birth.

Without a God, everything is blind causation.

I think by now I know the answer, but can you support this claim with anything beyond your subjective unevidenced opinion?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So how do you explain those results?

Science cannot figure in an infinite being, because they refuse to consider the possibility of purpose in the universe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I think by now I know the answer, but can you support this claim with anything beyond your subjective unevidenced opinion?

I just quoted an atheist who said just that. Want some more?
William Provine: atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either."

Richard Dawkins:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

 

[Wildswanderer]

Rubbish, for most of human history and even now in most parts of the world, religion is little more than an accident of the geography of your birth.

Only thosands of people change their religion every year, so no.

 

[Sheldon]

You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?

If atheists are moral, which they demonstrably are, your claim they have no basis for morality is meaningless twaddle. Are you able to offer a response that doesn't involve a petty ad hominem fallacy? I'm not a betting man, but the evidence suggests not.

I already offered my basis for morality, it's subjective like yours.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If atheists are moral, which they demonstrably are, your claim they have no basis for morality is meaningless twaddle

Like I said, you just don't get it.
I can refrain from killing you because I don't feel the need. That's not the same as having a legitimate moral reason for not killing you. Atheists may abide by all the same rules, but that doesn't mean they have a moral reason, it's just more convenient not to get arrested... that's not morality.