• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Morality should be symmetric, as this is the best strategy to the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
I do not want to die.
Therefore, murder is wrong in general.
As for God, there is little evidence to suggest he exists.
What a prisoner wishes does not make anything actually wrong. I do not care how you repackage it or the intellectual gymnastics devoted to it. It always equals opinion or preference in the end. There is nothing inherent in an abstract principle like morality that requires a physical symmetry. In my system morality is morality we can’t add to it. Your system being based in and on nothing concrete is far more pliable and arbitrary I see.

As for God, you are not even close.

The Testimony of History and Law
1. Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846.
H. W. H Knott says of this great authority in jurisprudence: "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States."
Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In his classic work the author examines the value of the testimony of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ. The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, reviling’s, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
3. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
4. The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
5. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."
6. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."
7. Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."
8. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), English scholar who was appointed regius professor at Cambridge in 1870, said: "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of if."

Credentials and expertise do not get any higher than Greenleaf, and Lyndhurst.
The other 90% can be found and then ignored at:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
 

McBell

Unbound
I am in awe of your undeniable justification, towering intellect, and inescapable logic. What can be more scholarly and intellectually satasfying than "good for the goose" as proof positive. Of course I kid (mostly).

I said prove murder is wrong without God not state it is.
Care to try again?
It is no fault of mine that your double standards are getting in the way.
I mean, they are YOUR double standards, not mine.
 

McBell

Unbound
... Your system being based in and on nothing concrete is far more pliable and arbitrary I see.

Wow, not only did my irony meter explode, so did my bull **** meter.

Credentials and expertise do not get any higher than Greenleaf, and Lyndhurst.
The other 90% can be found and then ignored at:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
:biglaugh:
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
It is no fault of mine that your double standards are getting in the way.
I mean, they are YOUR double standards, not mine.
I reject your double standards claim and there fore have reason to address it. Simply running around claiming things has no power to make them so even with "good for the goose" justifications.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Wow, not only did my irony meter explode, so did my bull **** meter.
Then by all means let's have the tried and true irony meter poster. I feel cheated.


[/font]
Image25.gif
[/quote] Yep that's about all that's left when you arbitrarily dismiss the greatest experts on evidence and testimony in human history. Face it. Without God morals are arbitrary and foundationless. All this other junk is attempts at mitigating the failure.
 

McBell

Unbound
I reject your double standards claim and there fore have reason to address it. Simply running around claiming things has no power to make them so even with "good for the goose" justifications.
Your denial is duly noted.
Not the least bit surprising though.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
What a prisoner wishes does not make anything actually wrong. I do not care how you repackage it or the intellectual gymnastics devoted to it. It always equals opinion or preference in the end.

Even when it's God's. ;)

Your system being based in and on nothing concrete is far more pliable and arbitrary I see.
Contrariwise, notice the justification: game theory - the most concrete information of all, even more so than physics.
 

McBell

Unbound
Then by all means let's have the tried and true irony meter poster. I feel cheated.

Yep that's about all that's left when you arbitrarily dismiss the greatest experts on evidence and testimony in human history. Face it. Without God morals are arbitrary and foundationless. All this other junk is attempts at mitigating the failure.
Face it, you have absolutely nothing but your own biased opinion and your use of logical fallacies to support your argument.

Yet have no problem whining about others using your own standards in reply to you.


You like to proclaim gods existence as though it is irrefutable fact and from there build up all manner of opinion pieces you present as fact based upon your unprovable premise that god exists.
yet you reject when someone else does the exact same thing using the exact opposite (and just as unprovable) premise that god does not exist.

now instead of looking this fact right in the eye, you try using appeals to authority as though they actually help your argument outside your choir.


Then to top it all off, you feed your ego masturbation with claims of my failure whilst completely ignoring that the only real difference between my argument and your argument is that they come to completely opposite conclusions because of completely opposite unprovable premises.

Now I will sit back and await your flat out denial, appeals to numbers, appeals to authority, and even more ego masturbation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Even when it's God's. ;)
I suppose it may be argued that it's God's opinion. I do not see what difference that makes. As long as the standard is not subject to opinion of it's subjects it is in effect absolute. That alone makes it a suffecient basis for the needs of society. Our absolute accountability to that standard makes it actually wrong. If God exists he is the absolute arbiter of all truth. Really the only question is whether he does or does not exist. The implications are pretty concrete.

[/font][/size]
Contrariwise, notice the justification: game theory - the most concrete information of all, even more so than physics.
Are you saying that Nash's game theory is the concrete foundation for morality without God? It assumes what is good as what maximises gain for the most people. That means he must assume what gain is. It is assumption based on assumption unless you are talking about another game theory.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Your denial is duly noted.
Not the least bit surprising though.
Yes, I deny the thing you just invented, did not attempt to show, and which I have no idea what it is you are trying so hard to apply it to anyway. My denial was noted yet dismissed but will still be reffered to any time a diversion is needed.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
You like to proclaim gods existence as though it is irrefutable fact and from there build up all manner of opinion pieces you present as fact based upon your unprovable premise that god exists.
No I did not. We are discussing what God's assumed existence means. We are not discussing or proving his existence. I did however provide testimony of people lights years ahead of you that claim that the testimony to God's existence is as concrete as any history produces. You realize you can't respond and decide as usual to force an emoticon to attempt a counter claim you couldn't. It is not my position that runs contradictory to the greatest experts on evidence in history.

yet you reject when someone else does the exact same thing using the exact opposite (and just as unprovable) premise that god does not exist.
No one else posted any creators of Harvard law or experts that held all of England’s most prestigious offices of law, that backed up their position. You only state things and never bother an attempt at proof.
now instead of looking this fact right in the eye, you try using appeals to authority as though they actually help your argument outside your choir.
What fact? This isn't even a sentence. That is what I used to address a simple incorrect claim and didn't even scratch the surface of all there is available to prove God likely exists. No logical fallacy makes expert testimony insignificant. That is why when it counts it is heavily relied on in most court cases when life and death are in the balance. The next time you are on a jury jump up and tell the judge that the expert witness is a fallacy, see where that gets you. We are not trying to prove God exists; we are discussing morality assuming God exists and assuming he does not. Proving it very likely God exists is not hard but involves far more than these silly discussions.
Then to top it all off, you feed your ego masturbation with claims of my failure whilst completely ignoring that the only real difference between my argument and your argument is that they come to completely opposite conclusions because of completely opposite unprovable premises.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I am pretty sure you don't either. This is not a prove God thread, and I have not attempted to, to any degree. I started talking about Dawkins and morality with and without God.
Now I will sit back and await your flat out denial, appeals to numbers, appeals to authority, and even more ego masturbation.
Why would you have nothing better to do than this, if true?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I had a revelation from your God last night, Robin. He wants us to rape virgins.

That statement cannot be disproved by you.

So much for the alleged objectivity of revelation based morality.
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
I had a revelation from your God last night, Robin. He wants us to rape virgins.

That statement cannot be disproved by you.

So much for the alleged objectivity of revelation based morality.

According to God, that's perfectly fine.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I had a revelation from your God last night, Robin. He wants us to rape virgins.

That statement cannot be disproved by you.

So much for the alleged objectivity of revelation based morality.
Ok tell me how you know that even if he did say that to you it would be wrong to do so. I am not in any way saying it isn't I am just pointing out you have to smuggle in Christian morality to evaluate the claim to start with. I am out of time but this is the first counter claim that has had any teeth so far. I will review this again soon and properly address it. Not bad.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you honestly believe that people can't be moral if they don't believe in a god, 1robin?

This question is meant to scratch the surface before I proceed with my argument, by the way. It's not meant as a rhetorical question.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
I do not understand the relevance here.
Your comment that:" Without a common designer there is no rational basis for concluding we have any kind of semi universal code of morality." is undone by all of the evidence from sociologists and anthropologists who study widely divergent societies who have different gods and face different external pressures where they live, and yet share common values regarding some of the basic measures of what's right and what's wrong -- like murder and theft is universally considered wrong...you don't have to make a 10 Commandments monument and put it in the town square to know that!

And the root of our common values has been demonstrated by d
evelopmental psychologists studying the behaviour of children as early as 3 months of age (from the entire field of research you think has no value) can identify basic behavioural traits that have not come from learning or training of any sort. I just want to clear out of the way the notion that we are born into this world as "blank slates," and that there is chaos and anarchy without being taught the right set of doctrinal beliefs in early childhood.

Let me clarify a bit. I know and the Bible teaches that things change after their kind. Micro evolution is true. Macro may be to some extent. What I mean is that there is a God who has directed and designed the frameworks and dynamics that any evolution operates from and within. In summary with God a conscience derived from a universal source explains commonality perfectly. Without God it is much harder to regardless the attempt is still made anyway. I was not making an argument for creation apart from some type of evolution.
First off, I didn't realize until signing on today, that I wrote Pliocene instead of Pleistocene - the era just prior to the brief period we have lived through until now called the Holocene. That long era of the Pleistocene was when the modern human species arose, and when all of our basic behavioral traits would have been formed.

But, any sort of universal morality is a problem for certain religions, like Christianity, which teaches that the human race is in a depraved state since the Fall of Man, and Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. If that's true, how could the heathens have any semblance of morality?

I think Aquinas was the first theologian to realize that his Church had a problem explaining why the heathen were often reported to have better morals than the Christians living in his land, so he had to craft an explanation claiming that his God was responsible for any moral sense that pagan's had. The first problem with this explanation is: If God considered it so important to provide his creatures some basic framework for morality, why didn't he also instill some deep memory of the creator within them, so that all people, everywhere in the world would have the same beliefs and concepts of God, and we wouldn't have to endure centuries of religious wars....not to mention that having the right set of beliefs is supposed to determine whether someone goes to heaven or hell. If the right beliefs were innate, the only ones condemned would be those who openly rebelled against God. Instead, the human race was abandoned by a hidden God, whom we are told by some, occasionally assigned someone the role of prophet, and used that person, and him alone, as the one to receive direct messages from God. And these prophets were also given the assignments of writing out books that were supposed to provide the evidence for judgment that would be applied to others, extending into the future...at least according the world's major religions, who scrupulously apply cutoff dates so that after a certain time, no new prophets are chosen to provide any direct teaching or explanations to clear up any confusion regarding how to deal with modern problems that would come along in the succeeding centuries.


Okay, it didn't sound like you were making an argument for creative evolution! I don't bother to try to knock down beliefs that the process of evolution needs some sort of divine guidance, since the basic facts will look the same in either version, and creative evolutionists like Francis Collins, are adding an ingredient that can't be proven either way, and at least they aren't denying scientific evidence and trying to ignore it. But, for myself, I would say that Collins's idea of progressive evolution are totally lacking credibility, as an explanation that the evolutionary process itself has no plan or principles beyond survival. There are examples provided by the late Lyn Margulis, that cooperation plays an important role in the evolutionary process, and it's not all about competition like her male colleagues in biology had tried to contend. But, natural selection itself does not contain any moral values or principles, and there's no evidence that any animals, including us are advancing towards some greater goal. If circumstances suit the shrinking of our large brains, then future humans will have smaller brains and be less intelligent. The evolution of any species is geared towards survival, not any attempt to improve itself for reasons that do not meet those goals.

You are being far too specific and narrow for my example. I meant if you look around and think evolution did all this then what do we see. Complete diversity.
If that same force produced morals I would think it would also be far more diverse. I do not think it did but must address the issue if asked. I do not think even if evolution was the only force we would have the morals we do. I think "nature red in tooth and claw" would be more accurate if it was the driving force. It does not account for Mother Theresa's, Gandhi’s, or Christ.

I sort of covered this in the previous paragraphs -- our behavioural traits emanate from a brain that has cobbled together more complex and sophisticated processing sections over older, existing modules. The brainstem of a human is no different than the one that reptiles like alligators also share....we just kept making additions. And the cortex levels added on over the millenia have allowed for a level of sophistication and problem-solving that even related primates do not share. Our brain development and development as a social species occurred during that long Pleistocene Era, and even the pressures of the development of agriculture and modern technology, have not changed our basic makeup. We have tried to adapt to the specific pressures that living in fixed locations, large cities among strangers, and very recently - new technologies, but the basic wiring in our brains hasn't changed, so we shouldn't expect such universal values to change either. Our behaviours are just molded and shaped as we grow to adulthood.

Altruism is not in many cases beneficial to an individual.
Yes, and this is where I take issue with what a lot of atheists say about religion. Altruism likely has its roots in an expectation that if others in a small tribal group think highly of us that we will receive benefits somewhere down the line. Over time, religions have tried to the condition of all people, everywhere in the world. There are some secularists who try to advance universal principles -- I could name utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer as one in particular, since he applies his own teachings on expanding moral concern by giving at least 20% of his annual earnings to charities in the most destitute regions of the world...where people are too far away and remote to thank him personally. The problem for Singer is how to turn his ideas into a movement. He has had some influence previously on animal rights, but he doesn't run an organization that has doctrines which must be taught to followers. Some religions take his concepts on universalism (at least for humans) seriously, and have a greater capacity to advance and make it grow, rather than die out as just another hippie fad.

The only way a concept of Satan is relevant is if you learned about him from God. I do not get the point. Are you saying there is no way to know that the Bible is from God? There are many ways to evaluate and test the concept of God.
What I am saying is that everything, and I mean absolutely everything that we think and feel, and see and hear, and believe, is the product of a faulty physical system of brain processing. Our vision is subject to illusion because we don't really see the world around us! Instead, our eyes take in a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation from outside, which a collection of visual cortex regions collaborate to turn into sensory maps that are used to describe the world outside.

When we move past the pitfalls of of our neural maps describing sensory data coming in, we also have to deal with the fact that our beliefs are imprinted with some conviction of certainty....and as I said before, this feeling of certainty is just that - a feeling! Not a completely reliable process of weighing evidence. There are methods to improve the process of considering evidence, but there is no 100% foolproof guarantee that what we see, hear, touch, or believe, is actually real, or based on real evidence. We can test the concept of God, but we will never have everyone arrive at the same conclusion.
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
If there is no God coming I do not see any hope at all and no reason to save this planet or care what happens to a hundred generations down the road.
And this is where our thinking diverges, because the way I see it, whether there is a God or not, we still have to live and deal with this world. If you say that 'there's nothing to live for without God,' are you saying that you are a nihilist unless you are guaranteed personal immortality?

We have obligations to family and people around us, including people we work with, and the place or nation we live in. And prior to the technology era and its teaching of endless progress towards a technology-driven future paradise, there did exist many teachings among people who were close to nature, that people had an obligation to nature and to making sure the world they left behind would be fit to live in for those following in the generations afterwards.


Very often these experts should be harassed. I remember in the 80s the world's most omnipotent climatologists got together and went before the UN and said global cooling was going to kill us all. Now it's global warming.

No, it wasn't, it was the popular press than ran with stories of a coming ice age in the 70's! I know, because I lived in an area that experienced the worst of what has been called the Blizzard of 77, which contributed to the deaths of more than a hundred people...mostly elderly, who were snowbound for weeks in areas of the southern Niagara Peninsula, where falling and blowing snow piled up to rooftops in many areas. It was easy to believe in an ice age after that winter! But, the claim made now by climate change deniers that the experts were predicting an ice age is debunked by simple studies like this one which show that even back in the 70's, when much less was known about climate, only 10% of research published between 1960 and 1970 predicted continued cooling. The majority predicted warming and about 20% were neutral. The claim is one of the most easily debunked by the historical evidence.

Of course the planet is warming. It does that every so often with our without cars. The sea produces way more than 90% of the CO2; unless you have a giant sponge messing with cars won't help. In fact if you actually blow up Al Gores graph you will see that CO2 follows heat not the other way around. When the sea heats up it puts out more CO2. OF course he shrunk it so no one could tell and his house uses ten times the electricity of a normal one. I am getting off topic and I do not wish to debate global warming in depth.
The world's oceans have been absorbing half of the carbon that we have pumped into the atmosphere for the last 200 years. The oceans are not dumping carbon, but there may be a point where carbon absorption stops. In the meantime, ocean acidification caused by this extra carbon is likely a more serious problem than melting arctic sea ice and atmospheric CO2 levels, since the oceans themselves may be in the process of dying, as they did in a couple of previous mass extinctions.
 

McBell

Unbound
No I did not. We are discussing what God's assumed existence means. We are not discussing or proving his existence. I did however provide testimony of people lights years ahead of you that claim that the testimony to God's existence is as concrete as any history produces. You realize you can't respond and decide as usual to force an emoticon to attempt a counter claim you couldn't. It is not my position that runs contradictory to the greatest experts on evidence in history.
No one else posted any creators of Harvard law or experts that held all of England’s most prestigious offices of law, that backed up their position. You only state things and never bother an attempt at proof.
What fact? This isn't even a sentence. That is what I used to address a simple incorrect claim and didn't even scratch the surface of all there is available to prove God likely exists. No logical fallacy makes expert testimony insignificant. That is why when it counts it is heavily relied on in most court cases when life and death are in the balance. The next time you are on a jury jump up and tell the judge that the expert witness is a fallacy, see where that gets you. We are not trying to prove God exists; we are discussing morality assuming God exists and assuming he does not. Proving it very likely God exists is not hard but involves far more than these silly discussions.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I am pretty sure you don't either. This is not a prove God thread, and I have not attempted to, to any degree. I started talking about Dawkins and morality with and without God.
Why would you have nothing better to do than this, if true?
and once again you do not address any of the points I presented.
I am now done with your blatant dishonesty.

have a nice day.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Do you honestly believe that people can't be moral if they don't believe in a god, 1robin?

This question is meant to scratch the surface before I proceed with my argument, by the way. It's not meant as a rhetorical question.
Ok this is only the 79th time I have seen this same question. I do not think you have read what I have stated on the issue in this and every other thread where it came up. I think it is an appeal to the absurd or sympathy and seems to be an old tactic. Man has this been worn out. It is I guess a logical question but after you answer it dozens of times and never saying anything to justify it's reappearance it just gets redundant and frustrating, not that you did anything wrong in asking it.

Ok for the record, again:
Yes a non believer may behave morally. The belief in a universal God given conscience (heeded to various degrees) is a far more logical explenation than evolutionary intellectual gymnastics. Any one can act morally and even recognize absolute moral concepts. The difference is that the Christian has an adequite foundation for absolute moral values, the non believer does not. He may say we should stop Hitler but without God he can not ground it suffeciently to justify some mother sacrificing her sons. Without God morals are arbitrary preference based on popular opinion and imposed by might. With God they are absolutes and a reasonable basis for action in law and policy. Without God even the concepts of good and evil have no actual meaning, everything is a moral relativistic chaos. You can fight for the union to set slaves free and I can as well. I however can justify it and ground it in absolute moral fact, you could not. An example of this is that when the decleration of independance was written and Jefferson needed a way to justify human rights, the equality of man, and the sanctity of all life, he selected our maker as the only suffecient source. He was no Christian by any stretch but he was smart enough to know that without God there are no rights, men are not created equal (which evolution confirms), and there is nothing of special worth about human life. Without God you are equally quilty of Murder if you step on a bug as you are if you kill the Pope. When God is rejected you have dismissed the only rational basis for any ultimate meaning, purpose, and hope. If you have read Neitze's story about the mad man who was telling everyone what was lost when we killed God, you would see what even an unbeliever knew was at stake. Another example: I am sure you do not believe murder is right. I however challenge you to prove it is actually wrong without God. In that lies a world of difference.
 
Top