Theistic Evolution?

[Jumi]

The historical and cultural context has to be taken into consideration. In China, the organs of executed prisoners were harvested -- and maybe still are in an unofficial capacity.

Well my cultural context isn't communist China or any type of communism where community is above individual. Those tend to lead to sacrifice.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Apparently not, since you haven't managed to give even a single real-world example.

So you reckon that there are no wars observable in reality ??

Just to explicate things.

I claim that morality is observable by observing how some nations disintegrate into warfare faster than others.
Although there are no perfect nations on our little planet,
we can see how during the 20th century German morality was inferior to American morality
as Germany disintegrated into war first, and America got involved last.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you reckon that there are no wars observable in reality ??


Just to explicate things.


I claim that morality is observable by observing how some nations disintegrate into warfare faster than others.

Although there are no perfect nations on our little planet,

we can see how during the 20th century German morality was inferior to American morality

as Germany disintegrated into war first, and America got involved last.

What? You’re changing your tune a bit here.


You made some very specific claims. In an attempt to claim that atheists are less moral than theists (and therefore more likely to act immorally), you claimed that atheists that are dying from organ failure have “powerful reasons” to kidnap people in order to harvest their organs. You claimed that abortion is promoted “simply to harvest stem cells.”


So first of all, where all the examples of atheists doing any of these things? Are the Nazis supposed to be your example? “Got mit uns” sure isn’t an atheistic phrase.

And if atheists are indeed less moral than everyone else, why are our prisons not overflowing with atheists, instead of a bunch people who profess to believe in god(s)? Why don’t atheists commit crimes at higher rates than everybody else?


I don’t know where you’re going with this WWII bit. The USA got involved in the war closer to the end of it for all kinds of political reasons, not simply because they’re a religious country. They may not even have entered at all, had Japan not attacked them on their own soil. Maybe more lives could have been saved had they entered the war sooner – maybe that would have been the more moral action. Besides, the US has been in (and started) it’s fair share of wars. So I don’t know you’re going with that.


I’m still waiting for examples that demonstrate that atheists are less moral than everyone else.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you reckon that there are no wars observable in reality ??

Just to explicate things.

I claim that morality is observable by observing how some nations disintegrate into warfare faster than others.
Although there are no perfect nations on our little planet,
we can see how during the 20th century German morality was inferior to American morality
as Germany disintegrated into war first, and America got involved last.

The church did take a stand against Hitler in Germany, but the NAZIs were socialists first and foremost, a nations 'morality' is just one more thing an all powerful government is able to dictate, which can and often does mean exterminating those who have morals which oppose the government's.

 

[Jumi]

There are some churches that were quiet or supportive of the Nazis. It's not a simple issue, but atheism was not well tolerated by them.

 

[shmogie]

It would seem as though the concept of "morality" is changing before our very eyes, and has been. The new view of morality is overwhelmingly supported by atheists, not theists. The new morality is simple, nothing is right or wrong, in and of itself, only the situations of an act determine whether it is "moral". Kill a virtually full term viable child while it is partially born, and it is perfectly moral, if the mother wanted it killed. Find a premature living baby on the street, have it in an NICU with doctors working feverishly for it's survival, and a woman arrives claiming to be the mother who proceeds to kill it, she is immoral. Murder can be justified, robbery, incest any and all can be justified. Deists on the other hand, or, at least Jews and Christians believe in absolute standards of morality, murder is always wrong etc., etc. I don't believe governments can dictate morality if people are free to think

 

[SkepticThinker]

It would seem as though the concept of "morality" is changing before our very eyes, and has been. The new view of morality is overwhelmingly supported by atheists, not theists. The new morality is simple, nothing is right or wrong, in and of itself, only the situations of an act determine whether it is "moral". Kill a virtually full term viable child while it is partially born, and it is perfectly moral, if the mother wanted it killed. Find a premature living baby on the street, have it in an NICU with doctors working feverishly for it's survival, and a woman arrives claiming to be the mother who proceeds to kill it, she is immoral. Murder can be justified, robbery, incest any and all can be justified. Deists on the other hand, or, at least Jews and Christians believe in absolute standards of morality, murder is always wrong etc., etc. I don't believe governments can dictate morality if people are free to think

It's always been this way though, really. Just going with the example of the killing of another human being: We allow and justify it if a person kills in self-defense or on the battlefield of war, but we find it unacceptable in other situations, such as killing a 5 year old child for fun. You can say "murder is always wrong" because we've taken "killing" and narrowed it down into a more specific definition to mean "unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another." It still amounts to the taking of a life though, in any case. The morality of taking the life of another human being very much depends on the situation in which the life is taken.

 

[shmogie]

It's always been this way though, really. Just going with the example of the killing of another human being: We allow and justify it if a person kills in self-defense or on the battlefield of war, but we find it unacceptable in other situations, such as killing a 5 year old child for fun. You can say "murder is always wrong" because we've taken "killing" and narrowed it down into a more specific definition to mean "unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another." It still amounts to the taking of a life though, in any case. The morality of taking the life of another human being very much depends on the situation in which the life is taken.

Perhaps, but murder is the way the Torah describes unjustified killing. But morality should be something that runs parallel with the law and should supercede it when required. I propose that the atheistic/humanism approach has eroded morality in a whole host of ways, and in doing so has dehumanized people. There are liberal voices that now declare that sexually fondling a child is acceptable, mormon and muslim polygamists now receive welfare for themselves, their wives and their children. I accept soon it will be legal for Achmed to marry his goat, liberal judges could consider that "equal protection" under the constitution, are any of these things moral ? We are back where we started. Morality is a set of standards the people hold irrespective of the law. History has shown great cultures that were destroyed, and the breakdown of the moral order was part of the demise

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps, but murder is the way the Torah describes unjustified killing.

Yeah, so like I pointed out above, killing is killing; murder is killing that we find acceptable. Whether you call it murder or killing, you're still talking about taking a life. The name we give to that taking of life depends on the situation.

But morality should be something that runs parallel with the law and should supercede it when required. I propose that the atheistic/humanism approach has eroded morality in a whole host of ways, and in doing so has dehumanized people.

What ways would those be?

Let's see what humanism is all about. How about this definition?

"a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism


So if that's what humanism is supposed to be, how does such a thought system dehumanize people and erode morality?

a) There are liberal voices that now declare that sexually fondling a child is acceptable, b) mormon and muslim polygamists now receive welfare for themselves, their wives and their children. c) I accept soon it will be legal for Achmed to marry his goat, liberal judges could consider that "equal protection" under the constitution, are any of these things moral ? We are back where we started. Morality is a set of standards the people hold irrespective of the law. History has shown great cultures that were destroyed, and the breakdown of the moral order was part of the demise

I hope these aren't your examples of atheistic/humanism eroding morality because they have nothing specifically to do with either.

a) Who would these people be that you are talking about? Are they pushing for pedophilia to be legalized? Are you under the impression pedophilia is a new thing or something? And what does it have to do with atheism/humanism?
b) I don't know what this has to do with morality, atheism, or humanism.
c) Why would you assume that?

 

[shmogie]

Yeah, so like I pointed out above, killing is killing; murder is killing that we find acceptable. Whether you call it murder or killing, you're still talking about taking a life. The name we give to that taking of life depends on the situation.


What ways would those be?

Let's see what humanism is all about. How about this definition?

"a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism


So if that's what humanism is supposed to be, how does such a thought system dehumanize people and erode morality?



I hope these aren't your examples of atheistic/humanism eroding morality because they have nothing specifically to do with either.

a) Who would these people be that you are talking about? Are they pushing for pedophilia to be legalized? Are you under the impression pedophilia is a new thing or something? And what does it have to do with atheism/humanism?
b) I don't know what this has to do with morality, atheism, or humanism.
c) Why would you assume that?

Philosophical constructs are statements of values. Acts may, or may not be in harmony with those values, nevertheless they exist. Yes, in Germany pedophilia with certain restrictions has been reported to the government from a select committee as possible law. Yes, I have seen two professors, self proclaimed atheists and humanists say that certain forms of pedophilia might be acceptable. I have read a very prominent criminologist ( one of my degrees is in criminology) who states that perhaps legality the issue of pedophilia should be readdressed. The spearheads of the changes in law, based upon the degradation of morality of a strident part of society, have been liberal humanists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it must be a duck. Or, if you will, as a great man said, "by their fruit you shall know them". So a written statement of a philosophy is great, but what do it's adherents do ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Philosophical constructs are statements of values. Acts may, or may not be in harmony with those values, nevertheless they exist. Yes, in Germany pedophilia with certain restrictions has been reported to the government from a select committee as possible law. Yes, I have seen two professors, self proclaimed atheists and humanists say that certain forms of pedophilia might be acceptable.

What forms would those be? What restrictions? What are their arguments? Who are these people? And more importantly, is this a common viewpoint found in humanism? (I would say it is not.)

I consider myself both an atheist and a humanist, and I would not condone pedophilia of any kind. Maybe you could provide more detail as to what their arguments are, as you've been fairly vague so far.

I have read a very prominent criminologist ( one of my degrees is in criminology) who states that perhaps legality the issue of pedophilia should be readdressed.

In what sense?

The spearheads of the changes in law, based upon the degradation of morality of a strident part of society, have been liberal humanists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it must be a duck. Or, if you will, as a great man said, "by their fruit you shall know them". So a written statement of a philosophy is great, but what do it's adherents do ?

Do the majority of adherents of humanism support pedophilia? I'd say no, and that it actually runs counter to humanist philosophy. Two guys arguing about pedophilia in Germany are hardly representative of humanist philosophy, any more than the Westboro Baptist Church in the US represents Christian philosophy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It would seem as though the concept of "morality" is changing before our very eyes, and has been. The new view of morality is overwhelmingly supported by atheists, not theists. The new morality is simple, nothing is right or wrong, in and of itself, only the situations of an act determine whether it is "moral". Kill a virtually full term viable child while it is partially born, and it is perfectly moral, if the mother wanted it killed. Find a premature living baby on the street, have it in an NICU with doctors working feverishly for it's survival, and a woman arrives claiming to be the mother who proceeds to kill it, she is immoral. Murder can be justified, robbery, incest any and all can be justified. Deists on the other hand, or, at least Jews and Christians believe in absolute standards of morality, murder is always wrong etc., etc. I don't believe governments can dictate morality if people are free to think

Morality changing isn't just an atheist thing. Many theists tie their brains in knots to either recontextualize or ignore biblical stories as 'allegorical'. From where I'm standing the bible, Torah and Quran contain some horrible approaches to human rights.
You somewhat describe consequentialism, but left out the actual keyword 'consequence.' And that's a determination of pro-social or anti-social behavior by what sort of tangible harm it does vs tangible gain it provides. Most atheists, humanist or otherwise, subscribe to some form of utilitarianism or consequentialism. This does not mean 'nothing is right or wrong,' but that right or wrong is dependent on the consequences.
By the way, in the majority of first world nations, third term abortion is only legal when labor and delivery would kill the mother. I see no reason to disagree with this.
Deists don't have a unified moral system, since all Deism means is there is an impersonal or uninterested god or gods. I don't believe the Jewish or Christian version of totalitarianism is an absolute standard of morality. It's just taking at face value that their creator has the 'best' standards of moral. I object to that notion for a number of reasons.
Your last sentence is a rather disturbing and loaded quote. Do you think people shouldn't be able to think?

Perhaps, but murder is the way the Torah describes unjustified killing. But morality should be something that runs parallel with the law and should supercede it when required. I propose that the atheistic/humanism approach has eroded morality in a whole host of ways, and in doing so has dehumanized people. There are liberal voices that now declare that sexually fondling a child is acceptable, mormon and muslim polygamists now receive welfare for themselves, their wives and their children. I accept soon it will be legal for Achmed to marry his goat, liberal judges could consider that "equal protection" under the constitution, are any of these things moral ? We are back where we started. Morality is a set of standards the people hold irrespective of the law. History has shown great cultures that were destroyed, and the breakdown of the moral order was part of the demise

I consider many events in the Torah to be unjustified killing, with a goodly amount of dehumanization involved. Such as the genocide of the Canaanites and Egyptians, which made no stipulation (and in fact outright mentioned it at times) innocent parties such as children, the mentally frail, slaves and otherwise unable to affect change in the system.
Can you show men anywhere that 'liberal voices' are pro-child assault? The vast majority of child assault is committed by theists, as are the vast majority of pedophilic organizations. And what does this have to do with atheists and humanists, I wonder, when less than a percent of elected officials identify as such.
Same with zoophilia. Most atheists and humanists I know are against it for the same informed consent reasons they're against child assault. Can you show me where the atheistic push for this is?

 

[LuisDantas]

Going back to the OP, it is not clear to me why theistic evolution would be any more of a challenge than, say, theistic astronomy.

The facts themselves are much the same. A theist may believe in a divine will shaping them, but he won't have much of a reason to even consider doubting, say, heliocentrism.

Same in biology. It is not like living beings make a vow of atheism before they are allowed to speciate or anything.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The church did take a stand against Hitler in Germany, but the NAZIs were socialists first and foremost, a nations 'morality' is just one more thing an all powerful government is able to dictate, which can and often does mean exterminating those who have morals which oppose the government's.

Sure, but the sum total of morality of the nation is what determines their future as regards being at war, and winning or losing a war.
This is especially true in a global village, where the success of a nation at war has less to do with that nation and its foe
as it does with the observers who trade and supply it during the crisis.

Even during world war 1, if you have ever read 'all is quiet on the western front', you will see that the British were better supplied,
and that the front for the Germans was a place to send young men to be rid of them. Its hardly a case of absolutes, and
simply a gross and general aggregation of morality. Nonetheless a very real reflection of what is within the national soul.

Still, it is entirely possible that the pure faith of one chivalrous individual can purify a nation to such a great degree,
that I feel pretty sure that most people will disagree with this last statement. But can you imagine what a different world
we would be living in now, if Saddam Hussein had just stood down when the US carriers were off the coast of Iraq in '93?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Going back to the OP, it is not clear to me why theistic evolution would be any more of a challenge than, say, theistic astronomy.

The facts themselves are much the same. A theist may believe in a divine will shaping them, but he won't have much of a reason to even consider doubting, say, heliocentrism.

Same in biology. It is not like living beings make a vow of atheism before they are allowed to speciate or anything.

There's a big difference between them: astronomy (as opposed to, say, astrophysics) deals with how things are, not how they came to be. Evolution, OTOH, is almost entirely about how things came to be... and therefore competes to a certain extent with other, alternate explanations of how things came to be (e.g. creator-gods).

The theory of evolution says that the history of life has been dominated by inheritance, random mutation, and natural selection, not God. God only enters the picture if he can be reconciled with one or more of those factors at play. Often, trying to reconcile God with these factors sets up conflicts. The biggest, IMO, is the inherent contradiction in arguing that a random, unguided process has actually been guided.

Astronomy is about things that demand explanations; evolution is about the explanation. That's the difference.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What? You’re changing your tune a bit here.


You made some very specific claims. In an attempt to claim that atheists are less moral than theists (and therefore more likely to act immorally), you claimed that atheists that are dying from organ failure have “powerful reasons” to kidnap people in order to harvest their organs. You claimed that abortion is promoted “simply to harvest stem cells.”

So first of all, where all the examples of atheists doing any of these things? Are the Nazis supposed to be your example? “Got mit uns” sure isn’t an atheistic phrase.

I do not record the precise details of every report I read. Neither do you. I have read several such reports.
I survived the apartheid regime and suffered terribly, (and still do) as a result of their corruption.
I know who I dealt with, and I know that their motivation was beastly in the extreme.

And if atheists are indeed less moral than everyone else, why are our prisons not overflowing with atheists, instead of a bunch people who profess to believe in god(s)? Why don’t atheists commit crimes at higher rates than everybody else?

It is SO important to appreciate one very subtle simple point.
All that glitters is not gold.
Any atheist caught in an act of extreme sin, has as his first line of defense: lie
So who says that all those who claim to believe in God actually do so, when to lie is an atheist knee-jerk reaction?
Also, many can and do suffer imprisonment for righteous reasons.
Like that poor official recently in the US who suffered as a result of her righteous actions.

Gods judgement is often not immediate.
There are God's laws, and the laws of men.
Sometimes they are in agreement, and sometimes they are not.
We are given time to right our own wrongs.

I don’t know where you’re going with this WWII bit. The USA got involved in the war closer to the end of it for all kinds of political reasons, not simply because they’re a religious country. They may not even have entered at all, had Japan not attacked them on their own soil. Maybe more lives could have been saved had they entered the war sooner – maybe that would have been the more moral action. Besides, the US has been in (and started) it’s fair share of wars. So I don’t know you’re going with that.

Yes, I agree, it would probably have been a higher morality for the US to intervene after Poland.
I never said that the US was perfect. The US involvement may however have been delayed
as it simply did not have enough rabid mongrels to throw at Germany.

It is also important to realize that the US was attacked by Japan because it refused to trade
with it due to its atrocities on the Asian continent, not the least being Vietnam.
So it was taking a moral standpoint, which is why it was attacked.
The Japanese were always a far far bigger problem than the Germans anyhow
and by December 1941 Japan had been 'blitzkrieging' for a decade already.
The Japanese govt had collapsed several times before then due to its inability
to control the actions of its military (the Kwantung) in Asia.

I would suggest that the war with Germany was pretty much a side-show,
especially when one looks at the Naval agreements between the wars which
were made between Britain, the U.S. and Japan, in which there was no need
to even include Germany. If I recall correctly it was a 10-10-6 ratio for Capital ships.
Japan eventually discarded the agreement.

Japan's military action on the Asian continent was beast-like in the extreme.

I’m still waiting for examples that demonstrate that atheists are less moral than everyone else.

Not always are they such. But seeing as though one can never be entirely sure who
is authentically Theistic and who is not, one has to simply use logic.

The atheist believes that everyone is an animal and also in 'survival of the fittest'.
His only real ambition is survival of himself and his ego (offspring).
His own life is his central concern, and his offspring are always secondary.
He does not believe in an afterlife, and has no real reason to worry about the state of the world after he is dead.

Those who believe in reincarnation, believe that the state of the world that they
leave behind often will be the state of the world that they are born into in their next life.
So there is a very good reason to sacrifice one's life to improve the state of the world.
In fact, it is beneficial to die and improve the world for the next life.

Sure, the atheist may have some concern for his offspring and this is the basis
of their morality. Often people call themselves atheist because formal religion has
been subverted by nihilists, like the apartheid regime, who used it to further their
own narrow ends.

But a racist is always an atheist, regardless of what they claim when they are lying.
Its not always easy to tell truth from lies, but it is the most vital of all faculties.
The first tool is always : logical consistency.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not record the precise details of every report I read. Neither do you. I have read several such reports.

I survived the apartheid regime and suffered terribly, (and still do) as a result of their corruption.

I know who I dealt with, and I know that their motivation was beastly in the extreme.

First of all, I'm sorry that you suffered so terribly. I hate to hear such things and my heart goes out to you.

You are saying that you saw specific acts carried out by dying atheists where they kidnapped people and harvested their organs to save themselves? And that they carried out abortions for the sole reason to harvest stem cells? So you think that all atheists everywhere in the world do this kind of thing every day? What reason do you have to generalization in that way?

It is SO important to appreciate one very subtle simple point.
All that glitters is not gold.
Any atheist caught in an act of extreme sin, has as his first line of defense: lie
So who says that all those who claim to believe in God actually do so, when to lie is an atheist knee-jerk reaction?

These are some ridiculous generalizations you’re making here.

You cannot make such a generalization (that an atheists’ knee-jerk reaction is to lie) without lying yourself. You’re also saying that the prisons probably are filled with atheists who are just pretending to be theists? On what basis can you possibly make such a claim?

Also, many can and do suffer imprisonment for righteous reasons.
Like that poor official recently in the US who suffered as a result of her righteous actions.

The US Constitution clearly states that the government is not allowed to endorse any religion, nor persecute individuals based on religious belief. If your example is that of Kim Davis being jailed for not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples - she had an obligation to carry out her duty as an elected representative of the government to issue a marriage license. She had no right to endorse the religion she practiced and to push it on other citizens of the United States. In other words, she has to follow the law as a condition of her employment. And if she doesn’t want to do that, she needs to resign from her position and let someone who can carry out the duties required of the position step in. The law states that gay couples are allowed to marry.

I would think you might be able to understand why the Constitution is written that way, given what you've been through.

Gods judgement is often not immediate.
There are God's laws, and the laws of men.
Sometimes they are in agreement, and sometimes they are not.
We are given time to right our own wrongs.

Then how can you ever actually know that this judgement is a punishment for something that was done at some earlier point in time?

This really does not at all address my contention with your assertion that atheists are less moral than theists. It’s all just assumptions, generalization and supposition.

Yes, I agree, it would probably have been a higher morality for the US to intervene after Poland.
I never said that the US was perfect. The US involvement may however have been delayed
as it simply did not have enough rabid mongrels to throw at Germany.

It is also important to realize that the US was attacked by Japan because it refused to trade
with it due to its atrocities on the Asian continent, not the least being Vietnam.
So it was taking a moral standpoint, which is why it was attacked.
The Japanese were always a far far bigger problem than the Germans anyhow
and by December 1941 Japan had been 'blitzkrieging' for a decade already.
The Japanese govt had collapsed several times before then due to its inability
to control the actions of its military (the Kwantung) in Asia.

I would suggest that the war with Germany was pretty much a side-show,
especially when one looks at the Naval agreements between the wars which
were made between Britain, the U.S. and Japan, in which there was no need
to even include Germany. If I recall correctly it was a 10-10-6 ratio for Capital ships.
Japan eventually discarded the agreement.

Japan's military action on the Asian continent was beast-like in the extreme.

This has just taken us off on a huge tangent. You had said that “Christian nations” are more moral than those that don’t identify as such, and were the only ones with the “moral backbone” to fight the Nazis. So I pointed out that the US only joined the war when they were attacked directly, rather than for these moral reasons you are alluding to. And you agree with me. Great. There goes that assertion.

Not always are they such. But seeing as though one can never be entirely sure who
is authentically Theistic and who is not, one has to simply use logic.

Do you think theists are incapable of lying?

The atheist believes that everyone is an animal and also in 'survival of the fittest'.

“The atheist” does not believe that. “The atheist” simply doesn’t believe in god(s).

Anatheist can believe this, as can a theist or deist. It appears you are using “survival of the fittest” in the social sense, and “the atheist” doesn’t necessarily believe in social Darwinism either. In fact, I’ve never met one who does.

I don’t see any reason to believe humans are not animals. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think we have any value, or that animals don’t have any value.

His only real ambition is survival of himself and his ego (offspring).
His own life is his central concern, and his offspring are always secondary.

This appears to be where you go completely off the rails. I certainly don’t feel that way. I care about survival of myself, my family, the planet, and basically all humans and animals. And I care about treating other people with kindness and empathy, and to leave the world a better place than I found it.

What you are describing is a sociopath. And they can come in the form of atheist, theist or deist. Thankfully, they make up a small subset of the population.

He does not believe in an afterlife, and has no real reason to worry about the state of the world after he is dead.

Sure he does. His reason to care about the world after he is dead is the same as anyone else’s: For his children, and his children’s children and the rest of humankind.

Personally, I feel that the lack of an afterlife makes this life precious and important and worth living to the fullest. I don’t see any reason to live for that which we are not guaranteed – an afterlife.

Those who believe in reincarnation, believe that the state of the world that they
leave behind often will be the state of the world that they are born into in their next life.
So there is a very good reason to sacrifice one's life to improve the state of the world.
In fact, it is beneficial to die and improve the world for the next life.

Good for them. I guess if they want to give up their life, that’s up to them. Maybe they should stick around for a while and do something to improve the world while they’re here.

Sure, the atheist may have some concern for his offspring and this is the basis
of their morality. Often people call themselves atheist because formal religion has
been subverted by nihilists, like the apartheid regime, who used it to further their
own narrow ends.

Oh okay, so in that instance, theism isn’t[/] the most moral position. Hmmm.

But a racist is always an atheist, regardless of what they claim when they are lying.
Its not always easy to tell truth from lies, but it is the most vital of all faculties.
The first tool is always : logical consistency.

A racist is an atheist? I don’t know where you get off making that claim. It doesn’t follow from anything you’ve said. Racists can come in all shapes and flavours – atheists, deists, theists, all included. And they do. Racists are not exclusively atheists by any means.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

First of all, I'm sorry that you suffered so terribly. I hate to hear such things and my heart goes out to you.

You are saying that you saw specific acts carried out by dying atheists where they kidnapped people and harvested their organs to save themselves? And that they carried out abortions for the sole reason to harvest stem cells? So you think that all atheists everywhere in the world do this kind of thing every day? What reason do you have to generalization in that way?



These are some ridiculous generalizations you’re making here.

You cannot make such a generalization (that an atheists’ knee-jerk reaction is to lie) without lying yourself. You’re also saying that the prisons probably are filled with atheists who are just pretending to be theists? On what basis can you possibly make such a claim?




The US Constitution clearly states that the government is not allowed to endorse any religion, nor persecute individuals based on religious belief. If your example is that of Kim Davis being jailed for not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples - she had an obligation to carry out her duty as an elected representative of the government to issue a marriage license. She had no right to endorse the religion she practiced and to push it on other citizens of the United States. In other words, she has to follow the law as a condition of her employment. And if she doesn’t want to do that, she needs to resign from her position and let someone who can carry out the duties required of the position step in. The law states that gay couples are allowed to marry.

I would think you might be able to understand why the Constitution is written that way, given what you've been through.


Then how can you ever actually know that this judgement is a punishment for something that was done at some earlier point in time?

This really does not at all address my contention with your assertion that atheists are less moral than theists. It’s all just assumptions, generalization and supposition.



This has just taken us off on a huge tangent. You had said that “Christian nations” are more moral than those that don’t identify as such, and were the only ones with the “moral backbone” to fight the Nazis. So I pointed out that the US only joined the war when they were attacked directly, rather than for these moral reasons you are alluding to. And you agree with me. Great. There goes that assertion.



Do you think theists are incapable of lying?


“The atheist” does not believe that. “The atheist” simply doesn’t believe in god(s).

Anatheist can believe this, as can a theist or deist. It appears you are using “survival of the fittest” in the social sense, and “the atheist” doesn’t necessarily believe in social Darwinism either. In fact, I’ve never met one who does.

I don’t see any reason to believe humans are not animals. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think we have any value, or that animals don’t have any value.



This appears to be where you go completely off the rails. I certainly don’t feel that way. I care about survival of myself, my family, the planet, and basically all humans and animals. And I care about treating other people with kindness and empathy, and to leave the world a better place than I found it.

What you are describing is a sociopath. And they can come in the form of atheist, theist or deist. Thankfully, they make up a small subset of the population.



Sure he does. His reason to care about the world after he is dead is the same as anyone else’s: For his children, and his children’s children and the rest of humankind.

Personally, I feel that the lack of an afterlife makes this life precious and important and worth living to the fullest. I don’t see any reason to live for that which we are not guaranteed – an afterlife.



Good for them. I guess if they want to give up their life, that’s up to them. Maybe they should stick around for a while and do something to improve the world while they’re here.



Oh okay, so in that instance, theism isn’t[/] the most moral position. Hmmm.



A racist is an atheist? I don’t know where you get off making that claim. It doesn’t follow from anything you’ve said. Racists can come in all shapes and flavours – atheists, deists, theists, all included. And they do. Racists are not exclusively atheists by any means.

Are you claiming that abortions are not being harvested for stem cells?
And if you do claim this, then what are the ethical reasons why an atheist would not actually do so?
And if there are no such reasons, then one must surely conclude that they are !!

 

[LuisDantas]

Are you claiming that abortions are not being harvested for stem cells?
And if you do claim this, then what are the ethical reasons why an atheist would not actually do so?
And if there are no such reasons, then one must surely conclude that they are !!

Atheism is not an ethical system. You are speaking nonsense.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Atheism is not an ethical system. You are speaking nonsense.

You are right, their is no ethics in atheism, their beliefs are nonsense.