The concept obviously. The word? Lol do you want to be taken seriously?

At least to my knowledge. Buddha spoke in negative terms. Maybe the vedas, but not from what I've read. Certainly not the Greeks. Who then?

Too bad those post got nuked.


"Boom. There it is, the typical moronic atheist response."

Just no.

Absolutely. In fact a truly religious person wouldn't blindly follow a moral precept. Faith is a choice and a struggle, and one never stops growing.

The idea of having a 'personal' moral code though is problematic. Without having a foundation to base it upon, it is arbitrary. That is why an atheist can't formulate a positive moral code which rests on unchanging grounds. That's why atheists constantly argue against set moralities, but can't come up with a positive definitive morality. They are capable of being decent people, and that may be satisfying for some. But they can't have a higher goal to aspire to. They're drifting along with the fashions and trends of society, much like atheism itself is a trendy thing right now for semi-educated people.

Although I will say this: the greatest religious thinker I've ever encountered, Tolstoy, was an atheist and a man of the world for a long time before finding the higher path. I was an atheist for years also. So I'm not condemning anyone for being an atheist.

Like, seriously. Take a logic class. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

"Christians believe in god. The westboro baptist church people are christians. Therefore, all christians believe god hates ****"

- You're line of thinking

I agree but this is the child's way of religious thinking - the idea that there is a God who punishes and rewards like a dog trainer trains a dog. It's not how a serious religious thinker thinks about God. It’s not how most Christians think about God either, although there are exceptions.

We do good because it is its own reward. God is love, and when we love, we participate in God, we become one with God. God is the unifying force that connects all people and all things. I think atheists caricature God as an old man in the sky with a beard, but that’s not how a truly religious person experiences God. It’s impossible to explain to an atheist what God is because it’s equally hard for a religious person to understand God himself. A materialist atheist can easily dismiss something that mysterious. But like you say, there is innate goodness in you. That goodness is God.

I don't know how old you are, but one day you may find yourself at odds with doing good to people. The world is a cold, isolating place and many - most - people do not do good for others. Survival becomes a real thing and it stresses people out, and people resort to living a façade as a defense mechanism. Most people in the civilized world won't kill, steal, or rape. But they will manipulate, lie, and live a façade, in order to get ahead. Jesus, to me, was the only thinker who realized that living truthfully with ones self and one's neighbor was to love them. And he made loving complete strangers a moral priority. I don’t think many people appreciate how radical that is. I’ve personally never met anyone who comes close to that kind of a moral ideal. The closest I’ve come are people who are not wealthy, not working in white collar jobs. They are people who rely on each other to get by. I think this is what Jesus meant by the rich having a hard time entering the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of heaven is a place of peace that is possible here on earth, if you let your guard down and become truthful at all times.

Yeah, you're right the Mongols did kill a lot of people. Maybe my numbers are off. I think the point (what was the point?) stands that we haven't become less barbaric over time. Humans have always been barbaric and always will. The specific body count is pretty irrelevant.

Morality doesn't change behavior. If we're going to get into a sociological discussion, I'll agree to that. People kill in order to survive, and then invent self righteous causes to back them up.

In the past, people fought over resources. Today, we still fight over resources. The difference is today we can feed every single person on the planet. We won't, because people don't like sharing. It's unnatural.

Morality comes into play in rare cases like Gandhi. He used the Christian notion of turning the other cheek to win a war.

Show me how a moral foundation can exist without some form of supreme being. Key word being foundation.

foundation: an underlying basis or principle for something.

As in the foundation of a house. It supports the house but is not part of the house.

As in an atheist who believes subjectivity can come up with a morality, while that morality is part of his subjectivity. A house with the "foundation" inside the house....

I think a 'supreme' being can be your parents or society as a whole.

There is no god as far as I'm concerned and there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there is.

I do however have strong feelings of right and wrong in regard to certain things.

These have come from my upbringing and from what society has taught me is and isn't acceptable. Some morals feel inbuilt, but it's hard to know without being brought up in isolation.

I think you must first show me that

a) such a moral foundation can exist
b) a supreme being can make it

Preferably something a bit more substantial than "because supreme being", I mean foundation / house / inside etc. I'm even willing to forego the entire "there can be a supreme being"-discussion, so I suggest you just get to it.

I know you like to hate on atheists and its your thing. But some theists dont formulate their morals based on God.

After that i would like him to show me a theist who lives by absolute morals alone.

Do you mean "objective morals"?

No.

Ok, now I wonder if esspoker meant to say "objective".

I like how you tell everyone to take a class on religion or philosophy because you can't make a coherent argument and meanwhile you don't know the difference between your and you're.

Your God won't judge you in any way for whether you treat people good or bad? That hardly helps your contention.

In that case, what is your foundation for an objective morality/objective code of morals?
Since I do the same thing, on what basis do we differ?

Solely on the non-moral basis of 'belief' (in God)?

I am unhappy when I do things that hurt others or myself. That isn't punishment?


Love thy neighbor as thyself. What is yours?


I never said we did. It's entirely possible for a fish to live in the ocean and not realize it is surrounded by water. It's possible to enjoy the benefits of God without acknowledging that he exists.

That should be a new logical fallacy: ad grammanitarian: An attack on an argument solely on the basis of careless grammar

a) you said that atheists can have a moral foundation. Now you want me to show you how a moral foundation can exist?

b) You want me to show you how a supreme being can make a moral foundation? Why not just ask me to explain to you how thermal engineering works. Even if I knew, it would take quite a while. And no, I don't know what God is made of either, or how he created the universe and in how many days.

You can deny that immaterial things exist. That's a consistent position to take. But, you're taking a stance that a moral foundation can exist in a purely material world.

Except that we have become noticeably less barbaric over time. Every generation since Middle Ages has lived a life that is significantly less harsh than the generation before it.

Oh and did you find out who first came up with 'agape' as a concept? (not the word)

I have said they can believe in one, which they certainly can.

Now stop dodging and get to work. Show me how God can provide a moral foundation without merely stating "God can make one".

How?


What is your definition of God?

Concentration camps were noticeably less barbaric than what?

And if life has gotten better for people in the first world, you think that has to do with morality rather than technology/economics?

Irrelevant, it is merely a demonstration of why your OP was wrong. Atheism != nihilism.

Again irrelevant. You're the one throwing intellectual punches and making bold claims.

Now show how God can make moral foundations, without merely stating that he / she / it can.