Ignoring your unfounded and baseless assertions, I'll just say that it is intriguing to me that the atheists, in the end, practice a moral code that they cannot logically and objectively defend-- therefore, they believe all kinds of things they cannot logically and objectively defend-- and this is what they claim the theists do.

Selah.

Go watch some Sam Harris on YouTube. You can objectively come to moral decisions based on reason and logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sfGw98pVCA

I won't pretend to know how common this is, but I have had a friend say this to me before... she didnt really understand why I thought it was weird either.

It's quite simple, actually. We choose to obey laws out of a drive to have a civilization. Utilitarianism and respect for persons are two philosophical morality systems that don't require a god, and you can derive all of our national laws from combinations of these two systems. It is better for everyone involved to have a cohabitative, cooperative civilization. Reduces suffering, increases productivity, among a myriad of other reasons. That is why we have and follow laws. God need never enter the equation.

The other reason is we are naturally empathetic creatures (demonstrated chemically, I believe), that gives us an aversion to causing harm to other people. Of course, not everyone experiences this, and not everyone follows societal laws, but the logical framework is in place for why we should. God is unnecessary, and if He is necessary for you to behave in a manner respectful of other people, that makes you morally inferior to the rest of us who don't need Him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exiCc...eature=related

Or maybe really good and pure people are more likely to have a connection with God, and want to serve others, because it is in their heart, apart from legalistic and judicial commandments to do so.

See?

It's easy to just assert things and speculate.

2. As for other posts-- I don't think you understand the dilemma, as you keep wrapping up the question in an emotional or subjectively human context.

If I have goosebumps, and a feeling that God is in the room, does it mean that God is in the room?

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere. For all of the verbal scrambling, the personal assaults, and the self-righteousness displayed here, nothing of substance has countered this view:

We should start a thread listing Yahweys objective morals for humans. Im sure theists would have crystal clear identical lists with solid evidence of God and his objective morals.

The thing is you don't need to believe in god to serve others, so I don't know what your going on about...

There are plenty of people who have the "good in their heart" to serve other people without some arbitrary belief in a creator such as the Christian god or any god for that matter..

And the people that don't need a rulebook on how to behave are morally superior and probably more intelligent than those who do need a rulebook. The ones that don't need a rulebook to be a good person/behave morally are utilizing their reason/intellect to a much higher degree than those who rely on already-formulated rules..

It's like the difference between a math student memorizing and taking at face value that: versus a student who rigorously proves that is true making of various mathematical concepts which were developed by other people (like Newton for instance..)

The difference is huge, and if we assume both of these students are the same age, I'd put my money on the one who rigorously proves Euler's identity to be more intelligent and subsequently has the capacity to be a more moral person (going back to the role of reason in morality.)

this is false if you value the following:
1. other people's happiness
2. living in a society where rules (especially people's rights) exist

Wrong. I thoroughly answered this statement by you:
There is a very simple logical method which to arrive at both constructing and following laws and having a moral society. That statement you made implies the only reason why you should not steal, etc, is because you live under threat of punishment by a cosmic father figure. I need no such coercion to arrive at my moral system. Therefore, I believe it is superior.

There is no dilemma, and I answered already how we can arrive at a godless moral system.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything, but no, it doesn't necessarily mean God is in the room.

It's possible we are nothing more than what we are with no extra purpose. It's possible we aren't, but I already answered how we justify our moral system without a god.

The west so called moral system is a joke. If they
turly cared about other people they would live life
with bare essentials but they are greedy and obese
think about the starving kids in Africa. If they wanted
they could sell their possessions and make a difference
They are only out for themselves and put up a good talk
so they can sleep easy in their castles.

It sounds like you think that is a wrong.

I don't have those standards or lol moral system but you guys say and think
like this. You set yourself with these obligations these so called moral
obligations and duties but you fall short from your own standard and
only say these thing to make yourselves feel good.

You talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

As for me i don't have man made moral system to tell me what to do i can do whatever i want
i am more free than you guys will ever be.

In other words its wrong by your standards

It sounded like you think its wrong by yours.

No. I think you can do whatever you want. I just dont
pretend to help out the world like you guys and then say
oh look at me see how great and good I am . . No!
your just out for yourselves like everyone else.

I don't have a stamped and approved government documents to say
war is not murder because its somehow different but still
maintain you are good.

The moral system you guys live by is a joke and two faced

Aren't you making a judgment of right and wrong by saying the Wests moral system is a joke and two faced?

Atheists are at best autistic and at worst the embodiment of Lucifer himself posing as a rightious something or other. (I'm allowed a trollish post right?)

Do you got another kind?







































I kid...i think you mean what you say which makes you not a troll.

There Is no right or wrong in my view. I am allowed
to make judgements remember i said i can do whatever i want

But if i took your atheists good moral view of the world
I would ask myself why can't i do more to help others.

Or why is Africa starving when the west is obese

or why is the world an evil place when we have man made moral
system to live by.

Its sounds like you are making judgments of right and wrong, to me. But alright.


Just because you aren't ridding a bike well doesn't mean you are not riding a bike. Who said morals, peoples idea of right and wrong, are perfect and non hypocritical.

Because morals is an illusion. I hear atheists that morals is embedded in our DNA and its part of evolution, but 200 years ago we stopped the slave trade, I mean what happened, did our code just change out of the blue or what?

You would be surprised what people are willing to do to survie and when they are pushed into a corner, - kill, lie, cheat, steal, etc having morals when someone needs to survie are the last thing on their minds.

So called morals changes from country to country, place to place, family to family, person to person etc...how do you explain that? If its so common, and if everyone knows what is right and wrong they why do they not do it? Why is there a need for police, if you guys are so great, good and honest.

I have always mantained that proximity should be a relevant factor in all ethical discussions. I guess you could say I do family > friends > social circle > nation > ethnicity > state > trade partners > neighbouring regions > remote regions.

So to me, John (which I do not know) from my city dying in a car crash is a bigger disaster than Jack (which I also do not know) starving to death in Etiopia.

Both pale compared to a friend breaking a leg. Would I sacrifice a thousand people I do not know to save a friend? I wouldn't even blink before I said yes.

I have never understood why proximity, which is such a simple factor, is always disregarded in ethical discussions of the "wah, you don't care about starving children in Africa thus you are a hypocrite" type discussions. I don't want children in Africa to die of starvation, but truth be told...to accept that proximity is one of the most prominent factors in any ethical discussion is best seen as a part of the answer...not the bleedin' problem.

This type of thinking is laughable and it leads to a "gang" mentality,
"defend ourselves from outsiders"
"foreigners take all our jobs, I was born in this country"

In your example John and Jack have the same value since you know nothing about them, but yet you feel its a bigger disaster for the guy dying in the city, is this clear thinking to you? If this is the moral system you guys live by I want out.

No, it doesn't follow from this line of thinking that isolationism or nationalism is good...for that you have to add premises.

Furthermore...what something can "leads to" is so hazy that it is uninteresting...swimming can lead to an early death, that doesn't mean swimming is a skill that increases the likelyhood of dying.

From where I'm standing - if more people were actually willing to admit that proximity matters that would likely add to the solution, not the problem. I think denying that it does is like priests saying that masturbation makes you blind...trying to villify what is human.