Question for Atheists, non-Theists, etc. (Christ, minority, atheist, bible)

[Snaefell]

It seems odd for me to be responding to a link which I think I have never seen before. The reason for the "It seems odd" bit, is because the responders seem to be trying to define how instincts or patterns of behavior are passed from generation to generation, but not once on the pages at which I looked did I see the word milieu used. Why the quandry my mind asks. It seems as if the participants are smart delightful well mannered participants, but why (To me) are well known words and the meanings not used. (To me) it seems as if there is a lot of circular chat going on, and as if the participants know this, but each is determined to get in the last word. I don't mean this belligerently or argumentive or bad mannered, all value judgements, but again (to me) most of the discussion appeared to be a conglomeration of value judgements. Any response(s) to this point of view will be appreciated, as it seems we all know that a seeming attack on words, is not an attack on the individual(s) who disagree with thoughts made public, but there are perhaps a few more discerning thoughts to be presented.
I will try and use a word that I think (VJ) might help all of us come to a better understanding. I believe, (VJ) via a value judgment, that when we lived in treetops and earlier, that humantity was, and still is born with no understanding of evolution, or gods, or faith. Millenniums ago we realized we got hungry, so we searched for food. Anything that could be digested. Then recognition of foods became part of our observing and discerning seeing. Out of that, warring over certain foodstuffs arose and as we all seem to accept, troops and clans or groups arose. Then millennians later, farming became part of our evolution and thus our milieu. Side by side with arriving at stages in getting there, there was canibalism. We are still animals, and as so called educated humans, on occasion, it is still a form of last resort.
With the growth of discernment and farming, social life developed and the easement of living arrived. New ideas arose and to skip a lot of words and millennians I think (VJ) it is still going on. Through our observation growth we learned rudimentary ideas of astronomy and whats out there? We became landowners and nations and each tree and river and big rock and mountain had it's own being or became an owner or god of a certain area, and thus developed the base for religion, as an easment to the still tough lives we had. Then we thanked the gods, and here we are at the now, with more horror and wars and the adjuncts all arising from the stupidity of believing in the unproven ideas of belief in, and of trying to make contact with myth.
It is a waste of time to say I am an Atheist, for we are all humans, and the only thing that stands between god believers and non believers of myth, is the MILIEU which has fined tuned us. Perhaps this should be more or better understood. We are all human, and the major part of the difference that separates us is our individual milieu. We are different, that's all. But that difference is enough to divide us into the horrors of war. We are so far, perhaps the only really aware creatures in our Solar System; never mind the enormous size of the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Cosmos, a galaxy of galaxies. We can ignore them because as of yet we are billions of light years removed. So we lower our sights and try to unravel the parts that we can. Those which must concern us, those of which we have certain senses and feelings and understanding, and work for change, and not to quibble about something that has already been done. A question can be asked on a small line, and the answer can take more than 2,000 years, and Christianity is not the oldest question in existence. Cheers. Snaefell.

[Dusty Rhodes]

My grandmother, a wonderful lady, never preached to me, can't remember her ever saying "grace" before a meal nor mention god at any time, the only time I heard her speak of any beliefs was when she would say, "I believe it is time to go fishing!" When I was about six years old she told me the secret to living a good life. "Treat people the way you want to be treated", for the most part, I have tried to live by those nine words, they were given to me without religious inflection of any type.

[catman]

Solidsquid: Great to see a post from you!

Morality, IMO, comes from two souces: (1) The "Golden Rule" which predates Judeo/Christianity by millenia, and (2) what rational thinking has found to be best for the survival of the society in question. Certainly, such actions as murder, rape, stealing and so on were found to cause disturbances in the public order. Perhaps, even the 'conscience' came into play, as it was doubtless found that feelings of those cared about by the ruling caste were hurt.

[Jackyfrost01]

Originally Posted by CelticLady1

Yes, but the question still remains, where or how, did we originally obtain these ethics and morals? Do you think that we did, indeed, get them through trial and error, (i.e. evolution)?

The development of advanced brains is where we got these ideas. Our advanced brains allow us to think up all these things. In a nutshell thats really it. There's really no other reason. If we had less developed brains we'd be about as smart and live the same as our Primate cousins imho. May be a more peaceful world without human over-thinking if ya think about it.

Ergo, there is no objective moral values in a Godless world. Things like rape are just not socially advantageous not 'wrong' or 'right.'

It is not that people without a belief in God cannot sense 'moral' values or even adhere to them it is that they really do not have any foundation for whether it is objectively wrong or right to do them and as such delude themselves when they say things loke 'you ought not to rape someone' or 'it's wrong to do so.' They cannot appeal to anything objective in making such a statement.

Someone mention Hitchens in a debate with someone who could not answer a question. First, that was an irrelvent question in that morals usually presuppose wrong and right not according to socially accepted conventions but what is wrong and right and binding upon all humans in all societies. Second, it is not about whether an atheist can do a 'good' deed without God - as stated above there is no objective reason why he should without God. What is funny is that atheists try to live as if there were objective moral values yet according to thier worldview it denies that any such thing can exist.

There is a debate coming-up with Hitchens and Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola university Sat. April 4th. @ 7:30 pm. Believe me Craig will expose the weakness of Hitchens question.

Apologetics Events « Apologetics « Biola University

Should be interesting.

[MontanaGuy]

catman wrote:

Solidsquid: Great to see a post from you!

Actually those are dated back in 2007 but I remember Solidsquid very well and he wrote some great posts and was a really sharp guy. I think he might have been a student as I recall.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Jackyfrost01

The development of advanced brains is where we got these ideas. Our advanced brains allow us to think up all these things. In a nutshell thats really it. There's really no other reason. If we had less developed brains we'd be about as smart and live the same as our Primate cousins imho. May be a more peaceful world without human over-thinking if ya think about it.

apparently I've over-rep'd you JF... so here it is on line for all to see: excellent and nicely brief post. I have a lot to learn from you succinct posters methinketh...

I agree; we've apparently been singularly burdened with the ability to gaze intently at our navels, and to come to erroneous conclusions. Such as? The ill-thought-and self-centered statement that "Since we are here, and more to the point realize that we are here, we MUST therefore be here for a purpose, and that purpose would be God's grant to us. Praise The Lord!".

Alternately I suggest that we, as supposedly higher evolved primates, lost something of the natural altruism inherent in the Great Apes, became jealous, nasty, hostile, wife-coveting, murderous, forward thinking, greed-soaked organisms whose sole purpose in life is to out-consume our neighbors.

That alone dooms us as a species, and we will be on this Earth for far shorter a time period than any other order of animals before or after us. The only thing the biblical scholoars got right is that, yes, Virginia, there will be an End times, but not quite as they all greedily hoped for and promise to this day as a form of power mongering through fear. No salvation, sorry folks. Just pestilence, world-warring, and demented and greedy "demisement", with the uber-corporations, the military-Industrial complex (as in Cheney, Rumsfeldt, Bush and Halliburton / Blackwater Corp, etc.)

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Ergo, there is no objective moral values in a Godless world. Things like rape are just not socially advantageous not 'wrong' or 'right.'

It is not that people without a belief in God cannot sense 'moral' values or even adhere to them it is that they really do not have any foundation for whether it is objectively wrong or right to do them and as such delude themselves when they say things loke 'you ought not to rape someone' or 'it's wrong to do so.' They cannot appeal to anything objective in making such a statement.

You try, relentlessly, to convince others that there is an absolute requirement for some guidebook, some reference point, in order to be considered morally ethical. Why must it be your book, and not that of the Shinto or Buddhist religions? Why that confusing contradictory bible and not the writings of ancient Chinese philosophers? Seems like bible-mongering to me. Why not just inquisitive, honest thought and meditiation? Why indeed; because that would invalidate the myth of Christianity.

...there is no objective reason why he should [be moral] without God. What is funny is that atheists try to live as if there were objective moral values yet according to thier worldview it denies that any such thing can exist.

My worldview is that many things and philosophies are of great value (the Buddhist philosophy, for instance], but I simply don't believe in your particular proven-mythical Gawd figurehead. Why? Because it stands for relentless non-inquisitiveness, anti-knowledge, fear-mongering: ("If you don't pray, little Johnny, you'll SURELY go to hell. And you don't want THAT, now do you? Why, just look at these pictures of hell in this biblical stories comic book that Gawd has provided for your education! Ohhhh [she swoons slightly, back of hand on forehead...] Praise The Lord!").

You call THAT approach to education MORAL?

It is insulting, but I'll let it pass, mostly, that you state as a fact that an atheist's worldview denies objective moral values. Nope, just those that require a Christian backdrop. I know as well as the next man in the street, that it's immoral to take away others' rights, their privacies, their right to be unmolested or have their belongings or beliefs hijacked. Who needs a Gawd or a bible to understand that? How insultingly arrogant.

There is a debate coming-up with Hitchens and Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University Sat. April 4th. @ 7:30 pm. Believe me Craig will expose the weakness of Hitchens question.

Apologetics Events « Apologetics « Biola University

Should be interesting.

Please summarize what Hitchen's question is. And BTW, is Biola a Christian University with Christian biases? If so, the debate adjudicators will, as I've seen before, be more than a little biased.

Which, in principle, makes the results irrelevant and self-serving.

But the Xtian findies will smirk and smile to each other when they "win", as if they had won. And, sadly, they'll actually think they did!

Moderator cut: orphaned quote

cnc, you know this, and I know this. Question is, when will THEY know and acknowledge this.... of course, it was explained to me that these wars were just the results of Xtianity's endless fight with Satan.

Remember the Christian soldiers in the First World War, praying in their trenches for Gawd's help to slay the evil Satanic enemy 100 yards away? Trouble is, I can't remember which side it was... oh yeah, that's right... both sides were doing this.... Hmmm...

[dcashley]

Morality, or rather decisions to make decisions (yes I said that right) based on ethical constructs arize from the amygdala. Psychopaths typically have damaged, or deficient amygdala. The amygdala is located on the left and on the right side of the brain just a few centimeters from the center line. It is shaped like a tonsil. The anatomy of evil is incomplete, but we know for a fact that the amygdala is responsible for moral behavior.

It is an old, and very powerful scientific error that has caused most of us--in the western culture anyway--to think that moral decisions are rational is a big error. They are based on emotions. in essence the philosophical consensus that existed for thousands of years is just backwards. Most ancient philosophy teaches that moral decisions are the byproduct of rational thought. That is highly incorrect.

To be honest, I don't think most (or any) of you want to hear a long speach on cognitive psychology and its foundations in brain functions....so I'll quit here. But there is a good book on this. Easy to read. It is How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. Lehrer has it mostly correct--at least as far as our current level of scientific knowledge goes.

[miu]

I got my sense of right and wrong from the way my family raised me. It was important for me to please my parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents. They were all good role models for me.

[Snaefell]

I enjoy snooping and delving into many of the posts in City Data Forum's giant size collections. I don't have much time to write and post, but fortunately I make time to think. This is why I don't write a lot of posts in my endeavors. Mostly, I enjoy readings similar to this link, and that is why this post is posted here.
A few moments ago I was reading a few posts in a link that is now closed and while doing so, I encounted a post by chielgirl, followed by a response by Dieter. chielgirl rightly mentioned, 'Under God', being inserted into a Secular government, and Dieter in response rightfully mentioned that the Constitution states 'freedom of Religion' and not 'freedom from religion'. Of course I knew this, but I imagine that a lot of citizens don't. They are ignorant, and a lot them get annoyed if you try to apprise them of a little bit of history, which I assume (VJ) they should know.
I think the easiest and brightest way (VJ) to get some history known a bit wider, is to delve a bit more into that history that we are barking for, or barking against. I think many Posts would be more enchanting (VJ) and ideas or writings accepted more easily by ignorant readers than they seem to be at the present. I also blame myself for not adding that extra bit of history, which would make a post that more enjoyable to write.
Imagine if the knowledge presented by chielgirl added, 'Under God' was first inserted into our then Secular Republic, by Dishonest Abe. The 16th President. Taney, the Dishonest Supreme Court Judge who swore in Abe, should not have allowed Lincoln the right to do that, or immediately after the swearing in, the Senate should have impeached Abe. Abe Lincoln, the Dishonest President who then added the Holy Day when we are supposedd to celebrate and thank our God for the Blessings he bestowed on our country. This day is called Thanksgiving Day. Not satisfied, Abe then turned a blind eye and allowed the illegaL stamping of, 'IN GOD WE TRUST,' to be added to our coinage. No! Abe didn't stop there but added religious oaths for the Senate, for Congress, and for all federal employees except Judges. Judges started their own coup, with God Oaths, and now when they reach the count of three god oaths, they then become members of the Unsupreme Court. (They can't be supreme to their master)
But what about Dieter's mention of 'Freedom from Religion'. What if Dieter had carried on and said, 'However, Freedom from religion was not mentioned in our history, because at that time we already had freedom from Religion. Presidents and others were not sworn in with Religious sayings shouted to the skies'.
A little bit of more history added to our comments, might be the difference of "Wow! I didn't know that was done. Why the hell didn't my school teacher's tell me about this?" Alas, I figure (VJ) the Christian school teachers deliberately witheld the info from the History lectures. They knew wheelers and dealers of their faith had stolen the Constitution and turned the Secular Republic of the US into a Christian Theocracy. Crooked Unsupreme Court members know this as well. Say hello to the Mullahs of the US. This once great democracy has been a Theocracy and still is, ever since the 1860s. At the moment, Lincoln is the most revered President in our History, and another fellow from Chicago, borrowed Dishonest Abe's bible, when he was sworn in by a high priest, just over two months ago.
Yes we could be absolved from adding more history, if believers thought a little bit more for themselves. Snaefell.