Afraid to Die?

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
The most secular century in history was the twentieth century, and it was also by far the bloodiest century. Virtually all of the mass-murderers (Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin) were atheists.

It was the bloodiest because the weapons were more powerful.

Osama bin Laden's no atheist. Neither were the Crusaders or the Israelites in the OT.

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
The best anidote to religious intolerance is to adopt a Christian morality. Our founding fathers based their religious tolerance on the view that "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

Are your two sentences supposed to be related to one another?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Morality is not determined by the needs of society. It's a judgement an individual makes - an opinion.

I couldn't agree more! If atheism is true, then moral judgements are just individual opinions, and no one's opinion is better than anybody elses.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You're welcome. I try to respond in kind.

Do you really think your "no absolute morality without a god" argument is carefully crafted, or well-thought-out?

Anything remotely resembling an argument is more thought-out than simply saying, "What a crock." (which was your response to my post).
Your response is what one would expect from a ten-year-old. Have you graduated from fourth-grade yet?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
But you can't get away with it. You'll get caught. A life in harmony with society is better than one as a fugitive.

Do you get your kicks from killing innocent people? Not many people do. Some do.

So, if I don't get caught it's morally okay? Morality is based upon whether one gets caught or not?

Originally posted by agryson
Funnily enough, your second example is based on religious intolerance and who tends to be the most religiously intolerant? Ironically the religious. If anything, a lack of religion gives one more opportunity to be a good person.

Christians are commanded to "Love thy neghbor", not kill them because they belong to a different religion.
Of course, many Christians have brutalized other people for centuries, but those who did (and do) so are not following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by agryson
While morality in a philosophical sense tends to be considered subjective, there is a great deal of evidence showing that in practice there is an objective human morality which forbids murder for example in many cases. Further to this, even if you continue to claim that morality is subjective, that does not put people who do bad things and people who do good idual who is a part of that society, then the need for a God for such reasons no longer exists.

If morality is "subjective", then, by definition, one person might find torturing babies morally permissible, while another person might find it morally wrong. God tells us it is morally wrong (by implication), no matter what our personal opinon is. God designed us to love Him and each other. Following his moral laws helps us to do that.

Originally posted by agryson
And there's the rub. Why a christian morality as opposed to a pagan one (pagan celts were the first to form democracies and judicial systems, even going so far as to grant suffrage). If a pagan morality can do the same job despite such religions generally giving absolutely no reward for doing good, then why not an atheistic morality? Your claims that the twe ...[text shortened]... nd itself to being able to be disproved, as any good hypothesis should according to Popperism.

The idea that "pagan morality can do the same job" would only be true if the "main job" was to instill civil order. But the "job" of moral laws is to draw us closer to God, and obeying His laws draws God closer to us.

Originally posted by vistesd
Let’s suppose for the moment that you are wrong: it turns out that, like it or not, there is no God.

If you were to discover that, are you saying that you see no moral difference between the acts of a Hitler and those of a Mother Theresa? Or, that you have no sense of the matter, absent a God who declares one set of actions to be moral and ...[text shortened]... they stopped believing in God—but I suspect that an insane mind can find its way around that...

If there is no God, then we are basically just animals and the "law of the jungle" rules. We are special because we were "designed" to be in communion with God.

Originally posted by serigado
.
I guess you simply have to feel that your moral is superior to everyone else who doesn't believe in the bible. Religion is always about you being right and righteous...

Thank you for the psycho-analysis. Would you like to advance an intelligent argument, or would you like to continue to psycho-analyze someone (me) whom you've never met?

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
If there is no God, then we are basically just animals and the "law of the jungle" rules. We are special because we were "designed" to be in communion with God.

I don’t know what “just animals” means. We are animals who happen to have a self-reflective consciousness (and may not be unique in that).

I don’t know what the “law of the jungle” means—I observe the behavior of the undomesticated animals that I happen to “share habitat” with, and I observe both competitive and cooperative behavior. To most of the species I certainly ascribe sentience, though not necessarily self-reflective consciousness. What sort of “law of the jungle” that humans would embrace absent a god, I don’t know. But your admissions that non-theists can behave quite “morally” ought to be a clue perhaps.

I don’t think that there is any supernatural divine being: could you describe to me in what way I live according to the “law of the jungle”—today, for instance?

EDIT: BTW, my questions in my first post still stand.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know what “just animals” means. We are animals who happen to have a self-reflective consciousness (and may not be unique in that).

I don’t know what the “law of the jungle” means—I observe the behavior of the undomesticated animals that I happen to “share habitat” with, and I observe both competitive and cooperative behavior. To most of t ...[text shortened]... aw of the jungle”—today, for instance?

EDIT: BTW, my questions in my first post still stand.

"Law of the Jungle" means that might makes right. If I and my cohorts can get away with slaughering innocent babies, then there is no objective morality to say that those actions are objectionable morally. Hitler in Nazi Germany had the will of the people on his side, so it was morally permissible to slaughter Jews (and other people deemed "inferior" by the government).

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
"Law of the Jungle" means that might makes right. If I and my cohorts can get away with slaughering innocent babies, then there is no objective morality to say that those actions are objectionable morally. Hitler in Nazi Germany had the will of the people on his side, so it was morally permissible to slaughter Jews (and other people deemed "inferior" by the government).

I don’t think that there is any supernatural divine being: could you describe to me in what way I live according to the “law of the jungle”—today, for instance?

Originally posted by gaychessplayer
"Law of the Jungle" means that might makes right. If I and my cohorts can get away with slaughering innocent babies, then there is no objective morality to say that those actions are objectionable morally. Hitler in Nazi Germany had the will of the people on his side, so it was morally permissible to slaughter Jews (and other people deemed "inferior" by the government).

I made a similar arguement in a thread called "Might makes right". In the thread I made the arguement that such a scenerio exists if there is a God or if there is not a God. If there is a God then his might will make right based upon his morality and we will be held accountable accordingly. On the other hand, if there is no God then we will be the final authority in terms of right and wrong so long as we have or maintain the authority to not be held accountable for our actions.

Originally posted by whodey
I made a similar arguement in a thread called "Might makes right". In the thread I made the arguement that such a scenerio exists if there is a God or if there is not a God. If there is a God then his might will make right based upon his morality and we will be held accountable accordingly. On the other hand, if there is no God then we will be the final au ...[text shortened]... wrong so long as we have or maintain the authority to not be held accountable for our actions.

I do not think that there is any supernatural divine being: could you describe to me how I live according to “might makes right”—today for example?

If there be a God then his morality is absolute morality.

If there be a God, then his will may be absolute will. To assert that his “morality” is “absolute morality” is to do nothing more than to define God’s will and actions as “moral”, whatever they may be. If you cannot first tell me what morality entails, and then say how God meets those entailments, it is difficult to know exactly what it is you are ascribing to God by the word “morality”.

EDIT: I got to pack it in for tonight, whode--see ya later, and be well.