Does morality exist without God?

[ABlessedAnomaly]

What you're failing to recognise is that God created that person exactly like he is. Therefore it is ultimately out of the person's control. That's like blaming someone for being born with Down's Syndrome... That's just the way they were created.

This is not totally correct.

God created with a choice. The choice that was taken (sin) brought the curse into the world. It "cracked" the perfection that was in the earth. At this point, things can and do go wrong.

It is a misnomer to say that God created one [intentionally] with Down's. If this were so we would also have to say when we read the Gospels that God [intentionally] created the centurion's son paralyzed and tormented:

Matthew 8:5-7, 13b
Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
7 And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

13b And his servant was healed that same hour.
​

If it were God's will and intent that this boy be paralyzed, then why did Jesus (God) heal him? Why didn't Jesus simply say: "No. I created him that way. That's his lot in life"? Why did Jesus heal anyone?

And an ancilliatory question would be: why don't we see ANY occurrance of Jesus refusing to heal.

It is through the curse that sickness, disease and death entered this world; and it is through sin that this came to be. The sin was a free will choice made by man that had far reaching consequences, reaching to the end of this earth.

God desires a relationship with you: and He is not going to force you into it. He wants it to be your free choice.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I called you on article 11 not existing in other thread, you did not even consider that a issue . Your game set match premis is based on that article. How do you know about religion meeting standards? Have you ever watched a tumor dissipear or 3 cancers healed in one month. Have you needed 50000.00 dollars in a week or close your business? Pray on Monday receive it all by Friday . What you fail to understand is Christians serve a living God who manifest his power to us on a regular basis. If these provisions are happenstance I need to go to Vegas .

What exactly did you call me on in Article 11? We were never in disagreement on the point that revised treaties did not contain article 11. That was a completely irrelevant point to the argument though. And seeing as you never responded to my final argument on that point, I figured we came to an agreement on it.

To refresh your memory, my argument was that the treaty which was unanimously supported by the US Congress clearly stated the United States was not in any way founded on the Christian Religion.

The point of that article is because at the time the United States was essentially a brand new nation, and they wanted to make it clear they had no bias against Islam... Which was the dominant religion within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman's had every right to be wary of the US being a legally Christian Nation, because they had an official religion (Anglicanism) when they were still British Colonies, and it wasn't an unsettled issue until the constitution was ratified not too long beforehand.

The treaty was legally in force for 8 years, at which point it was renegotiated. Since they would have had 8 years of working together, an explanatory article like the one above would be irrelevant, as they would already have that understanding.

Your argument was something along the lines of since the article was removed, that gives you an argument that the US is a Christian Nation. However, you are totally wrong. Going from an explicit "we are not a christian nation" to a treaty that doesn't mention religion at all, is not an endorsement of Christianity. It adds nothing more to your point than every other piece of legislation that doesn't mention religion.

I was under the impression you had accepted where you had been shown where you were wrong, and conceded the point.... I guess I was wrong about that.


As for the rest of your article... sometimes cancer goes into remission. Something similar to what you're describing actually happened with my grandmother without any prayer.

Moving on, give me an example of someone magically finding $50,000. And assuming you have an example of this, then provide proof that the only reason they received that money is because of their prayer. Then explain why if prayer is all it takes to save yourself financially, why the current economic crisis wasn't averted... because I can guarantee you there was all kinds of prayer going on during the entire thing. Far, far more people many devout Christians lost their houses and businesses, and prayer did nothing to save those people.

The Templeton Foundation (A pro-"Christian Science organization) did a great study a couple years ago that tested the effects of prayer. They used patients recovering from heart surgery, and tested to see what effect prayer would have on the recovery of the patients. They used three groups, people who were not being prayed for, people who were being prayed for and didn't know about it, and people who were being prayed for and knew about it.

In the end, the study determined that the group that was not being prayed for, and the group that was being prayed for and didn't know recovered equally, where the group that knew they were being prayed for actually suffered more complications and difficulty than the other two. Any other study I've seen under proper scientific control standards shows prayer is no more effective than random chance.


So yes, the point is, some people have moments of good luck. Sometimes they catch a good break. If you want to see if you'll have one in Vegas, then go book a ticket.

 

[selfinflikted]

This is not totally correct.

God created with a choice. The choice that was taken (sin) brought the curse into the world. It "cracked" the perfection that was in the earth. At this point, things can and do go wrong.

It is a misnomer to say that God created one [intentionally] with Down's. If this were so we would also have to say when we read the Gospels that God [intentionally] created the centurion's son paralyzed and tormented:

Matthew 8:5-7, 13b
Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
7 And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

13b And his servant was healed that same hour.
​

If it were God's will and intent that this boy be paralyzed, then why did Jesus (God) heal him? Why didn't Jesus simply say: "No. I created him that way. That's his lot in life"? Why did Jesus heal anyone?

And an ancilliatory question would be: why don't we see ANY occurrance of Jesus refusing to heal.

It is through the curse that sickness, disease and death entered this world; and it is through sin that this came to be. The sin was a free will choice made by man that had far reaching consequences, reaching to the end of this earth.

God desires a relationship with you: and He is not going to force you into it. He wants it to be your free choice.

If you step back and look at the "big picture" there's no other way to see it, actually.

You have an omniscient god, which means he knows everything. He knew even before he began creation how each person would turn out. He knew that the choice to bring sin into the world would be made. He knew that John Doe down the street would be born with Down's Syndrome. Yet, he created anyway. Ultimately, the blame lies solely with god and no other.

(assuming of course, that god even exists and that the Bible is true.)

 

[quatona]

If you step back and look at the "big picture" there's no other way to see it, actually.

You have an omniscient god, which means he knows everything. He knew even before he began creation how each person would turn out. He knew that the choice to bring sin into the world would be made. He knew that John Doe down the street would be born with Down's Syndrome. Yet, he created anyway. Ultimately, the blame lies solely with god and no other.

(assuming of course, that god even exists and that the Bible is true.)

Personally, I would take "blame" out of the equation, for beginners. What can and must be stated (with an omniscient, omnipotent creator god existing), though, is: the outcome (whatever it is) is what god wanted to be the outcome.

 

[selfinflikted]

Personally, I would take "blame" out of the equation, for beginners. What can and must be stated (with an omniscient, omnipotent creator god existing), though, is: the outcome (whatever it is) is what god wanted to be the outcome.

Exactly. Blame or no.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Yes, but morality is not simply abortion and homosexuality - on these forums I've seen a wide range of political views expressed by atheists, each of which are different ethically.

Yes, there are differences. But, I think it you look at the sum total of morality, that the less discussed and probably less consciously considered moral similarities outweigh the moral differences.

 

[Shane Roach]

lol

We don't come together to agree on moral codes because atheism is not a religion, a worldview, or a system of.. anything. That's the point.

It is also a false representation to say that atheists just do whatever they want. Because we don't share dogma or any other religious constraints doesn't mean that we are just hedonistic heathens. Many of us agree on what is moral and what is not - the only difference is we don't need a fictional god to dictate what is right and wrong.

Theists do not come together to do such things either. The point is that organized, well thought out systems of morality do not tend to contain any atheists.

Put another way, not only is atheism not a religion, but it is not a facet of any known philosophy or religion from which moral or ethical guidelines can be fashioned. Organizations in which atheism feature highly tend to lack recognizable ethical or moral standards, the worst of which tend to be the absolute most horrific organizations yet in history, such as Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

 

[selfinflikted]

Theists do not come together to do such things either. The point is that organized, well thought out systems of morality do not tend to contain any atheists.

Right, because I'm sure that what you consider to be a "well thought out system" necessarily stems from religion. And you won't find any atheists in that group, for sure.

Put another way, not only is atheism not a religion, but it is not a facet of any known philosophy or religion from which moral or ethical guidelines can be fashioned.

You are starting to catch on.

Organizations in which atheism feature highly tend to lack recognizable ethical or moral standards, the worst of which tend to be the absolute most horrific organizations yet in history, such as Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Yes, because all atheists are communist nazis.

 

[Shane Roach]

Right, because I'm sure that what you consider to be a "well thought out system" necessarily stems from religion. And you won't find any atheists in that group, for sure.

So far the only one proposed was Humanism, which itself states it does not support any specific set of morals or ethics.

 

[Shane Roach]

Yes, because all atheists are communist nazis.

I'm afraid that has become my opinion, yes, given the way they tend to pursue their public policy goals. Perhaps more specifically, they tend to be supporters of authoritarian non-democratically controlled bureaucracies.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Secular Humanism is more or less a case in point. From your link --

"See also: Secular ethics Secular Humanism does not prescribe a specific theory of morality or code of ethics. As stated by the Council for Secular Humanism,
It should be noted that Secular Humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles"

I get tickled at your insistence that there are immoral things in Christianity. Immoral to you, I suppose. That is the dogma of the atheist - my opinion is all and in all.

I also get tickled that you continue to try to peg me with this opinion that atheism is a world view when my entire point is it is a singular belief that, for some reason, tends to lead to the inability to draw together an organized group that would then have the capacity to even begin to think in terms of a world view.

I'm almost afraid to ask what teaching in Christianity that is based solely on the existence of a God is also demonstrably immoral.

Oh, I don't know... perhaps the whole "Believe what we tell you or you're going to be tortured in a lake of fire for the rest of eternity thing".

To a rational adult, that is a non-starter threat. To a young, impressionable child... filling their heads with that kind of nonsense is tantamount to child abuse.

And that's only one example of countless. I can go on if you want?

That's not the dogma of an atheist, that's the views of any moral person who isn't blinded by misplaced faith.

And your assertion that Secular Humanism doesn't prescribe to a specific morality or code of ethics, doesn't mean that various similar codes of ethics don't exist written from a secular humanist perspective. Likewise, most major secular humanist organizations have a stated list of beliefs.... For example: Council for Secular Humanism

And for that matter, Christianity also does not prescribe to a specific morality or code of ethics either.


And the reason why I continue to peg you with the "Atheism is a world view" argument, is because although you are stating otherwise, your argument depends on Atheism being a worldview to have any semblance of validity. If you truly recognized the fact that Atheism is a single opinion on a single topic, you would stop arguing your case, as you would see it's absolutely senseless.

There are Atheist groups out there, but their worldviews outside of a lack of belief in a god figure would be far too varied (especially on a national basis) to organize a worldview.

That's like trying to draw together people on all sides of the political spectrum that like Pizza. Right wing, Left wing, Libertarian, and every other conceivable stance... It would be impossible to organize a worldview, because outside of the fact they all like pizza, their opinions on other topics may be much different.

It doesn't mean any of them are unethical, or bad people. But a sweeping ethical code would be impossible, and pointless.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't. Again, that is my entire point. It's as if the point of your atheism is to resist the natural human compulsion to come together and compare notes and come up with some sort of workable system everyone could agree on. Even secular humanists, and there are precious few that come together even under that rather well known banner, come together and make the statement, "We don't really hold to any specific moral or ethical code."

It's like atheists are allergic to any morality or ethical system that might get in the way of their just doing whatever they feel like.

You are so fractally wrong, it's just getting funny now.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Absolutely not.

Hell in the Old Testament.

Thanks for the link to disprove your own point... quoting the exact article you just linked to me:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]"The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. All 31 of those times, the word translated "hell" is the Hebrew word "sheol." While the English word "hell" has connotations as a place of punishment for the condemned, sheol does not have such connotations. Sheol simply refers to the abode of the dead in general, not particularly the place of the punishment for the wicked. In fact, sheol was divided into two compartments, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. And, more specifically, the Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world."


So yes, the Christians warped Jewish Theology and created the Christian idea of Hell from it. Hell (from the traditional Christian perspective at least) does not appear in the old testament.
[/FONT]

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is not totally correct.

God created with a choice. The choice that was taken (sin) brought the curse into the world. It "cracked" the perfection that was in the earth. At this point, things can and do go wrong.

It is a misnomer to say that God created one [intentionally] with Down's. If this were so we would also have to say when we read the Gospels that God [intentionally] created the centurion's son paralyzed and tormented:

Matthew 8:5-7, 13b
Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, 6 saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”
7 And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

13b And his servant was healed that same hour.
​

If it were God's will and intent that this boy be paralyzed, then why did Jesus (God) heal him? Why didn't Jesus simply say: "No. I created him that way. That's his lot in life"? Why did Jesus heal anyone?

And an ancilliatory question would be: why don't we see ANY occurrance of Jesus refusing to heal.

It is through the curse that sickness, disease and death entered this world; and it is through sin that this came to be. The sin was a free will choice made by man that had far reaching consequences, reaching to the end of this earth.

God desires a relationship with you: and He is not going to force you into it. He wants it to be your free choice.

Easy, because God was setting up a miracle heal to give Jesus a way to prove himself. And he did it on the back of some boy who had to lay paralyzed his entire life.... That's perfectly moral, eh?

If God created everything, than everything (good and bad) is God's creation. Evil and Sin are included in that.

 

[Shane Roach]

Oh, I don't know... perhaps the whole "Believe what we tell you or you're going to be tortured in a lake of fire for the rest of eternity thing".

To a rational adult, that is a non-starter threat. To a young, impressionable child... filling their heads with that kind of nonsense is tantamount to child abuse.

And that's only one example of countless. I can go on if you want?

That's not the dogma of an atheist, that's the views of any moral person who isn't blinded by misplaced faith.

And your assertion that Secular Humanism doesn't prescribe to a specific morality or code of ethics, doesn't mean that various similar codes of ethics don't exist written from a secular humanist perspective. Likewise, most major secular humanist organizations have a stated list of beliefs.... For example: Council for Secular Humanism

And for that matter, Christianity also does not prescribe to a specific morality or code of ethics either.


And the reason why I continue to peg you with the "Atheism is a world view" argument, is because although you are stating otherwise, your argument depends on Atheism being a worldview to have any semblance of validity. If you truly recognized the fact that Atheism is a single opinion on a single topic, you would stop arguing your case, as you would see it's absolutely senseless.

There are Atheist groups out there, but their worldviews outside of a lack of belief in a god figure would be far too varied (especially on a national basis) to organize a worldview.

That's like trying to draw together people on all sides of the political spectrum that like Pizza. Right wing, Left wing, Libertarian, and every other conceivable stance... It would be impossible to organize a worldview, because outside of the fact they all like pizza, their opinions on other topics may be much different.

It doesn't mean any of them are unethical, or bad people. But a sweeping ethical code would be impossible, and pointless.

How specious. "Believe what I tell you or you will burn in a lake of fire". Even granted there is indeed a lake of fire in the Bible, there is absolutely no rational way to interpret the Bible as teaching that the values contained therein are to be held to solely under threat of hell.

Your link does not go to any specific set of values. What you basically inaccurately, and rather melodramatically assert, is that all religions base their values utterly and completely outside of rational thought, which is not true.

Example --
Prov 1:10-19

10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:

12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:

16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.

17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.

18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.

19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
KJV


Avoid being a murderous crook, because that lifestyle will likely come back on you.

Always when you read in the Bible about fear the Lord, it is not to say that there is no REASON for doing the RIGHT thing, it is to point out that there is a sure punishment for doing the WRONG thing. This may or may not be true, but it is far from irrational, and it does not make the values expressed irrational either.

But this is the constant error of the atheist. Unable even to fully comprehend the deeper implications of their own supposed beliefs, they do not understand that, by their own beliefs, religious codes of ethics are in fact no different at all from irreligious ones in their origins. Since there is no god, it is the opinions of the people themselves that form the ethical and moral codes in religions. So the atheist is really without excuse when they mock a religious ethical code. Rather, they should just pass over the parts that relate to whatever is supernatural, understanding that people hoped that there was something deeper in the fabric of the universe that would enforce what they perceived as self evident truths about how people ought to act.

Instead, atheists create a distinction that is artificial to their own belief system, but makes perfect sense within the belief system of the religious -- that those who mock at the gods are immoral.

Why bother mocking at the belief in a god? Why not just discuss the ethical question at hand?

 

[Shane Roach]

Thanks for the link to disprove your own point... quoting the exact article you just linked to me:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]"The word "hell" occurs 31 times in the Old Testament. All 31 of those times, the word translated "hell" is the Hebrew word "sheol." While the English word "hell" has connotations as a place of punishment for the condemned, sheol does not have such connotations. Sheol simply refers to the abode of the dead in general, not particularly the place of the punishment for the wicked. In fact, sheol was divided into two compartments, one for the righteous dead and one for the wicked dead. And, more specifically, the Jewish concept of sheol was the "underworld," or in other words, a place within the earth, underneath the surface world."


So yes, the Christians warped Jewish Theology and created the Christian idea of Hell from it. Hell (from the traditional Christian perspective at least) does not appear in the old testament.
[/FONT]

Ps 116:3

3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.
KJV

2 Sam 22:6

6 The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;
KJV

Ps 9:17-18

17 The wicked shall be turned into hell , and all the nations that forget God.

18 For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.
KJV

Sheol as you are casting it is a Greek concept, not a Hebrew one. I have seen somewhat more complex explanations, since the Biblical afterlife turns out to be a brand new Earth, a New Jerusalem, and so forth. So some argue that God's elect go to be with Him in the interim and Hell is a place that the wicked go until the final judgement. All of this would be separate from the "Lake of Fire" or "Outer Darkness" of the revelation. It also makes little sense to lecture early Christians about changing Judaism since they were themselves Jews. Nor does there appear to be any slow metamorphosis from our earliest manuscripts of the New testament to the later ones in which the concept of hell is changed.

In short, that whole idea is muck.

Whatever the interpretation, hell in the Old Testament is not some little hidey hole that all the dead wait in under the exact same conditions. You'd have to be exceedingly ignorant of the Bible itself to say such a thing, and I have indeed seen a LOT of what passes for scholarship about the Bible that seems to somehow miss actually reading the book itself first.

One atheistic account whined that there were no shoes or garments found in the deserts of Sinai even though the Jews supposedly wandered there for 40 years. The Bible actually says their shoes and clothes never wore out, so there would be no expectation of finding evidence of the wandering of the Jews in the desert. It explicitly says they left nothing out there.

 

[Shane Roach]

I have to thank you Dave for your link. This is one of the most effective links I have ever seen in pointing out the intolerance and double standard of atheists.

Council for Secular Humanism
"We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent."

So parents are evil if they raise their child in a religious home.

"However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative."

That sounds like a tolerant, rational attitude to take towards the ethical and moral beliefs of humanity stretching back to prehistory -- they were all a bunch of idiots, creating meaningless belief systems, many of which are tyrannically exploitative.

Such inclusive people, these secularists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Theists do not come together to do such things either. The point is that organized, well thought out systems of morality do not tend to contain any atheists.

Put another way, not only is atheism not a religion, but it is not a facet of any known philosophy or religion from which moral or ethical guidelines can be fashioned. Organizations in which atheism feature highly tend to lack recognizable ethical or moral standards, the worst of which tend to be the absolute most horrific organizations yet in history, such as Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Are you really bringing out that tired old argument?

First off, Nazi Germany was not an Atheistic State, and Hitler was not an Atheist. In fact the Nazis persecuted and murdered the Atheists just like any other undesirable group to them. If you had an understanding of history, you'd know that.... but apparently your opinions and prejudices are more important than actual fact in this case too.

Communist Russia was Atheistic, however none of their ideology was based on Atheism. Their ideology was based on the works of Karl Marx, and Soviet figures like Lenin and whatnot. Their opposition to the church was more based on the fact that it was a competing authority, when the soviet government was trying to consolidate total power with themselves. Stalin himself was planning to be an Orthodox priest before he got into politics (although I am in agreement later in life he probably was an Atheist).

Furthermore, the vast majority of Atheists are not communists. I for one hold fairly strong right wing economic views, and a more libertarian stance on social issues. I am absolutely opposed to communism, as I believe it's a flawed system that does not work.

Anyway, to get back to the whole point... You are right, Atheism is not a philosophy or a religion.

So what is your basis for criticizing it as a philosophy or religion, when you are aware that it is not.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm afraid that has become my opinion, yes, given the way they tend to pursue their public policy goals. Perhaps more specifically, they tend to be supporters of authoritarian non-democratically controlled bureaucracies.

Then you have proven your bigotry. You are showing utter contempt and intolerance for a people based on your own prejudice... when all the evidence out there shows you are clearly wrong.

The only time Atheists get involved in a political protest as a group is usually when some wing-nut Christian is proposing legislation based on their holy book that would apply to everyone in society.

The recent ban on same sex marriage vote in North Carolina was prime example of that. There is absolutely no reason to deny gay people the right to marry based solely on secular grounds.

That whole movement, and by extension law is based solely on Christian intolerance, bigotry and oppression. The modern-day oppression of the gays is no different than the historical oppression of the blacks from a sense of believing they are not worthy of equal rights based on a physiological characteristic.

So yes, people interested in denying people equal rights in a free country ought to be opposed, especially when the only rational reason is religious grounds.

I'm not gay, however it's infuriating to see the self-righteous Christians impose their will on people they have nothing to do with, deny equal rights, then try to claim the moral high ground.

So if fighting for equal rights (even equal rights that don't apply to me) makes me a communist in your eyes... I don't see how that adds up, but fine. However, you're simply wrong.... it's you guys that are doing most of the oppression in the United States.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How specious. "Believe what I tell you or you will burn in a lake of fire". Even granted there is indeed a lake of fire in the Bible, there is absolutely no rational way to interpret the Bible as teaching that the values contained therein are to be held to solely under threat of hell.

Your link does not go to any specific set of values. What you basically inaccurately, and rather melodramatically assert, is that all religions base their values utterly and completely outside of rational thought, which is not true.

Example --
Prov 1:10-19

10 My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

11 If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:

12 Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

13 We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

14 Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

15 My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path:

16 For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood.

17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.

18 And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.

19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
KJV


Avoid being a murderous crook, because that lifestyle will likely come back on you.

Always when you read in the Bible about fear the Lord, it is not to say that there is no REASON for doing the RIGHT thing, it is to point out that there is a sure punishment for doing the WRONG thing. This may or may not be true, but it is far from irrational, and it does not make the values expressed irrational either.

But this is the constant error of the atheist. Unable even to fully comprehend the deeper implications of their own supposed beliefs, they do not understand that, by their own beliefs, religious codes of ethics are in fact no different at all from irreligious ones in their origins. Since there is no god, it is the opinions of the people themselves that form the ethical and moral codes in religions. So the atheist is really without excuse when they mock a religious ethical code. Rather, they should just pass over the parts that relate to whatever is supernatural, understanding that people hoped that there was something deeper in the fabric of the universe that would enforce what they perceived as self evident truths about how people ought to act.

Instead, atheists create a distinction that is artificial to their own belief system, but makes perfect sense within the belief system of the religious -- that those who mock at the gods are immoral.

Why bother mocking at the belief in a god? Why not just discuss the ethical question at hand?

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

- Jesus


Sounds like a "Do what I tell you or be burned" line to me... and right from Jesus's own lips!



P.S. The second part of your post has already been answered in a previous posting. Religious Moral Systems contain many things non-religious people would consider heinously immoral. There is a vast difference between a set religious moral code, and what your average atheist would believe.


Any why bother mocking God? Easy... Ridiculing a ridiculous belief is sometimes very effective at making people deluded by that belief see the error in their viewpoint.

The more people we can turn towards rational thought and away from superstition, the better society as a whole will be. There's a clear positive result for us in mocking God Belief... we hope people wasting a lot of time in their lives senselessly in worship, can do something more productive, and make them happier.