Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty

Religions > Atheism > Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jack"
Date:	14 Jan 2008 06:55:16 AM
Object:	Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty

Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
other than the religion itself. His example is that in today's
enlightened and humane society we select and prioritise verses
consistent with today's morality. Older cultures would select verses
which we would consider horrendous. In a gross simplification he
implies that our morality (presumably a cultural phenomena) determines
and must predate our religion.
Indeed, one could make the more general and intriguing case that
__any__ moral system which is "up for grabs" must be chosen on some
moral basis and this moral basis cannot be part of the system up for
grabs. Even if we analyse each system 'scientifically', how do we
evaluate the scientific method? Scientifically? That's circular,
assuming what you want to prove. We have to question the integrity of
the scientific method. So we are back to the inductive method to see
"what works" and, in a sense, pragmatism or instrumentalism.
We must first recognize that Dawkins is mixing up "Religion" and "holy
texts". However, Mr. Dawkins is of course right if he means that the
basis for selection and application of __individual__ verses cannot
come from those respective verses unless each verse carried some sort
of disclaimer, weighting and describing it's relative importance and
areas of application. However, he is mistaken in thinking that the
dubious method of "cherry picking" individual verses to support an
agenda is, in general, sanctioned by the religions themselves.
Although an individual may make this methodological mistake, knowingly
or unknowingly, the religions in general do not and to do so is
illegitimate fanaticism condemned more strongly by the religions
themselves than by the likes of Dawkins who arguably finds it's
occurenace a convenient evidence against that religion or religions in
general.
In Christianity, for example, with an Old and a New Testament, context
and overview are critical. How could it be otherwise? Much of science
cannot be understood or applied correctly without a broad basis of
scientific knowledge and accepted methods and areas of applicability.
You can't study bacteria properly with a telescope and a bunsen
burner. In Christianity, someone without a basic understanding of the
Bible's overall message, can easily misunderstand and misapply
individual verses. Dawkins' own views on religions are presumably
based not on a serious engagement with them but on his own method of
approaching holy texts: a furtive piecemeal reading of the holy books,
digging for dirt.
Yes, a misguided individual could use Jesus' statement that he came to
"bring a sword" to start a war but it would not hold water with Jesus'
other teachings unless they too were twisted to that violent aim. Yes,
you __can__ interpret verses say what you want but the question we
must ask of the result is: 'Is it a legitimate interpretation?'
Likewise you can make evolution a basis for euthanasia or master-slave
race policy and only an educated public is in a position to judge this
legitimacy. Such a public needs a basis in science, for protection
against pseudo-science, and a basis in holy writ for protection
against pseudo-religion.
In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention.
2) Humans must somehow have a seed of this morality in them in order
to evaluate a religion or text.
3) The texts must expound and extend the morality in some way but
resonate with the absolute precedent morality of point 1
.

User: "Dag Yo"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 07:11:26 AM

Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.
On Jan 14, 4:55 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Richard Dawkins, in a debate (http://tinyurl.com/28z6t4) with Alister
McGrath, argues that our moral values cannot come from Religion
because it's holy texts must be selectively weighted and applied and
the basis for this selection (i.e. morality) must come from somewhere
other than the religion itself. His example is that in today's
enlightened and humane society we select and prioritise verses
consistent with today's morality. Older cultures would select verses
which we would consider horrendous. In a gross simplification he
implies that our morality (presumably a cultural phenomena) determines
and must predate our religion.

Indeed, one could make the more general and intriguing case that
__any__ moral system which is "up for grabs" must be chosen on some
moral basis and this moral basis cannot be part of the system up for
grabs. Even if we analyse each system 'scientifically', how do we
evaluate the scientific method? Scientifically? That's circular,
assuming what you want to prove. We have to question the integrity of
the scientific method. So we are back to the inductive method to see
"what works" and, in a sense, pragmatism or instrumentalism.

We must first recognize that Dawkins is mixing up "Religion" and "holy
texts". However, Mr. Dawkins is of course right if he means that the
basis for selection and application of __individual__ verses cannot
come from those respective verses unless each verse carried some sort
of disclaimer, weighting and describing it's relative importance and
areas of application. However, he is mistaken in thinking that the
dubious method of "cherry picking" individual verses to support an
agenda is, in general, sanctioned by the religions themselves.
Although an individual may make this methodological mistake, knowingly
or unknowingly, the religions in general do not and to do so is
illegitimate fanaticism condemned more strongly by the religions
themselves than by the likes of Dawkins who arguably finds it's
occurenace a convenient evidence against that religion or religions in
general.

In Christianity, for example, with an Old and a New Testament, context
and overview are critical. How could it be otherwise? Much of science
cannot be understood or applied correctly without a broad basis of
scientific knowledge and accepted methods and areas of applicability.
You can't study bacteria properly with a telescope and a bunsen
burner. In Christianity, someone without a basic understanding of the
Bible's overall message, can easily misunderstand and misapply
individual verses. Dawkins' own views on religions are presumably
based not on a serious engagement with them but on his own method of
approaching holy texts: a furtive piecemeal reading of the holy books,
digging for dirt.

Yes, a misguided individual could use Jesus' statement that he came to
"bring a sword" to start a war but it would not hold water with Jesus'
other teachings unless they too were twisted to that violent aim. Yes,
you __can__ interpret verses say what you want but the question we
must ask of the result is: 'Is it a legitimate interpretation?'
Likewise you can make evolution a basis for euthanasia or master-slave
race policy and only an educated public is in a position to judge this
legitimacy. Such a public needs a basis in science, for protection
against pseudo-science, and a basis in holy writ for protection
against pseudo-religion.

In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention.
2) Humans must somehow have a seed of this morality in them in order
to evaluate a religion or text.
3) The texts must expound and extend the morality in some way but
resonate with the absolute precedent morality of point 1

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 07:24:10 AM

On Jan 14, 2:11=A0pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

User: "Smiler"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 11:33:16 PM

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58bcb99c-c872-4248-a2b2-f6e8d2e3fba6@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,
must view every action as amoral. However, if you mean "immoral",
perhaps you would care to explain why this would necessarily be the
case?
Do you actually read what you write?
From your opening post:
"In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention."
And now:
"An atheist, having no basis for morality..."
Atheist morality is that which predates the texts and relgions.
Do you imagine that it was considered right to kill and steal before the
mythical Moses received the mythical 10 commandments?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	17 Jan 2008 01:45:10 PM

On Jan 15, 6:33=A0am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:

"Jack" <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:58bcb99c-c872-4248-a2b2-f6e8d2e3fba6@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a dif=

ferent approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,
must view every action as amoral. However, if you mean "immoral",
perhaps you would care to explain why this would necessarily be the
case?

Do you actually read what you write?

From your opening post:
"In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention."

And now:
"An atheist, having no basis for morality..."

Atheist morality is that which predates the texts and relgions.
Do you imagine that it was considered right to kill and steal before the
mythical Moses received the mythical 10 commandments?

User: "Smiler"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	17 Jan 2008 08:33:29 PM

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:340ae248-f435-493a-b512-c64b803b5262@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 15, 6:33 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:

"Jack" <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:58bcb99c-c872-4248-a2b2-f6e8d2e3fba6@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a
different approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,
must view every action as amoral. However, if you mean "immoral",
perhaps you would care to explain why this would necessarily be the
case?

Do you actually read what you write?

From your opening post:
"In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention."

And now:
"An atheist, having no basis for morality..."

Atheist morality is that which predates the texts and relgions.
Do you imagine that it was considered right to kill and steal before the
mythical Moses received the mythical 10 commandments?

And as I've just written to SkyEyes the question is not: did religion
proceed morality or do we need religion to give us morality. The
question is, do we have a sound, objective basis for morality or is it
an emergent, cultural phenomena subject to convenient change with no
progress evident or possible?
++How can you have progress without change, moron?
The Bible teaches that the seeds of
God's law are sown in our hearts and thus we have a partial revelation
of morality grounded in the perfect moral being.
++Meaningless drivel.
We could have done
fairly well without religion but it takes a radical transformation
before we can live up to the standard we have within us. Religion does
not provide this.
++Religion does not provide what?
++Radical transformation?...agreed.
++The standard we have within us?...agreed.
++You've admitted that we have a morality/standard within us that is not
derived from religion.
++So how would people's morality be any different if there were no holy
books or religions?
++Smiler,
++The godless one
++a.a.# 2279
.

User: "chibiabos"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	18 Jan 2008 09:21:58 PM

In article
<340ae248-f435-493a-b512-c64b803b5262@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:

The Bible teaches that the seeds of
God's law are sown in our hearts and thus we have a partial revelation
of morality grounded in the perfect moral being. We could have done
fairly well without religion but it takes a radical transformation
before we can live up to the standard we have within us. Religion does
not provide this.

On the contrary, it's one of the things religion does best. It codifies
sets of laws and enforces them by various threats and rewards.
The same thing happens in secular society, Jack, without the need for
sky pixies. It's why we have prisons and execution chambers. Do you
honestly believe that humans aren't capable of scribbling a few rules
on their own without the help of an invisible deity? If that's the
case, think again. We've written entire libraries of laws, almost all
of them having nothing whatsoever to do with anything your supposed
"perfect moral being" said or implied in any of your holy books.
Most of the time they work pretty well. Imagine that. No God required.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	23 Jan 2008 10:49:22 AM

On Jan 19, 4:21=A0am, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:

In article
<340ae248-f435-493a-b512-c64b803b5...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the contrary, it's one of the things religion does best. It codifies
sets of laws and enforces them by various threats and rewards.

You're assuming religions invent the morals whereas I see that
religions formalize (agreed, as morals codes) much of what is already
in us. Most atheists agree as you are about to:

The same thing happens in secular society, Jack, without the need for
sky pixies. It's why we have prisons and execution chambers. Do you
honestly believe that humans aren't capable of scribbling a few rules
on their own without the help of an invisible deity? If that's the
case, think again. We've written entire libraries of laws, almost all
of them having nothing whatsoever to do with anything your supposed
"perfect moral being" said or implied in any of your holy books.

Most of the time they work pretty well. Imagine that. No God required.

My goodness, are we living on the same planet or have you just never
picked up a history book, watched TV or stepped outside? We're doing
horribly and humanity progresses morally only when it enforces the
morals we're discussing above. The trend however is certainly not up
or one of progress in general aligned with say scientific advancement.
Sure, once you have formalized the morals (usually, if not always, by
borrowing from religions) you can enforce or encourage them by secular
means. Thus you don't get moral secular societies without the
foundation laid by the previous religious societies.
But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.
.

User: "SkyEyes"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	23 Jan 2008 03:09:34 PM

On Jan 23, 9:49=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.
So I'll ask it again: Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?
Please enlighten us.
Thank you.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	30 Jan 2008 09:51:33 AM

On Jan 23, 10:09=A0pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. =A0If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: =A0Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? =A0Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

Was it not Socrates who first asked this? Anyway, in my understanding
is that goodness in any shape or form is a reflection of the ultimate
Goodness originating in God. Thus goodness in nature is imputed by the
creator and serves to point us towards Him. Goodness in humans, good
deeds, reflect that we are made in His image and have some inkling of
his Goodness. It is our duty to recognise and reflect goodness and
when we do this we do what is ultimately good and right.
To answer your question: yes, God is pleased by good deeds because
they are a reflection of His ultimate and true Goodness (i.e. good)
AND yes, acts are good because they originate from Him and, only
indirectly because he favors (approves) of them. I suspect this answer
will irritate you because you have a presupposition that goodness can
be had apart from God nay, goodness exists and God does not. The
problem really is that you owe your morality, indeed your very being,
your atoms to Him and all you've really got is your Will. Everything
else is on loan.
PS: Sorry if I can't reply as fast as you would like - I'm not on this
newsgroup daily and this is in part due to the discussions here
becoming a tedious affair. I would want to discuss the subject of the
original post and not sidetrack into baited traps, insults or be
reduced to an object of your amusement. I'd still appreciate a pointer
to a serious forum for discussion of atheism vs theism because this
ain't where it's at...
PPS: What the hey is Cat-Herding?
.

User: "SkyEyes"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	30 Jan 2008 12:44:10 PM

On Jan 30, 8:51=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:09=A0pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. =A0If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: =A0Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? =A0Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

So I there are no acts which are good in and of themselves? And the
only good acts are the ones that your god is in favor of?
Then your moral system is far more relative than that of any atheist
or free-thinker. Furthermore, it means that god could order any act
he likes - genocide, for instance, as he did many times in the bible -
and the commission of such an act would be "good" because your god had
ordered it.
That's pathetic. And offensive. And it explains why christians have
such a poor grasp of ethics and morals: they believe a magic guy in
the sky communicates with them, and that anythig he "tells" them to do
is automatically "good," because hey, he's the wellspring of true
morality, right?

To answer your question: yes, God is pleased by good deeds because
they are a reflection of His ultimate and true Goodness (i.e. good)

But excuse me, you're making unfounded assertions here. In order to
get me to accept that ultimate and true goodness comes from your god,
you first have to establish that it exists. You haven't done that
yet. All you've done is to assume your own conclusions.
Please present objective, verifiable evidence that a god - any god you
like - actually exists. (Objective evidence is *testable*, and bible
verses don't count. Neither do high-falutin' philosophical arguments
that assume a god exists.)
Once you have established the existence of this god, you can proceed
to present evidence that it is, somehow, the wellspring of goodness.

AND yes, acts are good because they originate from Him and, only

Evidence for this assertion, please?

indirectly because he favors (approves) of them.

Thereby making morality entirely relative. A good act is any that you
think your god approves of. So if god tells you to starve your
children to death because Satan is in them, naturally, you're going to
do it, because it's a good act. God told you to do it.

I suspect this answer
will irritate you because you have a presupposition that goodness can
be had apart from God

No, what irritates me is your insistence on assuming your conclusion,
and expecting us to accept your arguments without providing evidence
that any god exists.

nay, goodness exists and God does not.

You have yet to present any evidence that a god exists. Yet there is
evidence all over the place that people and other mammals perform acts
that are unquestionably "good." You are the one making the two
positive assertions - that a god exists, and that it is somehow the
wellspring of goodness - yet you have provided no objective evidence
to support your argument. Get busy.

The
problem really is that you owe your morality, indeed your very being,
your atoms to Him and all you've really got is your Will. Everything
else is on loan.

Evidence, please?

PS: Sorry if I can't reply as fast as you would like - I'm not on this
newsgroup daily and this is in part due to the discussions here
becoming a tedious affair.

I'm sorry that you find the discussion tedious. I suspect that's
because we did not immediately cave into your transparent, well-worn
assertions the first time you presented them. It's hard to
proselytize to people who require you to present evidence and use
logic, isn't it?

I would want to discuss the subject of the
original post and not sidetrack into baited traps, insults or be
reduced to an object of your amusement. I'd still appreciate a pointer
to a serious forum for discussion of atheism vs theism because this
ain't where it's at...

Feel free to leave alt.atheism at any time, sugarpie. This group is
for atheists to discuss atheist issues and not for proselytizing by
theists, as you seem to think. Don't let the door hit you in the *****
on your way out. However, should you elect to stay, do not expect any
quarter from me or the other regulars here.

PPS: What the hey is Cat-Herding?

Cat-herding is a metaphor for what I've been doing with you in this
thread, Jackie-me-lad. Obviously, you haven't had much experience
with cats *or* with science and logic.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.

User: "Jack"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	31 Jan 2008 01:37:45 AM

It's clear from your reply that my suspicions were justified: you had
a pre-packed and non-original rebuttal prepared. You have put your
words in my mouth to allow you to do this - if you'll re-examine my
response you'll see that I affirmed neither of your loaded
alternatives. You also have resorted to the rather pointless game of
asking about the nature God then rejecting _any_ answer on the grounds
that God's existence has not been demonstrated. Do you find this
fulfilling? I'm afraid you've blocked all your options because you
need to understand a bit of the nature of God before you are able to
see that he is there. Scientific investigation is no different except
that we can remain morally and personally detached from the subject.
As I see it, your animosity towards God and your pride is preventing
you from seeing the truth. I won't tell you how to get out of this
trap though for fear of being branded "proselytizing".
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	31 Jan 2008 07:34:46 AM

"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95f61ad7-820f-4766-944d-ea9f3930c5de@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

What god?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	31 Jan 2008 06:47:52 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jack wrote:
| It's clear from your reply that my suspicions were justified: you had
| a pre-packed and non-original rebuttal prepared. You have put your
| words in my mouth to allow you to do this - if you'll re-examine my
| response you'll see that I affirmed neither of your loaded
| alternatives. You also have resorted to the rather pointless game of
| asking about the nature God then rejecting _any_ answer on the grounds
| that God's existence has not been demonstrated. Do you find this
| fulfilling? I'm afraid you've blocked all your options because you
| need to understand a bit of the nature of God before you are able to
| see that he is there. Scientific investigation is no different except
| that we can remain morally and personally detached from the subject.
| As I see it, your animosity towards God and your pride is preventing
| you from seeing the truth. I won't tell you how to get out of this
| trap though for fear of being branded "proselytizing".
|
And I suppose the question "Which god?", is also what you call a
pre-packed answer.
Now about this question.
Are you so afraid of death that you keep grasping as straws?
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHocN3f+wl0F6+jvgRAqKsAKCIj0sgpbv1ecXVsAkUHMiJRLgIggCfUgAj
8LgU8eUxgmkBMgFx/VmXizg=
=X2W0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	31 Jan 2008 09:10:01 AM

The moron didn't quote whom or what he was replying to, so I checked
- it was Brenda.
Has this psychopath ever shown any honest, human decency or common
sense?
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:37:45 -0800 (PST), Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com>
wrote:

It's clear from your reply that my suspicions were justified: you had

A paranoid lie.

a pre-packed and non-original rebuttal prepared. You have put your

Another lie,

words in my mouth to allow you to do this - if you'll re-examine my
response you'll see that I affirmed neither of your loaded
alternatives.

And again.

You also have resorted to the rather pointless game of
asking about the nature God then rejecting _any_ answer on the grounds

Another lie.
You know perfectly well it's an abstract logic exercise about what you
nastily told us, bigoted liar.

that God's existence has not been demonstrated.

It hasn't, moron.
But you know that you are lying about "rejecting any answer", let
alone on the grounds of that lie.

Do you find this
fulfilling?

Liar.

I'm afraid you've blocked all your options because you

Liar.

need to understand a bit of the nature of God before you are able to

We understand it perfectly, liar. It's somebody else's religious
belief that they rudely and stupidly talk about as though it were
real, outside their religion.
When they know that in the real world it is merely one of hundreds of
similar beliefs, all incompatible, that are only taken seriously by
their members.
At which point the psychopathic liar attacks those who ask the
question he rudely and stupidly keeps begging every time he does this.
Demonstrating both his sheer nastiness and his dishonesty.

see that he is there. Scientific investigation is no different except
that we can remain morally and personally detached from the subject.

Liar.

As I see it, your animosity towards God and your pride is preventing
you from seeing the truth.

More deliberately nasty personal lies.
But hey, it's "Jack" who has shown neither honesty, decency nor common
sense since he first crashed this group.
Why do you lie about what is in people's minds, deliberately nasty
liar?
Why do you keep rudely and stupidly begging the question, deliberately
disrespectful psychopath?
Why do you lie about what are merely the beliefs of somebody else's
religion being "the truth", deliberately dishonest liar?

I won't tell you how to get out of this
trap though for fear of being branded "proselytizing".

Don't be so fucking stupid.
You can't prosetylise.
It's a trap of your own making because you crashed a group you know
are outside your religion.
Then rudely and stupidly harangued us about your beliefs.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	30 Jan 2008 01:54:55 PM

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:44:10 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism you wrote:

On Jan 30, 8:51�am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 23, 10:09�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49�am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. �If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: �Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? �Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

He doesn't have a moral system. Just what somebody else tells him an
imaginary alpha male wants.
Not what is good or bad in terms of the effect of his actions on
others.
And it doesn't stop him being an ignorant, nasty little sociopath. Has
he forgotten how this latest round started when he lied to our faces
that we have no basis for morals?

That's pathetic. And offensive. And it explains why christians have
such a poor grasp of ethics and morals: they believe a magic guy in
the sky communicates with them, and that anythig he "tells" them to do
is automatically "good," because hey, he's the wellspring of true
morality, right?

To answer your question: yes, God is pleased by good deeds because
they are a reflection of His ultimate and true Goodness (i.e. good)

More blatant, stupid question-begging.
His self-claimed "morality: doesn't stop him rudely and stupidly doing
this.

He never has done ever since he came here.
He knows we don't share his religious beliefs. Yet he rudely and
stupidly talks at us as though we did.

Please present objective, verifiable evidence that a god - any god you
like - actually exists. (Objective evidence is *testable*, and bible
verses don't count. Neither do high-falutin' philosophical arguments
that assume a god exists.)

He won't. But he'll still presume it without even realising just how
stupid and discourteous it is.
Or is he talking to himself?

Once you have established the existence of this god, you can proceed
to present evidence that it is, somehow, the wellspring of goodness.

AND yes, acts are good because they originate from Him and, only

Evidence for this assertion, please?

indirectly because he favors (approves) of them.

Or if it tells him to come to atheists, act like a total moron, lie
about us to our faces etc.

I suspect this answer
will irritate you because you have a presupposition that goodness can
be had apart from God

He's a sociopath bordering on psychopath.
Once again he totally ignores what he has been told and amateur
psychologises his own falsehoods about us.

No, what irritates me is your insistence on assuming your conclusion,
and expecting us to accept your arguments without providing evidence
that any god exists.

He's too stupid to understand this.

nay, goodness exists and God does not.

The
problem really is that you owe your morality, indeed your very being,
your atoms to Him and all you've really got is your Will. Everything
else is on loan.

Evidence, please?

PS: Sorry if I can't reply as fast as you would like - I'm not on this
newsgroup daily and this is in part due to the discussions here
becoming a tedious affair.

He didn't learn two years ago and he never will.
He has always shown a stubborn resistance to granting that outside his
religion, it is merely somebody else's religious belief.
But until he accepts this he has nothing to say here.

There is nothing to discuss. Although too many pig-ignorant, stupid
theists think there is.
This is the real world, outside his religion. Where it is merely one
of hundreds of different religious beliefs each with its own god(s).
Which are only believed by their own members.
And the mindless zombie comes here and insists we have to a priori
grant one the many religions' doctrinal presumptions?
Trouble is, this is the real world where what he says has to be backed
up by real world methods and tools. Like real world evidence. Where
his doctrines, scriptures etc count for nothing.

He's not prosetylising. He can't. To do that he would have to convince
us using _our_ understanding instead of starting from his.
Or at least common shared understanding.
Even he has to realise this. Nobody is that stupid.
He's just being a deliberate nuisance.

PPS: What the hey is Cat-Herding?

Cat-herding is a metaphor for what I've been doing with you in this
thread, Jackie-me-lad. Obviously, you haven't had much experience
with cats *or* with science and logic.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

User: "SkyEyes"
Title: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 05:53:21 PM

On Jan 23, 2:09=A0pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

Have you not had enough time to come up with an answer, Jack? When
might I expect one?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 07:58:00 PM

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:53:21 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net>
wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:09 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

Please enlighten us.

Thank you.

Have you not had enough time to come up with an answer, Jack? When
might I expect one?

Do we have a Jack off situation?
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 08:56:49 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gray wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:53:21 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net>
| wrote:
|
|> On Jan 23, 2:09 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
|>> On Jan 23, 9:49 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
|>>
|>> <Snip>
|>>
|>>> But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
|>>> absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
|>>> (religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.
|>> You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
|>> seen your answer. If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
|>> in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.
|>>
|>> So I'll ask it again: Is your god in favor of certain acts because
|>> those acts are "good" in and of themselves? Or are those acts "good"
|>> because your god is in favor of them?
|>>
|>> Please enlighten us.
|>>
|>> Thank you.
|> Have you not had enough time to come up with an answer, Jack? When
|> might I expect one?
|
| Do we have a Jack off situation?
|
Well, since Jack is a jerk, it could be a Jack Jerking session. :-D
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHm/Lxf+wl0F6+jvgRAvjWAJ49cnR84fS4sVlra9NgRGToj0KisACdGRYt
MdtbqodgInEuu5+/bVltgQM=
=KxRN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 10:57:29 PM

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:56:49 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:

The mind boggles.
.

User: "Don Martin"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	27 Jan 2008 06:36:33 AM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:27:29 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:56:49 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:

The mind boggles.

But do your Boggles mind?
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	27 Jan 2008 06:38:38 PM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:36:33 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:27:29 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:56:49 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:

The mind boggles.

But do your Boggles mind?

Algy! Is that you?
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 08:12:40 PM

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:28:00 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:53:21 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net>
wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:09�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49�am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. �If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: �Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? �Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

Please enlighten us.

Thank you.

Have you not had enough time to come up with an answer, Jack? When
might I expect one?

Do we have a Jack off situation?

Isn't that another thread?
Wasn't Dr. Jerkoff Flash Gordon's side kick?
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Still Waiting for You to Answer the Question, Jack!	26 Jan 2008 10:56:32 PM

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:12:40 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:28:00 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:53:21 -0800 (PST), SkyEyes <skyeyes9@cox.net>
wrote:

On Jan 23, 2:09 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 23, 9:49 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Snip>

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You know, I asked you a question in a different post, and I haven't
seen your answer. If you answered, then I haven't managed to find it
in the tangle of Usenet posts I see.

So I'll ask it again: Is your god in favor of certain acts because
those acts are "good" in and of themselves? Or are those acts "good"
because your god is in favor of them?

Please enlighten us.

Thank you.

Have you not had enough time to come up with an answer, Jack? When
might I expect one?

Do we have a Jack off situation?

Isn't that another thread?

Wasn't Dr. Jerkoff Flash Gordon's side kick?

You may well be correct.
My "Flesh Gorgon" archive is offine for the moment, so I cannot check
your claim.
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	23 Jan 2008 10:57:43 AM

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:49:22 -0800 (PST), Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jan 19, 4:21�am, chibiabos <c...@nospam.com> wrote:

In article
<340ae248-f435-493a-b512-c64b803b5...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,

Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On the contrary, it's one of the things religion does best. It codifies
sets of laws and enforces them by various threats and rewards.

You're assuming religions invent the morals whereas I see that
religions formalize (agreed, as morals codes) much of what is already
in us. Most atheists agree as you are about to:

Then why did you lie that atheists have no basis for their morals,
moron?

Exactly.
Most being based on the effect of one's actions as seen at the
receiving end.
Something "Jack" is pretending he is too stupid to understand.

Most of the time they work pretty well. Imagine that. No God required.

My goodness, are we living on the same planet or have you just never
picked up a history book, watched TV or stepped outside? We're doing

When are you going to do that, brainwashed sociopath?

horribly and humanity progresses morally only when it enforces the

Those are Christians.

morals we're discussing above. The trend however is certainly not up
or one of progress in general aligned with say scientific advancement.
Sure, once you have formalized the morals (usually, if not always, by
borrowing from religions) you can enforce or encourage them by secular
means. Thus you don't get moral secular societies without the
foundation laid by the previous religious societies.

Liar.
But then we all know your idea of Christian-derived morality is to lie
about us to our faces, to rudely and stupidly wipe your beliefs in
people's faces and insist they discuss them granting your baseless
presumptions.

But this is all beside the point. My point is that morality is
absolute and a priori and we can recognize it with or without help
(religion, reason) but not live up to it without God's help.

You're wrong on both points, moron.
Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical "God" before attributing
anything to it?
Are you really this stupid or just a terminally dishonest,
sociopathic, question-begging moron?
.

User: "FreeThink"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	17 Jan 2008 06:05:08 PM

On Jan 17, 11:45=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 15, 6:33=A0am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:

"Jack" <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:58bcb99c-c872-4248-a2b2-f6e8d2e3fba6@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...=
On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a d=

ifferent approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

Do you actually read what you write?

From your opening post:
"In summary, 3 Points:
1) Morality must pre-date the texts and religions if it is not to be
simply invention."

And now:
"An atheist, having no basis for morality..."

Atheist morality is that which predates the texts and relgions.
Do you imagine that it was considered right to kill and steal before the=
mythical Moses received the mythical 10 commandments?

"A cultural phenomena subject to convenient change" maybe. Where does
the "no progress evident or possible" come into it? Has there not been
practical progress in regards to more recent moral standards? Like the
basis for ethics concerning new science and technology? If we follow
the older, more absolute, religious morality we would certainly not
make any progress with the more delicate, "gray areas" required in the
modern day.
.

User: "DanielSan"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 07:37:27 AM

Jack wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,

Liar.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 07:46:29 AM

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:37:27 -0800, DanielSan
<petersonj07@comcast.net> wrote:

Jack wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:11 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmm...thats a different approach, i've always thought of any actions
taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

That's hardly surprising. An atheist, having no basis for morality,

Liar.

It's cawoodm aka Jack. What do you expect? He has never shown an ounce
of honesty or human decency since he first arrived here.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	18 Jan 2008 11:20:22 AM

On 14 jan, 14:24, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:11=A0pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a d=

ifferent approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

I see you are making a false presumption here.
Any person has a basis for morality. Having or not having a religion
does in fact not matter.
What Dag Yo probably meant, is that following the teachings of a
religion is neither moral or immmoral, but amoral.
Theoretically that could be the case. However in many instances the
person accepts the religous teachings because they contain something
that is morally right. This is particulary the case with converts.
People may probably have a genetic tendency to act moral
The morals may have originated at random, but moral tendencies that
are favorable to the survival of the members of a society have more
chances to be propageted.
Futhermore societies develop these basic morals and societies that
develop better morals again should have a greater chance of survival.
some morals are irrelevant for survival but could still be propagated.
For instance gay-bashing is as devastating to survival als killing
virgin girls. That is why many cultures still advocate gay-bashing,
and hardly any advocate killing virgin girls.
An important aspect of memes like morals is there ability to get
propagated. Simpel morals are more easily copied, and therefor have
better survival chances.
We should expect simple moral principles that are favorable to
man(kind) in most circumstances, and not intricate morals with special
rules for every occation.
In fact that is what Jesus preached (love your fellow man),
and not the long list of sins and punishements that the Pentaeuch
olffered, and which to many people seem to be immoral.
(killing witches and such)
I may be an atheist,
I have a clear idea about what I consider to be moral,
The basis for morality is in fact very simple.
Morality is ALWAYS about not acting in your own interest, but in the
interest of others.
Why else would we need them?
So judging what is moral and what is not is in fact very simple.
Something is morally right if it works in the interest of other
people,
especially in the interest of the next generation.
Anyone can judge that provided (s)he has a brain and an education.
Always willing to discuss morality
Peter van Velzen
January 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.

User: "SkyEyes"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 01:56:14 PM

On Jan 14, 6:24=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:11=A0pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a d=

ifferent approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

Atheists *have* a basis for morality; all social animals do. There
are certain basic things that social animals need to avoid doing to
live together successfully - e.g., don't kill your neighbor for no
good reason, don't swipe your neighbor's stuff, and keep your mitts of
your neighbor's mate, if you live in a monogamous or quasi-monogamous
society. All human "law" pretty much boils down to versions of these
basic principles.
In addition, social mammals (not just Man, and not just primates) have
a degree of inborn altruism and empathy. Atheists certainly have
that. I behave well in part because I know that my society has laws
that, when adhered to, keep the society running smoothly, but I also
behave well because I know how it feels to be mistreated or cheated or
otherwise abused, and I don't want to inflict that kind of pain on
others.
See? No holy books or outside Authority Figures needed.
And just so you know, I *have* read the bible through, cover-to-cover,
not just once but several times by the time I was in my early 20s. I
grew up in a christian fundamentalist church and I was born-again at
age 11. I am intimately familiar with your doctrines.
Fortunately, I also got an education - and here I am today, a happy,
well-adjusted atheist. See? There's hope, even for the likes of you!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
.

User: "Wexford"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Religion cannot be a basis for moralty	14 Jan 2008 02:20:32 PM

On Jan 14, 2:56=A0pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:

On Jan 14, 6:24=A0am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:11=A0pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hmm...thats a=

different approach, i've always thought of any actions

taken as the result of religious belief to be necessessarily amoral.

Atheists *have* a basis for morality; all social animals do. =A0There
are certain basic things that social animals need to avoid doing to
live together successfully - e.g., don't kill your neighbor for no
good reason, don't swipe your neighbor's stuff, and keep your mitts of
your neighbor's mate, if you live in a monogamous or quasi-monogamous
society. =A0All human "law" pretty much boils down to versions of these
basic principles.

In addition, social mammals (not just Man, and not just primates) have
a degree of inborn altruism and empathy. =A0Atheists certainly have
that. =A0I behave well in part because I know that my society has laws
that, when adhered to, keep the society running smoothly, but I also
behave well because I know how it feels to be mistreated or cheated or
otherwise abused, and I don't want to inflict that kind of pain on
others.

See? =A0No holy books or outside Authority Figures needed.

And just so you know, I *have* read the bible through, cover-to-cover,
not just once but several times by the time I was in my early 20s. =A0I
grew up in a christian fundamentalist church and I was born-again at
age 11. =A0I am intimately familiar with your doctrines.

Fortunately, I also got an education - and here I am today, a happy,
well-adjusted atheist. =A0See? =A0There's hope, even for the likes of you!=

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

Good post. Thank you. Just to underscore your comments (and to
introduce something a bit weird), I once read a study of altruism
among vampire bats. They'll feed another's young and sometimes feed
one another. "Greater love hath no bat . . ."
.

Page 1 of 8

Post reply