Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) has publicly confirmed that he is an atheist, thereby become the first openly atheist member of Congress in American history (hat tip: Radley Balko).
However welcome, Stark's announcement is not much of a counterexample to my argument that atheists are severely discriminated against in the political arena (see here and here). Stark is a well-entrenched incumbent in a heavily Democratic district and is probably nearing the end of his career (he is 75 years old). He therefore is running a much smaller political risk than would most other politicians if they made a similar statement. Although Stark's announcement has some symbolic value, this small step for an atheist is also a pretty small step for atheist-kind.
I for one strongly disagree with the view that atheists cannot be moral because they do not believe in any moral authority higher than themselves. I would vote for an atheist who supports my values without hesitation, and I would even vote for an objectivist (i.e., Ayn Rand supporter openly hostile to religion) if the alternative were to elect a (closet) atheist liberal Clintonite whose values make a mockery of everything that Christianity stands for.
The problem with our system is that it discriminates against the honest atheists who refuse to masquerade as Christian to get elected, and in favor of precisely those atheists who meet all the bad stereotypes about atheists having no values. In short: lots of atheists are fit for office, but they are not the ones who get elected.
(Consider what smoking marijuana meant to politicians just a decade or so ago; now Obama can admit using cocaine and it barely makes a splash. Gary Hart was destroyed by a private affair; Rudy is the frontrunner now after having had a public affair and dumping his wife via press conference.)
Possibly. But it doesn't seem like too many people (at least in the mainstream media) are paying much attention to Stark now.
Yes, it was unknown (at least to the general public). It was only publicly announced Monday.
A good number of people still don't understand that fact, though, and are convinced that "atheist" means only that one believes specifically and strongly that no deities exist whatsoever, rather than the lack of belief in the existence of deities. Then again, these are the same people who think that being agnostic is just being undecided.
For the duped and narcotized masses, I like the reduced chances of "nontheist" to be reclassified as "antitheist".
You just need to have faith.
From my long ago flirt with Unitarianism, they mostly believe in coffee and donuts after the service.
What evidence do you have that Bill Clinton is really an atheist only pretending to believe in God for political reasons? I don't much like the guy, but I haven't seen any evidence of what you claim.
Sort of my position - Slate magazine about a year ago had a physicist saying we may be able to make our own universes in the not too distant future. I'm totally open to the prospect the Creator of the universe is some geek with a pocket protector, just not to any of the obvious cognitive defect derived 'magic sky father' options so popular today.
I still think athiests are less discriminated against muslims in this country, though. Compare the reaction to Stark versus the reaction to Ellis.
Justin: It's "atheist." It's not "most athy."
Thanks. My spelling is generally terrible. What a lifetime of spellcheck will do to you. Stil, I hope most people got the gist of my point.
I've never met an athiest who said they wouldn't believe in a God if they tripped over one. Isn't saying "there is no ___" shorthand for "no one's ever found ___, no one has ever shown me persuasive evidence for ___, and I can concieve of no future experiments/inquiries likely to find ___"?
Also, side topic, but I work in a physics department and I don't think I've ever seen anyone wear a pocket protector in my life. Do engineers wear them or did they go out with the slide rule?
They're a relic of the days when engineers still wrote things down using pens, rather than typing everything into their computers.
Nether have I but considering how many misrepresent atheism as a 'belief' in there being no possibility of gods the term 'atheism' is rendered relatively useless for conveying the person's true position. Using a new term that is not 'atheism' allows for a better definition, at least until they corrupt this one too.
Considering the examples he listed, it's pretty clear his "evidence" consists of the fact that they're Democrats. Ann Coulter says they're the party that hates God, you know.
Under this "doth protest too much" theory of American politics, wouldn't George W. Bush be much more likely to be a closet atheist than any of these four?
Ann Coulter is an amazingly rude and nasty fellow, if you've ever heard her get rolling on a political topic. ;)
Well Bill Clinton regularly attends Church, and George W. Bush does not. Of course, that could go either way.
But we should eventually get back on topic.
Like some other commenters, I would say this is actually a fairly standard description of what most atheists believe, so I'm not sure a differentiating term is necessary. But if all you are saying is that we need to repackage our brand, well, that's not a terrible idea.
One quibble, however: a good number of us would also tend to think that the current state of the world provides strong evidence that some descriptions of a god are not only unlikely, but actually impossible. See, e.g., the potential incoherence of a deity that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent in a world where suffering exists. But that is quibbling over details; most theists when pressed do not seem to actually believe that their deity is omnipotent in the true logical sense of the world (see, e.g., Leibniz), and most atheists reject more limited accounts of divinity in precisely the manner you describe.
A person's faith and what that faith is in is a part of a person's character. Character and personality traits are a legitimate form and possibly the most important quality that a person running for elective office can be evaluated upon.
If person is a satanist that is a relevant character trait to evaluate. If a person is a Christian that is a relevant character trait. If a person believes in nothing and, in effect, thinks man is a really complicated toaster that is a relevant character trait.
That's not some evil discrimination that's called be selective based upon relevant criteria.
Steve, there's a reason the Professor pointed out that this guy is so safe because he is in a solidly democratic district. Clearly even atheists think there is a positive correlation between being an atheist and democrat politics. Maybe they aren't 100% godless but obviously the common and accepted knowledge from left and right is that democrats don't evaluate fitness for public service on the basis of a politician's belief in something more than biological processes and mathematical algorithms.
Says the "Dog"
The two are not mutually exclusive. Voters often vote on the basis of prejudice.
Many who identify as Christians (Cafeteria Catholics, et al) actually profess and seem to hold Universalist beliefs - that souls can get to heaven by leading a good life (or avoid certain bad acts, etc), even if they don't follow the strictures of their particular creed.
And Pete Freans: if voters don't choose a candidate solely b/c of that candidate's atheism, that IS prejudice. You may call it democracy as well, or whatever else applies, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a form of prejudice. That is, Voter pre- judges Candidate as unworthy of office solely b/c Candidate has a specific label attached to him/her. For all we know Candidate may have done more for humanity than Mother Theresa. And as I mention above, knowing someone labels him or herself an atheist says very little about that person's beliefs in transcendental reality. Just like there're all types of Jews and Christians, with quite divergent beliefs. Knowing that I deem myself a Jew says next to nothing about my beliefs in the esoteric.
That's atheistic in the dictionary sense (a disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity) only - he's also claiming membership in a religion and isn't denying God in any of the broader senses that are accepted by Reform Jews, Quakers, Buddhists and such.
Bad poster child for the M.Murray-O'Hare types.
Don't you mean "thank God"? ;-)
Meaning, if I get it right, that Democrats, or atheistic ones anyway, don't apply a standard of belief in right and wrong, a standard of values, a standard of morality? That's just wrong. We do. People are free to vote how they will, but it is no less of a prejudice to decline to vote for atheists as a bloc based on "they don't believe in right and wrong" than it is to refuse to vote for Catholics because "they'll just be taking orders from the Pope."
Also, Democrat and Democratic are capitalized when referring to members of the party.
If man is more than a soulless complex machine to some atheists, Then please explain what it is that man has that is more than the result of some chemical/biological physical process? If you can't, then I fail to see how you think man is different from a soulless complex machine.
What are the moral implications to turning off a machine? I wouldn't think there would be any.
There are many atheist Jews, but I've always wondered can one really be a Jew if they deny the God of Abraham? Personally I don't think so, despite the strong belief by many atheist Jews to the contrary. Wasn't the God of Abraham the whole point to the creation of a separate group out of a pool of like physical individuals? I mean Abraham wasn't racially different from his neighbors so being Jewish certainly wasn't a racial thing.
Says the "Dog"
You quoted what I said. It didn't say anything about right and wrong.
However, picking up your point. Yes atheists can believe in a moral code. That doesn't change the fact that they believe humans are just complex toasters.
What are the real moral implications for turning off a toaster and what is the foundation for a belief that their is some moral implication to turning of a human toaster?
Says the "Dog"
Someone else above said yes its prejudice not to vote for someone simply because they are atheist. That's only true to the same extent that not voting for somebody because you don't like the way he/she looks or the way he/she cheats on his/her spouse is prejudice. Its prejudice to the same extent that not voting for somebody simply because they are into having masked midgets shove roosters up their arses at thanksgiving is prejudice.
In other words its not prejudice at all in the sense of that word as some form of improper selectivity. The character and habits and beliefs of those running for political office are all perfectly proper and rational bases for selecting among possible candidates.
Says the "Dog"
There isn't much of a movement. Atheists don't go to court to ask for status or stuff. On the very rare, though well-covered, instances where they do go to court, it is an establishment claim about God being invoked in some public forum, like in the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. And given the pervasive antipathy to atheism expressed by non-atheist voters, there is relatively little of a movement of any kind. Most atheists don't want to have to campaign for atheism.
For starters, a biological organism is not the same as a machine. For instance, a machine cannot be made to suffer. Atheists understand the difference.
Atheists believe humans are "soulless" only in the sense that we see no evidence that human consciousness continues after death. We certainly do understand concepts of right and wrong treatment of fellow human beings, just as all human beings do.
We do not derive these concepts of right and wrong from unverifiable instructions from an undetectable non-corporeal entity, but from emotional reactions to social situations bred into the human line by hundreds of generations of selection of humans and proto-humans whose actions strengthened the social group they depended on for survival.
The drive to treat others kindly and honestly runs as deep in us as in any other group of humans.
ed o saysStalin and Lenin spring to mind when thinking about the atheist ideal
That makes about as much sense as saying that Torquemada springs to mind as an example of the Christian ideal. There are good and bad atheists as there are good and bad in any large group of people. Thinking on religious history (go check out the Inquisition), religous people are being deeply unfair to associate atheists only with the worst of the worst among us.
More important than qualifications? Electing a president isn't a referendum on what you think American's are supposed to look/talk like, it's hiring someone to do a specific job. Other than to he extent that "character" issues are actually code for specific policy positions, why should I care?
"That's only true to the same extent that not voting for somebody because you don't like the way he/she looks"
lol
What are the moral implications of burning a book?
Your equation of atheism with adultery and some nonsense about midgets reveals much about your grip on reality, "Dog." I think everyone is well aware that you don't like atheists, so can you please stop trying to read others' minds?
Strictly speaking, atheism has no comment on souls, materialism, life after death etc. The term simply means "no God". At least one major religion (Buddhism) is non-theist (in its purist, most ancient forms) but is certainly not materialistic in its metaphysics, or skeptical concerning some form of spiritual survival after death.
So they can't _really_ have a moral code in there because they don't attribute fundamental value to humans?
Accepting for purposes of discussion your claim that atheists think we are all toasters, the implications of turning off a toaster are _very_ significant for the toaster. If humans are toasters, then I am a toaster and I know therefore that toasters value life, cling to life and have as much of a claim on life as I do. We don't want to be turned off. I would, as a toaster, embrace our common toasterhood and acknowledge as a moral principle what the revered toaster-thinker Manual "Kant-Beat-It" Slice-o-matic stated, that we are bound to treat others as we would want to be treated, regardless of whether we were to arrive as a high-end Dualit commercial model in cobalt blue or a plain old Kenwood.
That's what I'd say if I thought I were a toaster.
Actually, in this century, it's the theocrats (the Taliban, Iran, W.) that have been "inhuman and quite monstrous." Did atheists fly planes into the World Trade Center?
Thanks Aleks. I think many have a very black-or-white view of theism that is behind the times. All major religions were founded on spiritual/mystical principles. Unfortunately the big three (so to speak) have fallen astray from their roots and have been hopelessly perverted. I think Buddhism is one of the "best" now, but not because it's inherently better than the others. However, compared to the others, it has stuck most closely to its roots and has been the least corrupted.
That's why the current debates about, for example, literal bible translations and evolution are so quaint. While these debates continue, quantum physics is on its way toward a "theory of everything." Quantum physics and spirituality are heading towards a merger, as both see consciousness and "God" as something real and quite complex.
Junkyard dog: my reference to god as a man w/a beard who sees us when we're sleeping and knows when we're awake was facetious. It's an acknowledgement of the fact that the popular notion of God is juvenile and silly. Nor is it supported by the bible, Torah, Koran, etc.
I believe that's why atheists like Cat Faber (who I deem a "strict atheist" by his/her assertion that there is no soul and that consciousness does not transcend death) are so turned off by the religious. If the only two options one can imagine are between no god at all vs. Santa Claus, then the former makes a lot more sense. Thus, while I don't agree with the strict atheist, the fact that they are so marginalized and prejudged certainly gives them my sympathies.
What do you mean by "quantum physics and spirituality are heading towards a merger"?
Of course, it's possible that UUs don't actually profess the above. But in that case, oughtn't they to start calling themselves, er, something else?
Yes, surely, for fomenting an Iraqi civil war, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, destroying U.S. moral standing worldwide.
I wouldn't want Iranian theocrats running my society. I also wouldn't want an atheist doing so given the track record of what happens when they are in charge.
If your point is that mixing the state with any kind of enforced belief (atheism or theism) leads to disaster, I have no quarrel with that. But if your point is that all atheists are just a hair's breadth away from Stalin, then...
People keep saying that, or something very much like that, every time the topic comes up. And when I do, I ask the same question, and never get an answer. Well, I'll try again:
Explain the "relevance" of the "character trait" of atheism. The first mistake is calling it a "character trait" at all. It's a matter of belief about the nature of the world and what is or isn't in it. "Character" has something to do with morality, and you can't just assume that one set of beliefs about what is or isn't in the world has a major impact on moral character. That's preciosely the point at issue. We all agree that murdering, raping, and robbing are bad things. We all agree that a public servant who steals is a bad public servant. We can all agree on a great many "values" questions. And, with some squabbling at the margins, most of us do. What, exactly, is the process by which you conclude from someone's belief or non-belief in deities that the non-believer is noticeably more likelty to murder, rape, and rob, or steal public funds? It isn't a purely logical deduction. Is it based on some personal experience or knowledge? Is it based on anything at all?
Strategichamlet: I mean that quantum physics is close to verifying much of what spiritual dogma (so to speak) has been espousing since the dawn of civilization. Which is funny b/c many who oppose the idea of spirituality do so arguing science science science. Yet, Einstein himself was open to the idea of the transcendence of consciousness, and many of those who support what I'm referencing are some of the most brilliant scientists out there.
If you're genuinely interested, I'd be happy to try to explain. But I'm just a humble lawyer w/a little bit of intelligence and a little bit of wisdom, who also happened to have a genuine mystical experience/NDE that changed my life. That being said, google Souls of Distortion. It's a free book on the 'net. It's only one piece of literature out of a trove of books and articles that are being written on the subject. But it's a great introductory overview that ties much of it together.
It's silly to say that atheists necessarily view humans as "machines" that can simply be "turned off." That's just another way of saying that they necessarily lack a moral code. And that just isn't true.
But if it makes you feel better, okay: I believe my moral code was handed down from the heavens by an enchanted rhubarb pie, which imbues all humans with a metaphysical inner sugary goodness equivalent to the Christian concept of a soul.
There, with that profession of faith I'm apparently out of the "toaster" category.
Woof woof "Human"
You've hit upon something interesting. I'm not the most learned person about present day Unitarian-Universalism, but I have studies these movements in the Founding era in meticulous detail. It seems that many if not most of these Churches have given up on their supernatural beliefs.
UU has a rich connection with the Founding era. Most of the key Founding fathers Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison (and I'd argue Washington as well) were theological unitarians and universalists (notice the small "u's"). Only Adams was a member of a Church which adopted "Unitarianism" as its official creed. Adams' Congregation was one of the many which transformed from Puritan to Unitarian Congregations. Benjamin Rush, though not a Unitarian, started one of the first Universalist Churches.
The Unitarians and Universalists of that era fervently believed in God but denied Jesus' divinity and thought all men would eventually be saved. Most of them believed the bad would be temporarily punished, eventually redeemed. The good would immediately upon death experience happiness forever. Their God cared far more about works than faith.
It was this system, not strict Deism, which captured the minds of our key Founders. They thought it far more "rational" than orthodox Trinitarian Christianity (or strict Deism). And it was rationalism which reigned supreme according to Founding era thought in elite Whig circles.
Stop by on Sunday and I'll explain the non-creedal thing to you.
The historical meaning of the name only explains the history of modern Unitarian Universalism. "Liberal religion" (which is the religion of many liberals, but also of libertarians and conservatives) is a better term to inform your understanding than trying to figure out practice and beliefs from the name.
I can't believe this has stood here for so long.
Atheists don't believe humans are anything like complex toasters. A toaster has a creator. Humans don't. A toaster is mechanical. A human is organic. A toaster doesn't think or feel. A human does.
The reason people have issues with atheism is primarily due to a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is and what atheists think. You know what we call it when people make generalizations regarding fitness to hold a job (with no basis in fact) about a group of people? Prejudice.
Now back to the actual subject of this thread. I think that most people don't genuinely think about a candidate's relgious preference (I know I don't have any idea of the religious prefertences of more than a handful of the candidates I voted for in the last election).
However, when a person does think of atheism, they think of Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Michael Newdow, the Communists as an ideology, and their ilk. That is perhaps unfair, but it is reality. Thus, when a person trumpets his or her atheism, O'Hair, Newdow, etc. are the first to come to mind.
Even before Pete Stark made whatever his comments were, several other members of Congress listed that they had no denominatinal preference or no religious affiliation. I certainly do not remember anyone's religion being an issue in the last election, other than Congressman Ellison's--because he is a Muslim.
We have elected at least one President who described himself as a "Deist" (Jefferson) and and several who described themselves as Unitarians (both Adams, Fillmore, and Taft). We have also had at least two Chief Justices, Marshall and Taft (yest I realize I am counting him twice).
I guess my point is that if someone holds up a sign and says "look at me" we are going to pay attention. When people privately hold their religious views (or the lack of same), most people could care less.
And as a final note (I love irony), one reason the Romans persecuted the early Christians was because the Romans considered the Christians to be atheists--since the Christians denied the existence of the Roman gods.
Jefferson didn't describe himself as a "Deist" -- that's a label that scholars have given him. Like Adams he described himself as a "Unitarian" and a "Christian." Adams' term was "liberal Unitarian Christian." As I noted above, this was also the religion of Madison, Franklin, and perhaps Washington.
Their creed has sometimes been called "deism" because of its over-reliance on "reason" and "nature" (it elevated those principles over revelation or Church creeds). Arguably we could say such a system is "deistic," but it is not "strict Deism," like the kind Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen believed in.
People are angry at him, though, for what he is doing, not what he is saying or how he conducts himself. In terms of what he is saying, he is 180% from Murray O'Hair in his rhetoric. He's extremely bright, principled, well spoken, and articulate and civil in his tone. He is not a bomb-thrower like O'Hair. Even Phillip Munoz who is one of the best scholars for the side opposite of Newdow's said Newdow did a brilliant job at the Supreme Court. Sorry, but O'Hair was incapable of this.
What Newdow is doing is taking a principle which is foundational to America's political system -- equal rights/non-discrimination/religious neutrality -- and demanding that such be applied consistently to atheists. "Under God" is no more neutral than for government to say "under Allah," "under no God" or as Adams and Jefferson privately wrote in their letters, "under a unitary God (who is not Jesus)." If government did endorse any of these notions, activists groups from the religious right would be just as quick to file lawsuits and demand courts hold such actions unconstitutional.
You are probably correct, though I thought Jefferson had described himself as a "deist" in some of his writings. But since you have researched this more recently than I have, I will defer to you. However, I believe Madison described himself as a Episcopal and I know Washington did.
My point was more that Unitarianism is cetainly not "Christian" in any traditional definition of the term and being a Unitarian has not been disqualifying for ambitious politicians.
Madison never publicly endorsed Trinitarianism or the creeds of his church. And there are eyewitness accounts of him endorsing theological unitarianism. Washington's nut is a bit harder to crack because he held his religious cards very close.
Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin wrote volumes in their personal letters specifying what they believed. Washington and Madison wrote far less. Their writings are replete with examples of their invoking an active personal God, but very little recorded on the details -- i.e., whether they believed in the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, etc. As I noted, there is more with Madison than Washington because eyewitnesses testified first hand him denying the Trinity. And there is one letter -- to Frederic Beasley -- where Madison is asked to talk about God and he 1) talks almost entirely in rationalistic terms, never referring to the Bible or his church's creed, and 2) praises as an authority, Samuel Clarke, an Anglican minister in England who was nearly defrocked for pushing theological unitarianism in that Church.
It's amazing how, among the early Presidents, none of them were Christians, if by "Christian" we define such as belief in the Trinity and other orthodox creeds. All were, however, devout theists.
My research shows that on the basics of their creed, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin were almost entirely agreed. Whatever term we choose to call this system, arguably it applies to all of them.
I understand Newdow's point to a degree and it was perhaps unfair to put him in the same sentence as O'Hair and last century's Communist ideologues. And you are right, people are mad at him because of his objection to any mention of "God" in the public square.
Like you, I have no problem with "ceremonial deism." If someone wants to claim that "under God" is a specific reference to the Judeo/Christian concept of "God", then they bear the burden of proof and persuasion. But since Congress has always had a fair contingent of both Unitarians and Quakers (another "non-Christian" religion with a proud American history) then proof has to be more than "most Americans profess to be Christians and so the 'God' on our currency and in our pledge is a uniquely Judeo/Christan one."
I am finding this discussion fascinating, particularly given the current claims made by some that the founders meant the United States to be a Christian country. The folks propounding the view seem also to be of the camp that believes no one is saved without explicit acceptance of Christ. Does this mean Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were not saved?
You really buy this Souls Of Distortion nonsense? Gave it a quick read over. Its full of some truth and a whole lot quackery and pseudo science all mixed together. Perpetual motion machines. Military conspiracies to keep the world from ending world hunger. Vortex machines to control the weather, create hurricanes, and planet shattering earthquakes. Miracle revelations by quacks like Hutchinson whose metal melting and levitation can only be observed on video and never in person by real scientists. DaVinci Code descendants of Jesus. The shoes of the fisherman symbol being claimed to be a representation of a photon. Crop circles that are the manifestation of the universal conciousness instead of the hoaxes and pranks they are in fact. The only thing missing was the sound of the Fifth Dimension's "Age Of Acquarius" playing in the background as I read parts of the thing, with illustrations by Shirley McClaine.
The combine all of the above with large portions of eastern mysticism that we are all God and we are all the universe. Much just a variation of the original lie. Still the best one. Eat this apple and you will be as God.
And atheist deride christians for believing in creation science. LOL
Says the "Dog"
The short answer is "Yes."
The longer answer is that many of the Founding Fathers considered themselves "religious" but only nominally Christian. And they believed that the United States was a "religious nation" though not necessarily a "Christian nation" (using the orthodox Trinitarian definition of "Christianity"). Those on the religious right who conflate "religious nation" with "Christian nation" make the same error (and their argument is the opposite side of the same coin) that I described in my last post.
Complex machines can be made to suffer can they not. After all isn't suffering in the human machine just the product of purely physical/biological processes electrical impulses traveling through the electrical wiring in the human toaster. Suffering is nothing but electrical impulses and neurons firing. How is that something other than a purely physical biological process. Nothing more. Humans to an atheist are nothing but complex biological toasters. That's the essence of it, whether you atheists like it or not.
strategichamlet:
Character is the most important qualification for elected officials, especially the very high offices in this country. The fact that you regard character to be unrelated to qualifications says it all. You don't understand what makes a good leader or a good employee.
Ship Erect, I've never said I don't like atheists so I don't know where you are getting your facts from. Maybe you could provide some quotes.
Andrew Okun:
Yes certainly that's true, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not there are any moral implications to turning off a toaster.
Great but on what basis or what authority do you argue that your thinking and your moral code is the one that every other human toaster must adhere? If some human toasters don't agree with your personal preferences and go about turning off other human toasters by what right of moral authority do you claim that these actions by human toasters that do not share your personal moral code have done something immoral? By their personal moral code they have done nothing immoral. Who are you to claim your morality is the only true morality. On what basis do you support such conceit. If humans are just complex biological toasters and nothing more, then turning one off can't have any moral implications. No more than throwing away a blender.
CJColucci, beliefs are character traits. That's your mistake and your answer.
Says the "Dog"
I didn’t used to have a problem with the ceremonial deism idea either. I always thought the In God We Trust could be for the religious folks and the blank spot, on the other side of Washington’s head on the quarter say, could be for us atheists. No big deal really. As you point out, “God” is a fairly general word and can cover a lot of religious thoughts. It seems restricted to monotheists, excluding those of us who go with zero or multiple gods, but still, including Quakers, Muslims, Jews and arguably Hindus is pretty broad.
The thing that has changed my mind is the question of intent. I’d go for the “no biggie” opinion if folks on the other side of the question would go for “no biggie” too, but they don’t.
Take the “In God We Trust” motto on coins, which was promoted during a religious resurgence toward the end of the Civil War. The idea, according to the Rev. Watkinson in a letter to Treasury Secretary Chase, was not a quiet exercise in inoffensive deism, but to “relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism.” And his interest was not ceremonial … it was to save the nation from the catastrophes that were overwhelming it, catastrophes he attributed to the body politic’s failure to publicly acknowledge the sovereignty of God. By his measure, I’d be a heathen and I’m sorry, but I’d rather not have my ignominy relieved. It was made the national motto in the 1950s explicitly to strengthen our national faith in the face of communism and after the issuance of the new dollar coins, where the motto is harder to find because it’s on the edge, one writer advocated a boycott in order to “Fight to restore this nation’s Judeo-Christian traditions. Don’t let the ACLU and the militant atheists win.” To him, this battle is part of the war over America’s very soul. You may argue that it is not an establishment to stick a vaguely monotheistic but non-specific proclamation of monotheism on coins, but I don’t think it is ceremonial at all.
The addition of “under God” to the pledge of allegiance – 60 years after its adoption – was similarly motivated not by the claim that mentioning God was “merely” a ceremonial reference to the many religious among our forebears. It was seen as a part of the world struggle against tyranny. The change was signed off on by Eisenhower after (not sure how much because of) a sermon in which Dr. Docherty said that the pledge as then spoken would have been identical to one in Moscow and that the freedoms we proclaim are wholly and utterly dependent on our faith in God, which ought to be acknowledged in our pledge. He argued it was not an establishment because it didn’t – and shouldn’t – distinguish between Christians of various sects, Jews, Muslims and other religious. Then he gets to it with this stinker …
The addition of “under God” was, therefore, intended to protect America from “spiritual parasites” like me who cannot fulfill the American ideal due to the lack of a coherent ethic.
To have a pledge intended to repudiate my philosophy and ethics publicly, in front of my children, in the name of the United States, is neither “ceremonial” nor “no biggie.”
Your inability to contemplate a universal code of ethics that doesn't depend on a deity amuses me.
Actually, that's not true. Your inability is common to many people and is understandable, it's your half-baked arguments that amuse me.
Legalizing torture, leading a country to attack another on false pretenses, fomenting a religious/civil war--they're all "inhuman and quite monstrous." Feel free to disagree.
Might I suggest Daily Kos or Huffington Post? Volokh likes rational discussion.
I'm an athiest or at least an agnostic. I'm pretty darn moral.
If you didn't have your bible, would you automatically become a child rapist? Is the only thing standing between you and committing murder is a book?
Scary.
I pay taxes, got a car license, obey the law and I do this without have to consult the Ten Commandments or refer to Exodus or something.
Being Christian is no guarantee you're moral. Being an athiest or agnostic is no guarantee of immorality.
So says humble me. :)
And I'm sure at some point you will tell what character traits Christians have, right?
The risk that theists will act out is far greater than that of an atheist.
Your inability to define yourself except by what you don't believe is what amuses me and shows me that most atheists spend no time thinking about what they are FOR and the implications of their constructs and instead seem to spend all their time only thinking about what they are AGAINST or what they don't believe.
Yours and apparently every other atheist here who seem to always define themselves by what they are against (faith, deity, christians, etc.) as opposed to what they believe and WHY is what amuses me.
Atheists are always great at deriding others beliefs but very short on describing the basis for their own beliefs and WHY anyone else should agree with their beliefs.
You atheists here are great at telling me about your personal moral codes, but not one of you has made any attempt, much less a credible attempt, at trying to answer the question: WHY should your personal moral code apply to any other atheist or any other person? If another atheist following through on the belief that humans are just very complex biological machines (and that all thoughts and feelings are nothing more than a product of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain, etc.) decided that there was no moral implications at all to turning off any number of human toasters, what is your atheist argument for why such behavior by some atheist other than yourselves is immoral?
Please all of you atheists here enlighten me with what you believe and your arguments for WHY your own personal moral code should be universal and applicable to people other than yourself?
Why if a human is just a soulless complex biological toaster are there any moral implications should someone (other than yourself of course) set about turning off any number of human toasters?
Please don't answer with childish replies about what deists and christians believe. I'm not asking you about others beliefs, and I'm not asking you about your own personal moral code. I'm asking you about your theories of morality and what arguments you have for why your personal moral code should be universal and apply to people who don't agree with you?? I'm asking you to explain to me from the atheist point of view why it would be immoral for some atheist (other than yourself) whose own moral code felt that there was absolutely no moral implications to turning off a few soulless human toasters would be acting immorally.
Please logically take me through it step by step, why is your personal moral code universal and binding on others who do not share your moral code and have no trepidation when it comes to turning off their blender or a few human toasters?
Ship Erect,
I'm afraid your listing at about 90 degrees. I never compared atheism to any of the things you listed, and your argument assumes the answer without any independent proof at all.
Says the "Dog"
Waiting with baited doggy breath for an intelligent and thoughtful reply from all the atheists here explaining to me why their personal moral codes are universal, binding on other atheists and others period, and why it would be immoral for another atheist who believes there is nothing moral about turning off a blender or a soulless human toaster is acting immorally by so doing even though they are not violating their own personal moral code. Atheists start your engines.
I appreciate your point of view. I'm afraid I'm not being clear in my questions. I'm not stating or asking that a particular atheist (such as yourself) can't have a personal moral code of their own that governs their behavior and actions in life. I'm asking what is the argument for your moral code to be universal in its application and require OTHER atheists to adhere to your moral code? Explain to me why another atheist can't have a moral code different from your own. Explain to me why if another atheist's moral code was that since humans are just soulless machines, more complex but ultimately no different than any toaster, that it was perfectly fine for him to go around turning human toasters off that his actions would be immoral? On what basis of atheist thinking/theology do you argue that your personal moral code is the standard by which all other persons and atheist's morality should be judged??
Says the "Dog"
As always, I thank you for a good laugh. The idiocy of your comments always brings a smile to face. (Before you start with the ad hominum stuff, I didn't say you were an idiot, I said your arguments were idiotic...i'm attacking the argument, not the person).
I will gladly define my beliefs for you and I will gladly define why I think they are universal as soon as you do the same. Explain to me why the bible is a universal code and why i should follow it. (you may not necessarily follow the bible, i'm just using it as a convenient place holder...feel free to substitute whatever it is you follow in its place)
What I'm saying is:
I'm not stating or asking that a particular theist (such as yourself) can't have a personal moral code of their own that governs their behavior and actions in life. I'm asking what is the argument for your moral code to be universal in its application and require OTHER theists to adhere to your moral code? Explain to me why another theist can't have a moral code different from your own. Explain to me why if another theist's moral code was that for humans who do not follow the same brand of theism it is perfectly fine for him to go around killing believers of a different theism that his actions would be immoral? On what basis of theist thinking/theology do you argue that your personal moral code is the standard by which all other persons and theist's morality should be judged??
You must obviously have some mind-blowing answer to these questions since you think they are so important and fundamental to a persons life.
Oh, btw, we know you hate athiests given the way you stereotype them. anyone with an IQ higher than 2 can see that.
Says the "Bigger and Badder Dog"
i crack myself up...your persona is hilarious.
(1) You need to read some Kant.
(2) This is just completely wrong:It's not "the strong belief by many atheist Jews." It's the belief of every Jew, from the least observant to the most Orthodox. Judaism is not defined by belief. It is (as we've discussed before here) tribal. If you're born a Jew, you're a Jew, whether you believe in G-d, the Amazing Toaster, or nothing.
What's the moral significance of this political risk? Are you saying it's bigoted to want your representative to believe in God? Let me put it this way, an openly atheist runs for Congress in your district, you are no more likely to vote for him because of this fact? If you say no, I have to say I don't believe you. I'm agnostic myself, but there's something that sets me off about people who insist on identifying as "atheist." That's based on part of public figures who have identified as such, and part on my personal experience. But it's also just the manifestation of admiration, what Ambrose Bierce defined as "our polite recognition of another's resemblance ro ourselves." You, Mr. Somin, are more likely to admire and therefore support a candidate who is an avowed atheist, I am more likely to support a candidate who isn't openly religious but doesn't get his jollies by pissing off the devout Dawkins style. Why is that a problem, except that these preferences lead to a result which you don't particularly like?
The preference of believers for believing representatives is to my mind the result of the perfectly rational search for a like-minded represenative. I would expect that other things being equal, atheists would prefer atheists for office. You won't see me saying or insinuating they're bigots, either.
The risk that theists will act out is far greater than that of an atheist."
If I was as certain as Dawkins that there was no God, I probably wouldn't have the sort of moral code society would want. I would still have one, of course, but it would be a whole lot less conducive to a productive life and a peaceful society. Maybe you're right, maybe atheists are more likely to lead moral lives free of religion than those who are religious; yet that doesn't mean that the mass of humanity that feels it does need religion as a restraint on anti-social behavior is crazy. They may need it. Hey, maybe I'm wrong about myself (and others), and a world without God (or the possibility of God) wouldn't be so bad. I wouldn't bet the world on it, though. Whittaker Chambers wrote that "man without mysticism is a monster." It needn't be true for every man to still be true.
No but they might be advocating the short sighted solution to the problem of 'social behavior control'. I was raised since the earliest childhood that there are many reasons for the Biblical commands and was given them, not just a rule to follow. In way of example one of the simplest for a child to understand was the 'selfish' principle behind the golden rule: we expect from others what we know is in our own hearts. The liar lives in a world filled with liars, the thief is always concerned that everyone is trying to steal from them - by treating others as we would like to be treated we make not only their world better but our own in very objective ways. Just understanding that hurting others was hurting myself as a kid made me the most 'moral' of any of my friends and not a God in sight. And my parent's guiding my moral development was more of the same - there are reasons 'morality' - even Jesus made it clear that the Law was made for man, not man for the Law.
Relying on the 'divine fiat' solution might be easier but is it really the better solution in the long run? Might not be crazy to take the easy road but it certainly might not be the best one.
Come on you atheists. Not a single atheist, not a law professor atheist, nobody can explain to me why their own personal moral code (which they all claim to have and I don't doubt this) must apply to the actions of OTHER atheists. Nobody can explain what atheists believe in only what they don't believe in. No atheist here with the intellectual fortitude to explain why and how some atheist moral code must govern the actions of all atheists or all persons in general. Nobody can answer why an atheist who doesn't share your own personal moral code would be acting immorally if they set about turning off a few human toasters?
Gary
Your arguments are nonsensical. You can't explain why a theist who doesn't share your own theism would be acting immorally if he "turned off toasters," either. Christianity (e.g.) might claim to set down a strict moral code against killing, but why would any non-Christian care what Christianity said on the subject? So how does that make a Christian moral code "govern the actions of all theists or all persons in general"?
I've already told you: I'm not really an atheist; I believe in the magical rhubarb pie of knowledge, and the pie's great sugary goodness can and should be spread to all non-believers because it is a freestanding metaphysical universal truth, not like that relativistic bs espoused by atheists.
Apparently this revelation solves the "universal moral code" dilemma entirely, in your view.
Which is pretty darn weird.
You're (apparently) an atheist with respect to Zeus and the rest of Greek mythology. What makes you any better than the rest of us atheists?
Woof woof "Human"
Are you an Orthodox Rhubarb-Pieist or one of those damned heretical Strawberry-Rhubarb-Pieists?
It is certainly easy to argue why christian morality applies to other christians. There are arguments that christian's can easily make as to why their morality (not dogma but morality) applies to everyone christian or not.
So explain why an atheist's personal morality must be binding upon other atheists? Not on everyone in the world but just on another atheist. Making that explanations for Christians is easy, so can we please skip defining atheist thought and beliefs in the negative people and somebody tell me that there is at least one atheist around that has given more thought to what they believe than just "I don't believe the bible".
As for Kant. Read him at DePaul 35 years ago. Wasn't all that impressed, but that's about all I recall from that course. I really disliked the stream of consciousness writing style of one of them, can't remember if it was Kant or Hume.
Says the "Dog"
Still the dog, but I do screw up and us a different handle from time to time.
So apparently you have no clue what you believe or why. Just what you don't believe.
Says the "Dog"
Ed, I count a hell of a lot more insults from you and Gary than from any atheist on this thread. Nor, I suspect, have you paid attention to the atheists here who have explicitly explained their code of ethics. Again, I know that it's boring, but people will take you more seriously if you read before you write.
Gary, I'm sorry that Kant is boring. I really am. But that doesn't excuse the vapidity in your ignorant comments about a philosophy you explicitly don't understand.
That might be because, unlike Christianists, atheists don't feel there is a need to regulate everyone else's thoughts, beliefs and behavior. If you want to believe in a deity called the spaghetti monster, who requires, as an act of moral faith, that you eat spaghetti only on Sundays but not Fridays, then by all means go ahead an do so. Atheists are concerned about their own beliefs and behaviors. If you want to act like an idiot, you don't have to ask my permission to do so.
So what is MY personal belief? Bob said it well when he said that he was taught the reasons for proper behavior. Personally, I think that if I treat another person badly, or steal, or lie, or whatever, it hurts me in the long run far more than it hurts others. I don't abuse drugs or alcohol, because in the end they abuse me. I am nice to other people because I LIKE being nice to them. I don't hold grudges against another person, or hold onto anger, because that creates stress within me. I've thought of all these for a long time, and I realize I'm not always perfectly up to my own standards, but then few Christianists or other religionists are either.
If I had an overall standard, it is that I hope to treat others as I would like them to treat me. It's similar to the golden rule, but note also that Confusious actually said something simliar many centuries before the New Testament was written.
So I am right because it's right for me. I have no business telling YOU what is right for you. And you have no business telling me what is right for me either.
Now, there are some people who are all worked up on this board, demanding that atheists should reveal their moral code. If it is not revealed to their satisfaction, they respond that atheists are immoral, and have no code. (See ed o above). This is ridiculous.
There are some people who just insist that if you are an atheist, you are immoral. Nothing I can say or do could possibly prove otherwise to them. Which of course is an attitude that Jesus never had, and who was never concerned with other people's actual religion or lack thereof when he did his preaching. In fact, if you actually did read the book that you purport to follow, you would see that in Mathew, Jesus was asked what he commandments are. His response? That he has none. None! but that IF he had one, it would be to love one another as you love yourself. I happen to think that is a wonderful message, and a terrific way to live one's life. I fully subscribe to it.
But of course means that these people who dislike athiests don't even follow the teachings of the person they purport to revere. Strange, isn't it? An atheist like me follows the teachings of Christ and takes them to heart much more so that most people who call themselves Christians!
(Of course there is another interpretation: Perhaps these people really do 'love' another as they love themselves. They in fact DON"T love themselves, they hate themselves, and thereby hate everyone else just as badly!)
Which leads back to my original question: by what process of reasoning, or on the basis of what empirical evidence, does one come to the conclusion that an atheist is noticeably more likely than a theist to be morally unfit for public office? If there is a reasonable answer to that question, then not voting for an atheist is no different from, say, not voting for a Republican. If there isn't a reasonable answer, and so far no one has provided one, then not voting for an atheist is more like not voting for an Irishman or an Episcopalian or a Negro. There's a name for that -- bigotry.
OK fine. Then if another atheist who doesn't share your personal moral point of view and feels its perfectly moral to go around turning off human toasters, on what basis do you or any other atheist argue that this OTHER atheist is acting immorally. This question is simple and everyone, not just you, keeps dancing all around it.
I got it. You personally have a moral code, but what's the rational for determining ANOTHER atheists actions are immoral or not? If its as you say, everyone has there own morals and thoughts, then an atheist with no moral code against turning off human toasters would be acting perfectly morally from the atheist perspective. If not they explain why and how.
The above question isn't just for you but all the atheist and atheist law professors either failing to answer this question or dancing all around it.
CJColucci:
How hard is this. If there is no such thing as a distinctively atheist moral code, then please explain on what basis can it be reasoned that an atheist whose own personal moral code doesn't prohibit going around turning off soulless human toasters is acting immorally when he does so? Again a very simple question. If all morals to an atheist are personal and there are no universally applicable to all atheists moral codes, then if any particular atheist has no personal moral problem with turning off soulless human toasters on what basis can it be argued that the actions of such an atheist are immoral.
As I've said above its easy to make the argument that a believer who murders is acting immorally, with out regard to that believer's personal moral code, but what is the argument for any universal standards of moral conduct applicable to all atheists? If there aren't any then its impossible to argue that an atheist who personally has no moral problems with killing people is acting immorally.
Come on guys, the question is easy, and apparently the lack of anyone with a credible answer is also shows the moral vacuum that is atheism.
Says the "Dog"
Your question isn't "easy," it is, for reasons I have already explained, incoherent.
Why don't you try answering mine?
Take a deep breath and try to say something rationally connected to anything I've posted or asked. Your last post was well beyond your normal standards of intellect and courtesy.
If I don't understand Kant, as you say, and if Kant is somehow relevant to the question of why an atheist acts immorally when turning off soulless human toasters, then just explain the part that makes this so.
If a particular atheist whose own personal moral code does NOT believe there are any moral implications to turning off a soulless human toaster, on what is the argument, Kantian or otherwise, why that atheist has acted immorally. Its not a hard question. Surely, all the Harvard and Yale graduate atheists here can provide a rational answer that states the reasoning in a well crafted short post. If you can't explain it and teach it to someone else asking to be enlightened, then the most likely explanation for your inability is that YOU don't understand that which you claim to understand nearly well enough.
Says the "Dog"
Your questions aren't relevant at this point because they were all based on the false assumption that I was asking for something that I have NOT been asking. As I explained numerous times throughout this thread.
Maybe the answer isn't easy, because you don't want to admit the answer to yourself or anyone else. You don't appear to be alone in the inability to answer this very simple question.
Says the "Dog"
It seems to me you have conceded his point...
"Atheists, like theists, have moral codes. Whatever the theoretical bases for them (and neither the atheist nor the theist has presented a thoroughly satisfactory theory), they do tend to converge on a large group of central propositions."
Atheists live as a minority among believers. It shouldn't suprise that their "moral codes" have significant overlap; much of their intuitions and moral foundation is formed within a religious society. Further, atheists would find it hard to find acceptance if their moral codes were significantly at odds with the majority of society.
But in the spirit of fair play, I'll try to answer yours. Maybe it will provoke an answer to mine, but I am not hopeful. Here goes: nobody, theist or atheist alike, has a knock-down argument for the universal character of whatever moral beliefs they happen to hold. The theist who thinks he does, and that his theism provides the knock-down argument, is simply wrong. If you don't think so, take it up with Plato, not with me. We're all in the same boat. As a practical matter, however, the boat floats, even if it leaks in spots. People with widely divergent theories or justifications tend to coalesce around a relatively non-controversial core of moral beliefs. This overlapping consensus suggests some basis (quite likely having to do with biology) for the core moral beliefs shared by most theorists, however they get to them. All of us are more certain of these core beliefs than we are in any possible theory by which we get to them. As far as I know, that's all there is, and it's enough.
Your turn.
Clever and amusing, but not what I said. Mine is not the Leo Strauss argument that belief in the supernatural is a necessary fiction for the ignorant masses, but not for the enlightened elite. Certainly religion can itself drive mass murder, as our current struggle against Islamist terror proves, yet the 20th century's greatest murderers were all atheists, which cannot be said to be the result of "the help" lacking belief. Of course atheism doesn't necessitate sociopathy any more than religion necessitates benevolence. Yet, I do think it's notable that a group comprising around 10% of the population is represented so well among the mass murderers of the last century.
Perhaps it isn't so much the restraint factor at work here as the innate need for purpose or an organizing principle. Rejecting religion, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler all embraced a more dangerous religion of sorts, communism and fascism. Atheists do tend to be more ideological than non-Atheists, of the Rand or Marx variety. Ask yourself if that isn't a subsitute for religion, and is it a more or less dangerous substitute? Personally, I'd rather be governed by Baptists than Objectivists. How about you?
Yeah, I hear that went over real well in Ireland. And Germany. And England. And...
Are you sure your name isn't Jack Chick, BTW? Becuase you remind me of him.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I don't know, I'm sure you draw no conclusions about born again Christians and evangelicals, do you? That provides absolutely no information, does it?
Of course the information value of such designation can be overridden by a more complete picture--an evangelical may be pro-choice, but in the absence of lots of information on the individual, would it be so irrational to assume the candidate favored the pro-life position? Economists call this "statistical discrimination." In the absence of perfect information, it sometimes makes sense to make decisions based on the characteristics of the groups you are evaluating. Specfically, think about one's view on separation of church and state and atheism. Might there be a correlation there? I think so!
Finally, as I said before, I think it's permissable for voters to prefer representatives that are like-minded. Candidates who come from humble backgrounds benefit from this; are those who penalize an opponent for his privileged life bigots against the affluent? I don't think so, but this sort of rigid thinking you have outlined here would require us to label these people bigots. If I'm a voter and I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and this influences my outlook on how I treat others and how I view pretty much every facet of my life and conduct, is it really so crazy to desire a president or representative who holds these same values?
Good question. And it's a good question because it shows the fallacy I'm trying to expose. If a person is an Objectivist (and I don't happen to know whether Objectivists believe in God or not), I can rationally draw a lot of inferences about the Objectivist's likely public policy stances on taxes, the environment, social welfare, and foreign policy. if I like the probable policy views of the Objectivist, I can vote for him; if not, not. Unless I know something about his moral character that counsels not voting for him. But I can't draw a lot of inferences about whether the Objectivist will plunder the treasury, seduce pages and interns, or otherwise misbehave. Now let's look at the Baptist. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are Baptists. So is Pat Robertson, I believe. And if not Pat Robertson, then someone just as awful. A candidate's being a Baptist tells me exactly nothing about his likely public policy views. It likewise tells me exactly nothing about whether he will plunder the treasury, seduce pages and interns, or otherwise misbehave. The inference from "Baptist" to "man of good character" is a leap of faith. The inference from "atheist" to "man of bad character" is equally a leap of faith. And a leap of bad faith, too.
And wasn't it Kissinger who said that academic debates are so intense because they are ultimately of so little consequence?
Apparently, you keep wanting atheists to say that there is nothing morally wrong with killing another person for no reason at all, right? And because we don't say, yes, that's exactly what we believe, you keep saying we refuse to answer the question.
I've explained my answer -- that I follow the commandment of Christ, that I follow the philosophy of Confusious, and many other philosophers.
That is MY answer. Other athiests may have a different one. Now, you can say you disagree with the answer -- and if you do, please cite what you disagree with, but stop complaining that we haven't answered your question.
And now that I have answered your question, please answer mine: You earlier mentioned that Christians have certain character traits. I asked you identify them. You haven't yet.
As for moral codes about killing, I would remind you that quite often in history, the Pope and other Christian leaders have often said it was quite alright to turn off soulless toasters -- ahem, kill people -- simply because they refused to convert to the proper form of Christianity. How many people were burned at the stake by morally Christian people? Or were killed in Crusades?
So Dog -- I would like to turn your question on to you: What part of YOUR moral code prevents you from killing people that you disagree with? It surely cannot be any form of Christianity, because virtually every form of it had in fact said killing others is the morally correct action to take.
Your question has been answered by Kant and Hume. I'm sorry you don't remember them, and get them confused a bit, but their answers took up whole books. It's not something you stamp into a blog comment and expect it to be complete in any serious way. The only attempt I will make is to say that humans feel relatively similar emotions, so we make similar judgments on actions that produce those emotions, and we act as a group to increase the good and minimize the bad by creating "morals" that we instill in our society strongly.
So the answer to your question:
Is that "immoral" makes no sense outside of a shared belief. Muslim societies view many things as immoral that you and I see no problem with. They just 'got together' and agreed. This raging atheist's actions are immoral if the society he is in say they are.
If you want more, ask a philosopher or read the books.
Next, you keep insisting that Christianity provides some sort of universal morality. (And atheism therefore lacks it) This is not true. All you can show is that Christianity presents a set of beliefs by which you can judge others "moral" or "immoral". So what? I can create a set of beliefs by which I judge others. I can even teach my beliefs to others, and we can judge as a group. People who accept my system will reach (basically) similar results. People who don't, won't. Christianity is no different.
But that is not what you mean; you keep implying that there is some sort of ABSOLUTE sense of right and wrong that Christianity has (and others lack). In other words, even if you don't accept Christianity your actions can still be judged 'right' or 'wrong' by it. Sorry, not true. Christianity is just a belief, like being a Muslim, Jew, Wiccan, or Norse. It doesn't exist independent of its believers.
There was a question earlier that I don't believe you answered, which was would you go around 'unplugging toasters' if you lost your faith? (Since you seem to imply that is the consequence of the loss of faith.) If not, why not?
Your questions are answered in the Bible. I'm sorry you don't remember it.
See that answer is just as much a non-answer to your questions as yours and others claiming all the answers are in Kant just go read the book.
I'll answer some more of your questions tomorrow and I will once again try to get you and all the others here still dancing around my question to finally answer it.
Says the "Dog"
So when he questions the moral code of atheists, he is really doubting the integrity of anyone who does not belong to an acceptable sect.
JYLD is really saying that he is bigoted toward any but those of his own particular religion. He just isn't honest enough to say it.
No I keep saying nobody is answering the question because nobody, including you, has answered the question. It would appear that most here don't understand the question or choose not to understand the question.
You for one continue to state you have your own moral code and everyone has their own moral code. I have accepted that as a given, that you have your own moral code. The question is if an atheist whose own moral code is different from yours and believes turning off soulless human toasters is perfectly ok on what basis do you argue or assert that this other atheists actions in killing people would be immoral.
Christians could easily answer the very same question with regard to other christians. If a christian goes around killing people and claims its not immoral because the killings don't violate that christians personal moral code, other christians would have no problem providing the argument and rational for why that particular christian was full of shit and was in fact acting immorally.
I'm asking that you and all the others here do the same thing for an atheist who goes around turning off soulless human toasters. Tell me why that atheists behavior (not your own behavior but this other atheists behavior) is immoral. If that atheist isn't violating his own moral code then when he does all the killing then that can't be the basis for saying his actions are immoral. So on what basis if any do atheists reason that this hypothetical atheist going around killing people is immoral.
Are you going to argue because he violated your personal code of morality? I don't think so given what you've already stated. So what is the atheist rational for determining that another atheist going around killing people is behaving immorally when the atheist doing the killing doesn't think his actions are immoral.
As for all yours and others continued attempts to throw slings and arrows at christians killing. These points are completely irrelevant to the question you and everyone here keep ducking.
I'm not asking all of you atheists out there to define yourselves by what you DON'T believe. I'm asking you to educate me on what you DO believe. Surely at least one of all you Harvard and Yale educated atheists here can come up with something more to detail what it is you DO believe and what defines MORALITY, than some lame comments about what you don't believe, (i.e. you don't believe the bible or in God or in the tooth fairy). Got it. No problem. I accept what you don't believe in. Now please tell me what some of you atheists do believe in, and you can start by answering the simple question. If an atheist other than yourself goes around killing people and that atheist doing the killing doesn't believe his actions are immoral, on what basis do you tell that atheist his actions are in fact immoral.
So far out of all the nothingness in response to this question all I've heard is every atheist has his own personal moral code, which doesn't answer my question at all. Unless by that you atheists here are trying to tell me that each atheists actions are judged only by the standard of that particular atheists personal moral code. Of course that is NOT an argument for why the killing atheist is behaving immorally because the killing atheist's personal moral code doesn't think such killings are immoral.
I am always continually amazed at the almost universal lack of contemplation by any atheist about what they believe. They seem to only be capable of defining themselves by what they don't believe. Ask them to explain something as simple as my question here about what they DO believe, and they are completely dumb founded and clueless. It doesn't appear atheists ever put much time into thinking about what the do believe or the implications of those beliefs. The failure to receive any answer yet to my question demonstrates it quite clearly.
Says the "Dog"
Bzzzzt. Nice try and thanks for playing, but your comment is just a disguised personal attack. Nothing in your post reflects anything I've said, and since it appears without any analysis of quotations of something I've actually written seems to be based entirely upon your own bigoted beliefs and prejudices about those who dare to ask questions that are not approved for the asking.
Says the "Dog"
Simple question, requires only a "yes" or "no".
"If person is a satanist that is a relevant character trait to evaluate. If a person is a Christian that is a relevant character trait. If a person believes in nothing and, in effect, thinks man is a really complicated toaster that is a relevant character trait."
My reply:
"So when he questions the moral code of atheists, he is really doubting the integrity of anyone who does not belong to an acceptable sect."
Your rejoinder:
"Nothing in your post reflects anything I've said, and since it appears without any analysis of quotations of something I've actually written"
Analysis: I was wrong when I said:
"JYLD is really saying that he is bigoted toward any but those of his own particular religion. He just isn't honest enough to say it."
In fact, you did say it. I stand corrected.
That's just the point, Dog, atheists are defined by what they don't believe. Atheists have moral views. They have political views. They root for particular sports teams, unless they don't like sports. And some don't. They like Chinese food. Or they don't. The only common denominator is that they don't believe in deities. Any moral code, other than one based on "God said:'thou shalt..'" is logically compatible with atheism. (A wide variety of moral codes is also, for that matter, logically compatible, and historically associated, with theism.) It makes no more sense to talk about a distinctively atheistic moral code than it does to talk about a distinctively atheistic cuisine.
To quote JYLD:
You have a reading comprehension problem. Nothing in the quote above makes any value judgment whatsoever as to whether the various character traits described are good or bad.
YOU make unstated assumptions about the supposed unstated meaning of the above and then proceed to argue against not anything I've written but your own incorrect assumptions about the unstated/unwritten meaning in the above quote.
Assumptions in this case makes an ASS out of U and umptions (as Samuel Jackson said in the movie the Long Kiss Goodnight). Your ASSumptions about what you think I mean but never wrote or implied, are a result of your own bigotry and prejudice against those you do not think like you. Just as I stated previously.
Now with your last post you have shown everyone, that not only do you have a reading comprehension problem magnified by your own idea/thought bigotry, but that you are proudly confident in your exclamations about your incorrect analyses and logic.
Finally, your reading comprehension and idea bigotry/prejudice comes in to play again when you claim I am questioning some person's or atheists morality. I have questioned no one's morality as being good or bad. I have asked atheists to explain to me the basis of their morality and beliefs in a specific fact situation. And as yet no atheist has provided any answer whatsoever.
Learn to read the words written and try to understand their meaning as written without distorting the meanings with your own prejudices and thought bigotry and conceptual stereotypes.
Says the "Dog"
You seem to believe that all atheists believe one thing, and that you repeat your question despite the patient explantations from commenters such as CJColucci that your question has no general answer.
Your refusal to accept this response is at the least obtuse - if someone were to ask the question "what is the basis of the moral code of religious people?" of an Aghori, I would like to know how their answer would apply to you.
If you say "it doesn't", or if you say "my moral code has a different foundation than theirs" even though they are religously based, then you should understand how your repeated "simple" question is incoherant. If you do not, it is not your reading comprehension that I question, merely your honesty.
As for prejudice - why yes, I am prejudiced. I have no use for religious bigots who gleefully pluck the motes from the eyes of others, while ignoring the redwood in their own. I further beleive that you repeat your "question" merely to gain some strange sense of moral superiority, which would seem to fall into the venial sin category known as "pride".
But I can forgive that.
I felt like I did answer your question, but here is one more post to make it clear. (You said you would come back to the rest of my post today. I hope you do.) I'll answer your words directly.
Because morality is defined by society. Most if not nearly all people (atheists included) would agree individually that these actions are wrong. They would then get together and judge as a group that these actions are immoral and should be punished.
Sure they would, The Bible. So what? The only difficulty you are posing is that atheists have to point to a different source. There are tons of philosophies explaining morals without the Bible. Kant and Hume were only the first ones to do it well.
Perhaps you will say that if these philosophies are all different, then they will be inconsistent and there will be no agreement. In fact, we see that most morals end up being very similar on the important points (don't kill), but even if they are different then only the principles that are agreed upon will be considered immoral by the society.
The same criticism you are making would apply to christianity, as there are very many different ways to read the Bible. Some take it more literally, some less. How do they agree? Is it immoral to work on Sunday?
I hope I just did so. He has violated the morals of his society.
Same answer.
Same answer. You might be suprised to learn that every atheist I've ever met (and I know lots) still thinks killing is wrong. As a group, we would have no problem condemning it and passing laws against it.
Well, they aren't. Everyone has been trying to point out to you that Christianity has the same "problem" that you are trying to point out. Thus, your point, even if correct, doesn't prove anything serious.
That's like asking all people in Vermont to say what they do believe. Everyone believes their individual things. They overlap strongly because we are all humans, Vermonters, and live in society, but your question doesn't make much sense.
Not what we're saying. Read above.
Finally, I want to point out that your whole argument is designed to show that there would be mass lawlessness without belief in God. That's not true. It didn't happen before Christianity, when they had different Gods. It doesn't happen in Japan, where they are largely atheist. And it wouldn't happen here.
But even if it was true it in NO way shows any evidence for God. At best, your argument is that we should all agree to believe in this myth because you think society would be better if we did.
You and one other person have attempted to answer my question. Both posts deserve a response, but do to a client going to Iran on Monday, I won't be able to give you both a reply until then.
Sorry for the delay.
Says the "Dog"