The atheistic left and the AHA have always held that reason and faith in God are somehow mutually exclusive. They point to the fact that the existence of God cannot be proven by science or reason. "Why all the mystery?", they say. After all, an omnipotent God could simply come crashing through the clouds and announce his existence, removing all doubt.

But God values our faith. And if He were to do this, what would that faith then be worth? It is through faith that God reveals himself to us, and I don't know anyone who has felt the presence of God in their life that doubts His existence. The AHA, in their denial, views faith in God on the same level as belief in Santa Claus, but those who have been touched by His hand know the difference.

So let them buy their commercials and billboards.

He will reveal Himself soon enough...

My Mother, now 88, remains a communist.

She remembers that her father, a Quaker who walked with great difficulty, due to an old farm injury, climbed the stairs nonetheless, to pray with her sisters and her before bed every night.

She has always acted in immitation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. She is in all appearances a kindly soul.

Still she denies herself belief in the existence of God. She attributes much of her belief system to the strong impression made on her by a teacher at Georgetown, a Quaker Prep School in eastern PA.

We have been losing the battle of protecting our children for more than Century.

Most of my family is like that...Behavior echoing Christian norms, but the essence and source denied vehemently.

Humanism, even wearing the best of Smiley Faces degenerates in short order to something hideous.

"Eat of the fruit that you might be as gods..."

The goodness of our nation owes it's debt to Christ alone.

This is utter nonsense. It is perfectly possible to prove that murder, theft, rape, etc, are wrong through reason. No divine revelation necessary.

An expectation of non-aggression is necessary for society to exist at all. To put that in layperson-friendly language, this means that people will not voluntarily interact and cooperate with others unless they feel reasonably confident that those others will not murder, rob, or otherwise initiate force against them. The prohibition on the initiation of violence is a necessary condition for society to exist at all. Without that, homo sapiens would be nothing more than a primitive race of solitary brutes.

The "commandment" against murder came first, and the mystical-religious rationale was built around it post-hoc. To suppose that morality was revealed through religion is to put the cart before the horse. To suggest that the fact that morality exists is proof of a supreme lawgiver is to engage in shameless question-begging.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Isaiah 55:9

As far as the goot Doktor is concerned that settles it.

I love America. Although our media prefer otherwise, we are the most diverse home to religions anywhere in the world, ranging from zero to the most orthodox.

Displaying ideas of faith (or lack thereof) in rented public spaces as a means of advertising is fair, although banning religious symbols from unrentable public space is iffy, in my book. Maybe what non-atheists should consider in competing with atheists for equal time is to put all those Nativity scenes on billboards or in cable TV ads as well.

Such ads won't be as fetching or personal as a three-dimensional manger in the town square, but at least you won't have the risk of running afoul of a politically correct judge. Yes, the cost is atrocious, but think of the expanded venue for the message - all religions in our great country have the ability to enjoy the same free expression as the atheists are willing to pay for.

Looking forward to a very ecumenical holiday season on TV and while running around town. Don't forget that your God (or not) may be very different than someone else's, and no faith or religion ever has a monopoly on goodness.

Libertarian atheist, from your perspective how does reason prove which morality is right when moralities conflict? In your defense of your morality you base it on a value of the necessity of the existence of society. How does reason tell you that this is something to be valued? What if reason leads another society to value being a race of solitary brutes? How do you decide according to the pure reason that you seem to be advocating here? I look forward to your response.

Reason cannot lead human beings to an existence as solitary brutes. Reason leads man to recognize the economic law of comparative advantage in obtaining the material values that maintain and enhance his life.

The laws of human morality derive logically from man's very nature as a being capable of rational thought.

Jim,

You'll be waiting forever for an answer that is not circular or otherwise logically invalid. Libertarian Atheist wrote, "It is perfectly possible to prove that murder, theft, rape, etc, are wrong through reason." It would have been slightly more accurate for him to write "It is perfectly possible to SUGGEST that murder, theft, rape, etc, are DELETERIOUS TO SOCIETY through reason," but that leaves him with explaining why societies that outlaw such things are more "right" than societies that do not. "Right" and "wrong" are moral concepts. The best you're going to get is that an atheistic citizenry can set norms based on what they judge to be most convenient for themselves and enact laws accordingly to punish those who act according to their own moral code (by, for example, murdering, raping, and theft), but that's just a roundabout way of saying that "might makes right." It's going to be pretty hard to "prove" that. Don't hold your breath.

Libertarian atheist-- who, in your ideal world, decides what is right and what is wrong? I think we are all interested in your answer to that question.

Army Officer, you completely misrepresent the argument for non-theistic morality. I do not suggest merely that murder, rape, and robbery are deleterious to society. I am asserting that society literally cannot exist unless individuals refrain from those things. A "society" in which those acts are considered acceptable is no society at all, but merely a population of non-cooperating individuals. When there is no assurance of security in life, liberty, and property, there can be no cooperation, no division of labor, and no sharing of knowledge either between individuals or between generations.

It is logically and empirically provable that without these forms of cooperation, human life is nasty, brutish, and short relative to what it is where cooperation is possible. It is logically and empirically provable that cooperation is possible only when aggressive violence is eschewed.

If the purpose of morality is to promote human life and prosperity, then it is objectively and irrefutably true that murder, rape, and robbery are morally wrong, whether or not a creator deity exists. I myself prefer to apply Occam's razor to the equation, and eliminate the superfluous supernatural entity.

To: Libertarian atheist,

If it were not for Societies that have already been established that have condoned evil and repressive things you might have a point. Let us hear your reasoning that proves Murder, Rape and Theft are wrong.

unfortunately, libertarian atheist is using God and the Bible to make his arguments. Without God, one cannot rely on logic in the first place. In a world of no designer or creator, there is no basis for logic, or morality. The world only works because there is one who sets the rules. Without God, there can be no law of logic as man and the world would be just a random rearragement of pond scum. It's like using air to argue that air doesnt exist. you cant see it, but you have to use it to make the argument that it doest exist. If there is no God then, as the author suggested, a group or society could easily argue that it is to the benefit of society to kill certain groups of people. It can only be wrong if there is power higher than man who makes the law.

Libertarian Atheist,

I have to once again respectfully disagree. What you wrote was, "It is perfectly possible to prove that murder, theft, rape, etc, are wrong through reason."

Prove is a very strong word. Something that is not directly observable can only be proven through deductive reasoning, and you did not even attempt to advance a deductive argument. You merely made the assertion that murder, theft, and rape were wrong because you personally prefer to live in societies that punish those who commit such acts rather than societies that do not. I agree with you in the sense that I prefer the former societies as well, but your or my preferences do not make them morally superior unless there is a moral code superior to the consensus of the individuals in a society. (Especially since some societies enforce such acts as a matter of law, i.e., Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.)

If you wish to withdraw your original statement I understand, but if you're going to claim that atheistic morality is provable by reason, please advance a line of deductive reasoning to support that. If your position is as provable as you claim I'll enthusiastically concede your point, but I hope you'll withdraw it with equal enthusiasm if you cannot present a valid line of deductive reasoning.

Great article.

Indeed, when Richard Dawkins considered “If somebody used my views to justify a completely self - centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people” he concludes:

“I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. I think it would be more:

‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’

I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.

I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can't get away with it’ and call the police.”

Note that he presupposes that the society/government/police would agree with him. Let him call the Gestapo in order to complain about Nazi mistreatment of Jews…he would be their next target.

At least, he states, “I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments.”

There is a debate between a theist and an atheist wherein this issue is discussed:

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheist-vs-christian-debate-morality-natural-or-supernatural

Generally speaking, most religious American's (80% or so) do not try and force upon non-believers their religious views (I am purposely leaving out a small % that would scream at Libertarian Atheist that they are going to hell).

Yet the Atheist is intent of shoving it in our face. And yet, they don't see the hypocrisy.

Ah yes, the ageless wisdom of the believers in their claim that without the constructs of Judeo-Christianity or some other form of theocracy there can be no morality and that all morality is inherently based on its teachings.

The basis of all morality starts with the individual who defines what to them is allowable (right/moral) and what is unallowable (wrong/immoral).

At the center of any moral discussion is the idea that all individuals are inherently self important individuals and as such must extend that same level of respect to all others in hopes it will then be returned to them in kind.

This means people by and large act in ways they personally deem to be moral and do so in their own self interest.

From that basis reason then dictates it is then necessary to refrain from any action that has the possibility of harming another. Hence others should refrain from these same actions as in doing so, they then receive respect for the idea of protection for themselves from others actions. Again, the personal extension of moral concepts by the individual is simply action focused on their own best interests.

The inspection of what is moral/immoral or right/wrong is initially a subjective discussion as it finds basis of all ideas within such a realm to be individually based.

The idea that biblical or indeed any theocratic text/teaching can be the only means or method for instilling moral thought in people and conversely is then the moral definitor in any discussion of what is moral seems more like aggrandizement by those from the theological sector than any sort of valid reason for their statements presupposing all morality stems from theology.

One seemingly reasonable question I would ask these same folks is, prior to the myriad of theocratic texts that help shape all the worlds theocratic groups of today, was there no morality achievable in that time?

Since the pure and simple basis I keep reading from every single proponent of "there can be no morality without religion" is exactly that, wouldn't this just as surely point to a total lack of morality in the world that existed prior to those texts/teachings?

If so it would seem that prior to the bible and many other religious texts having come into vogue the concepts of murder, rape and thefts of others possessions would have been every bit as valid and reasonable as any other act.

My profession is that all humans capable of rational thought will be in agreement that doing anything which has the potential to deprive, hurt or kill others will be found to be personally morally reprehensible, even if it is legally acceptable or even if these actions are sanctified by another area of theocratic ideology .

Laws and morality are not always in agreement with one another as morality is inherently again a subjective individual decision while laws are more broadly based and determined (at least ideally:) by majority opinion within a society.

To some, this would then point to the idea that “might makes right”, and if that's the case then it hardly points to this being am atheist idea, but one based in the concept that majorities enact laws. Majorities (larger groups of people) believing in a common ideal, propose and enact laws over all people, even when a smaller group (a minority) finds disagreement with their reasoning.

Would this then mean that majorities are inherently moral or that it's more simply that majorities enact laws? At least to me it is genuinely only the latter and not the former ;>)

"Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."

There are numerous examples of animal societies that appear to have an understanding that it is unwise to murder, rape and steal. Granted that it is usually based on the fear that one more powerful than themselves would punish them, but isn't that the case with humans as well?

I believe that a large proportion of people in today's world abide by the laws of man because they are afraid of being punished by society if they don't, not that they will be punished by a God.

Sure America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, but you don't have to be religious to play nice with others, you just have to have a little common sense.

Perhaps we can reach some middle ground based on logic. Most of us would agree that, like that old line from M.A.S.H., "It's nice to be nice to the nice." And furthermore that people should not commit rape, theft, and murder. That's fine as far as it goes, but we mostly think that because we live in a society where that is the norm. We generally refrain from doing those things because we don't think we OUGHT to. Enough of us agree that we made laws that establish punishments for those who do them anyway. That serves to deter at least some of the people who don't feel the moral compunction but fear the temporal consequences. Might may not make right, but it assigns penalties for deviating from law. The law in that case is just the consensus of what most people accept.

If that's as far as we can go - consensus - then we're stuck defending the holocaust, which was carried out by a democratically-elected government and occurred with the consent of the German people. If we decide to condemn the holocaust anyway, we're stuck defending a universal moral code that supersedes the preferences of human society. For that moral code to be binding it must derive from a source with the moral authority to tell entire civilizations, "That is morally wrong."

Can we all just get along anyway? History gives us an emphatic, "NO!" I'm going to disagree with MrKim's assertion that "My profession is that all humans capable of rational thought will be in agreement that doing anything which has the potential to deprive, hurt or kill others will be found to be personally morally reprehensible." If that's correct than anyone who disagrees with his concept of morality (based on his personal preference) is not capable of rational thought. Surely there are plenty of examples of people (and entire civilizations) that did not embrace something akin to Judeo-Christian morality. If an atheist wants to make the case that anyone who rejects his personal morality, informed by living in a Judeo-Christian society, is incapable of rational thought, I might as well step out of the debate, since my most worthy opponent is taking a harder stance than even I would. ;-)

Army Officer,

How could I have guessed we'd both wind up here as soon as I read the article :>)

Let's get through a few things and I'll start with : “people should not commit rape, theft, and murder. That's fine as far as it goes, but we mostly think that because we live in a society where that is the norm.”

Gladly we do both live in such a society where these behaviors are outside the norm, but … even in places where such activities are considered more normal occurrences, does that also mean that they are considered moral? If so, by that same reasoning what's goin on just across the Mexican border must be a real oasis of murder morality. What's odd however if that were the case is that the people I see and hear from there seem to be riddled with fear.

The point of course is that even the frequency of immoral acts does not make those acts moral.

“Might may not make right, but it assigns penalties for deviating from law. The law in that case is just the consensus of what most people accept.”

With ya there!

But in the following: If that's as far as we can go - consensus - then we're stuck defending the holocaust, which was carried out by a democratically-elected government and occurred with the consent of the German people. If we decide to condemn the holocaust anyway, we're stuck defending a universal moral code that supersedes the preferences of human society. For that moral code to be binding it must derive from a source with the moral authority to tell entire civilizations, "That is morally wrong."

Now we find serious disagreement!

First off, though Hitler was supposedly “duly elected” any and all historians certainly question the honesty of that election and pretty much NO ONE disagrees with the facts that most members of what was left of the opposition did their best to get outta Dodge over fears about protecting their own hides after he came into power!

Therefore, what a consensus would likely find themselves in agreement with is that Hitler came to and held power from elections with questionable outcomes.

When you say the holocaust occurred with knowledge and consent of the German people, that in itself is a broad and misleading statement.

On the face of it, there's complete truth in that some Germans knew of it, condoned it, hell, some even participated in it gleefully.

The more complete truth is that though many Germans did have knowledge of the holocaust, many, if not most Germans were unaware of what went on in the death camps until after the war and found those actions (morally) reprehensible once they were informed of it.

Semantics, semantics: “I'm going to disagree with MrKim's assertion that "My profession is that all humans capable of rational thought will be in agreement that doing anything which has the potential to deprive, hurt or kill others will be found to be personally morally reprehensible." If that's correct than anyone who disagrees with his concept of morality (based on his personal preference) is not capable of rational thought.”

I'll stand by my statement and then ask: Is depriving others of their affects, harming, raping or murdering them rational behavior? If you answer yes …. I'll sure have doubts about your character:>)

More semantics: “If an atheist wants to make the case that anyone who rejects his personal morality, informed by living in a Judeo-Christian society, is incapable of rational thought, I might as well step out of the debate, since my most worthy opponent is taking a harder stance than even I would. ;-)”

While you indeed quoted me verbatim, from what I see above much of your statements are just as surely debatable, for the reasons stated and others. If it seems you disagree with the boundaries of what represents the basis of morality I outlined I'd have to ask where your own moral basis comes from?

How do any of you think you can prove anything of what you speak of. Belief in a supreme being comes from faith alone and cannot be "proven." I will not argue over what is or is not abundant evidence but you cannot mathematically, scientifically or otherwise “prove” the existence of a “God.” On the other hand those of you who think you can “prove” morality is not linked to a spiritual power are just as deluded as you have no possible way to “prove” your morals are any better for humankind than those who you disagree with. I don’t know his motive for his post but Brian may the only one who accurately describes all that think they can prove such things.

Maybe the atheists can explain this? Since recorded history humankind has believed in some sort of supreme being(s) but you buck the trend stating that you are the most enlightened of all humans in “knowing” that there is no “God” and that those who believe there is are self deluded. Given that viewpoint of your intellectual superiority of the rest of humankind why all the defensiveness? Why seek to stop others from publicly observing what doesn’t exist? Do you not believe in your superior “knowledge” strongly enough to just sit back and chuckle over the rest of humankinds folly?

Inquisitive,

I suppose we'll have to overlook the fact that you've missed the debate in several other recent threads here where we weighed the evidence for and against the existence of God. If you had read them you would realize that for many of us the debate has gone far beyond the point you are arguing now. Nobody is saying they can actually prove anything, except Libertarian Atheist who said that morality was provable by reason alone but who apparently dropped out after I asked for his line of deductive reasoning. Those of us who are discussing this in good faith acknowledge that neither side can offer definitive proof in the form of a deductive argument - the only real question is which side has the better inductive case.

I submit that the inductive case for God is stronger than the inductive case for the belief that the universe created itself, and, as such, God has the right to set the rules for His universe, including the moral rules. Those who feel that the opposite is true are trying to argue that morality is discernible by reason alone - which I find preposterous since morality is a metaphysical construct.

My worthy opponent MrKim and I have been sparring over this for weeks, and we've managed to find a few areas of common ground. I fear we will not achieve agreement in this lifetime, although I have high hopes.

To MrKim, I was using an extreme case to illustrate my point and in one sense you took me more literally than I intended. I'll stand by my point but I realize I should have made it less obtusely. Ultimately the number of Germans who supported the holocaust is unknowable and largely irrelevant to my point. Hitler did not steal his office, although there was certainly some coercion involved. How many voters understood what he was up to? Hard to say, but he made no secret of most of it. "Mein Kampf" was published in its entirety in 1926, after all, and it's a pretty scary book. He became "Reich Chancellor" seven years later, so it's hard to believe most Germans were all that ignorant, although our most recent presidential election makes me reluctant to believe that most voters pay attention.

Nonetheless, I'm happy to use a different example (there are plenty of them) without the historical baggage of Nazi Germany. Ancient Sparta was set up on a system of slavery, breeding, and combat. It was a society that took its self-preservation to the extreme, including the systematic murder of deformed infants and chattel slavery for helots. Was Sparta irrational? For a couple of centuries no Spartan woman saw the watch fires of an enemy, so their system sounds coldly rational to me, although horribly immoral in many ways. Sparta was certainly not alone, as the author himself noted in his quote of Seneca the Younger. The list of societies that routinely and systematically practiced infanticide (including arguably our own, but that's a topic for another day) and slavery would be long indeed. Since both you and Libertarian Atheist agree that murder is morally wrong, I must repeat my question, if murder was wrong for Sparta, Rome, et al, by what objective standard was it wrong? You both say murder is wrong, but if it was right then and wrong now, then how can one say morality has concrete meaning? To be consistent you must answer one of those two questions. Surely murdering infants was not moral when most of humanity practiced it and immoral now that most of us do not.

You also wrote, "I'll stand by my statement and then ask: Is depriving others of their affects, harming, raping or murdering them rational behavior? If you answer yes …. I'll sure have doubts about your character:>)" I see the smiley-face but I'll take the bait anyway: Spartans and Romans WERE being rational by killing defective infants, since they put a strain on society. But that's precisely my point - although it was rational it was not moral, which is why I never advanced morality on rational grounds like you and Libertarian Atheist did. Anyway, my point was that you made a definitive statement, "My profession is that all humans capable of rational thought will be in agreement that doing anything which has the potential to deprive, hurt or kill others will be found to be personally morally reprehensible." Since an adult incapable of rational thought suffers from a severe mental pathology, you are saying that, by your own definition, anybody who willingly violates the 6th, 8th, and in some cases the 7th Commandments is clinically insane. I didn't advance that prospect myself: I'm perfectly willing to consider most such people evil.

Army Officer-

Evidence of your many, many unproven claims would be nice. When there is no proof for something, we can always use the answer "I don't know." Making something up and presenting it as a possibility seems silly, due to the fact that the possibilities would be endless. It is amazing that some can go through life believing in and living their lives by fairy tales.

Hi Inquisitive,

As my friend Army Officer mentioned, the discussion of whether there is a supreme being has been moved to the "moot point" realm as an agreement has been reached in neither camps capacity to prove the case for or against such an existences' possibility by any means but faith alone.

With that in mind, to yourself and Army Officer both I submit that : any such argument regarding the origin of morality, raised with faith or belief in a supreme being or their teachings as its center or basis, is similarly invalidated in such a realm as the concept of utilizing something itself improvable to prove anything else is false logic at best.

Since I view morality to be a personally held and therefore a subjective concept, I make no claim about my own morality being righteous or correct to anyone but myself. This means my concepts of morality have no more validity in the greater realm of global consciousness than does that of any other human, except of course to myself :>)

At least to myself, every personal assertion of morality is valid. Though I don't always find myself in agreement with each individual view, that detracts nothing in regard to the individuals validity to hold such a position.

In finding myself amongst the 5%+ minority globally that calls themselves non-believers, I do not do so by claiming superior intellectual capacity over the other 95%.

I place myself in that minority position simply because I find theocracy an improvable construct through any means not completely faith based and refuse to accept that as solid enough evidence to justify molding my life around.

While many "fence sitters" take the position that it's better to hedge their bet in favor of eternal salvation for their souls, that inherently speaks to a personal weakness within their own commitments that I again cannot find agreement with, as once more, the premise itself is still an improvable ideal.

However, I never decry anyones right to worship their god in any fashion they choose, either privately or publicly. As a believer in the concepts of personal freedom, how could I possibly do otherwise without otherwise subjugating my own thoughts on the matter?

The only example that comes to mind as an exception to others right to public worship is where in doing so it confounds or disrupts the natural ebb and flow of the remainder of society as does the practice by Muslim followers I've read reports of who do so in blocking public streets in France during their prayers.

In this case their worship becomes an impediment of others rights in society as it then becomes overbearing in interfering with others rights, which is where I must then draw the line as to what is reasonable.

When you ask "Do you not believe in your superior “knowledge” strongly enough to just sit back and chuckle over the rest of humankinds folly?" you point most succinctly to the reasons for any defensiveness I hold regarding my lack of belief.

The rapt condescension I find among believers regarding the concept of non-belief is EXACTLY why I am defensive ;>)

Another Patriot,

This debate has been going since 21 September when William Murchison published his piece "Atheism: What a Joke" and ignited a firestorm of responses for both sides. The next day Ken Blackwell released "Leaving Out God" and the discussion continued there. If you want to see my evidence and logic for believing as I do please go there, as I do not intend to re-post 4000-5000 words again in this thread for your convenience. Both are in the archives of the Patriot Post which you can access from this page. Before you throw out the tired old "Living their lives by fairy tales" canard, please do your homework and educate yourself on why plenty of smart and knowledgeable people don't believe like you do.

My best sparring partner, the inestimable MrKim, made the same point in the post right before this one: the debate has long since passed beyond the "You're going to Hell / You believe in fairy tales" stage. Insults and simplistic pronouncements from either side do not advance the debate and will not convince anyone. Please try to keep up.

Good day to all!

To reiterate Army Officers point, catchy one liners and disrespect of one anothers opinions will do little if anything to move this debate forward, but certainly stymies any attempt to do so.

All meaningful debate must by nature remain civil and devoid of personal attacks, for otherwise it simply degenerates into argument instead.

Though Army and I disagree on many points, we seemingly still agree on the sanctity of each others rights to hold our opposing views and hope that anyone wanting to join the fray would do so within the confines of civil discourse as well ;>)

And so we continue ....

Hey Army Officer, though we certainly hold differing views on spirituality, it sure looks like we hold very similar views on the analogies that can be drawn between Hitler and Obama.

Both seem to have been extreme narcissists as is evidenced by both having peened their own memoirs prior to having even barely reached middle age and both seemed to have included very frightening insights into their own take on society, the world and religion.

Both of their very telling works were downplayed and minimized in the press during their rises to power and both seemed to have used their great gifts of oratory prowess and motivational skills in having managed to minimize their own opposition.

And ... both rose to power by promising change and empowerment to their followers ... interesting indeed, but again I digress.

I have to thank you in advance for laying the groundwork above for what will follow below.

Morality, like many others societal constructs seems to be an ever evolving concept in what is considered as moral, from past times to the present day.

In Spartan times it was deemed to be in the best interest of their society as a whole that all malformed infants were simply discarded as inherent and invalid forms of humanity.

Though I expect even then there were those who disagreed with this as moral, here the "might makes right" argument was used to support the idea that indeed such babies would tend to detract from the progression of the powerful society of warrior tribes they so proudly represented themselves as.

In those times their societies seemed to be based almost completely on the might makes right philosophy and the "weaker than" perception of those incapable of protecting and empowering their societal position placed them in a category of those who would never be capable of embracing, much less forwarding, that position.

So, then the majority regulated their society by legislation of their moral view upon their society, even when it was not likely agreed upon unilaterally, much as still is the case today.

Can we today look at these events and agree with the morality that was accepted by their society? By and large I would say society, and our concept of morality has progressed to the point where it would be doubtful many today would agree with such barbaric practices, though admittedly some would agree with them, the bulk of society now disagrees with them and has similarly has legislated the resulting majority opinion into law. In todays logic (or moral view), the value of human life is represented as being above the right of anyone disavowing that value. Not that this view is held by all of humanity, but at least I hope we globally have progressed admirably from Spartan times.

For our society(s) to continue to move forward a certain type of social evolution has to be a part of that progression. With morality as an integral evolutionary fabric of that, it too will continue to morph, change and grow along with our society(s).

While we both seemingly denigrate those among us who steal, harm and murder as forms of dysfunctional sociopaths within our society I prefer the scientific explanation of lacking brain chemistry and missing/blocked logic pathways within the brain over the simplistic moniker of calling them evil.

while evil people surely exist, each one I've seen exemplified exhibits certain sociopathic tendencies that then gives rise to exhibitions of those propensities at the cost of those around them.

Personally I cannot find this behavior to be moral nor rational ;>)

Bullseye!!

Libertarian Atheist

Why should it matter that society, as you describe it, exist at all? How does reason alone inform you that the existence of society is something to be valued?

Army Officer-

Checked the articles you mentioned...no evidence at all, just opinions that don't prove anything. Do you have any evidence? Is there a "peer reviewed" hypothesis, experiment, and theory. The scientific process is needed in order to prove a claim.

Another Patriot,

Now you're just not paying attention, since nobody on my side of the debate claimed to be able to offer definitive proof of theism. Likewise, nobody on your side has offered such proof either. The ultimate source of morality is not provable by the Scientific Method. I thought that would be obvious even to you. Since you obviously have yet to take a course in formal logic it appears I'll have to teach you some: neither the theistic or atheistic position can be proved, strictly speaking. Nor can it be arrived at by deduction. We can only establish degrees of probability by observation and induction. That leads me back to the articles and responses you were apparently unable to comprehend.

If you think the Laws of Thermodynamics and the rules of formal logic are "just opinions that don't prove anything" there's really no point in us continuing - you simply don't know enough to have formed an opinion that others will take seriously. But if you're going to cite the scientific process, by which I assume you mean the Scientific Method, please demonstrate the validity of your faith in a non-theistic first cause using means that are testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. (Or do you demand a standard of proof from me that you can't meet yourself?)

Let me save you some time: if the next thing you write is ANYTHING OTHER than the demonstration of a non-theistic first cause by testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable means we'll both know you're in over your head. The thoughtful people on your side don't make that claim and I suspect they'd appreciate if you stopped making your side look uninformed and illogical.

MrKim,

Thanks for the reasoned response and plugs for civility. We seem to have found some more common ground with regard to certain patterns among recent demagogues.

I fear we're going to have to agree to disagree at the final point though. You wrote, "In today's logic (or moral view), the value of human life is represented as being above the right of anyone disavowing that value." Although I agree with the literal wording of your thought, I disagree with the premise behind it, which is that today's logic, yesterday's logic, and tomorrow's logic can be at odds with each other and all still represent a transcendent morality. I'm sure we agree that certain circumstances may dictate when one action is right (moral) as opposed to a different action, and that may change under different circumstances, but where we part company is when I posit that the underlying moral code cannot be mutable without loses its authority. I accept that you see it differently, but I think we've reached the end of the tether without just falling into repeating our earlier arguments. Anyway, I've been grading Masters-level Oral Comp exams for the past three days and my brains are fried. I apologize for the people on my side who fling invective - I hope I've taken them sufficiently to task.

Army Officer

I see you are confused again. I am not the one making a claim about a God. You are...so you are the one that has to present it as fact. My claim is completely based on the fact that you can't prove yours, which only leads to the alternative of there being no God.

The end result of secular humanism and atheism on a large scale can be found in the examples of both the Soviet Union, and in George Orwelle's "1984".

With humanity unaccountable to a Person higher than himself, he descends into utter tyranny. There remains nothing to check his power to oppress.

Another Patriot,

I've said this at least twice before and I'll repeat it here for you: ONCE AGAIN, I do not claim my position is demonstrable by the scientific method. But because you are blissfully unaware that your view is equally un-demonstrable, you then commit the logical fallacy that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" for my position even though I could just as easily make the same argument against your position. Even that's being charitable, since I actually have evidence as noted in the earlier threads while you have offered no evidence whatsoever.

Frankly, this is getting tedious. You are most certainly making a claim about God - you are claiming there isn't one. That is what we call a claim. Furthermore it presupposes that the physical universe either has a natural cause or is eternal. Since there is absolutely nothing within the natural sciences that would lead one to believe the physical universe is either eternal or capable of self-creation, I very logically posit a cause outside of nature. You are the one claiming that the physical universe caused itself. I merely asked you to provide evidence for that position that meets the standard of proof you demanded of me.

To that end I wrote, "Let me save you some time: if the next thing you write is ANYTHING OTHER than the demonstration of a non-theistic first cause by testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable means we'll both know you're in over your head." Which you have once again failed to do.

Since you cannot meet your own standard of proof you have tacitly admitted that you're in over your head. I have better things to do than argue with someone with no grasp of the basic rules of logic. I'm done here. Thanks for playing.

The end result of secular humanism and atheism on a large scale can be found in the examples of both the Soviet Union, and in George Orwelle's "1984".

With humanity unaccountable to a Person higher than himself, he descends into utter tyranny. There remains nothing to check his power to oppress.

Let's get to what the facts are regarding your statement Richard.

The Soviet Union vacillated over the past 100 or so years in allowing and disallowing religious worship with the impetus for the day being the position of the ruling partys views. M

Similarly many personal freedom issue items were quashed by these same leaders, but the base line for many of these actions related most significantly to the level of paranoia by the govt. in allowing any type of public assembly of segments of the population except those implemented and sanctioned by the govt. .

These policies and actions are hardly the type most mainstream atheists would support, so claiming their society as a whole is a personification of atheism on a grand scale is hardly fact based, as is also the case in mentioning Orwells "1984", which itself was a work of fiction.

Though theists commonly claim atheists are ant-religion, the truth is simply that atheism is anti-belief in a supreme being, which is hardly the same thing.

mrKim and ARMY OFFICER--

GREAT SPARRING, THE WAY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE DONE IT.

AS FAR AS AN ATHEIST NATION AND MORALS--

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE COUNTRIES IN EUROPE THAT ARE A LOT LESS RELIGIOUS THAN THE U.S., AND YET THEIR CRIME RATES, (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE),ARE MUCH LOWER THAN OURS.

BELIEF IN GOD IS BELIEF IN MIRACLES.

THE SAME MENTALITY THAT APPARENTLY MAKES PEOPLE BUY LOTTERY TICKETS AND ENGAGE IN ALL SORTS OF DETRIMENTAL BEHAVIOR.