Objective Morality

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure where this idea arose that I support downloading, I just said there isn’t a consensus in society at present. For the record, as someone whose previous job involved trying to stop software theft, downloading music for free is wrong for at least these reasons:

1. 
   *]The international conventions put into law by most countries are that any copying not authorized by the publisher breaks copyright. Whatever our intent, downloading music for free is then illegal unless the publisher has openly granted a waiver.
   *]The main methods for downloading (peer-to-peer or from specially created websites) encourage others in the same activity.
   *]It can cause publishers to recover losses by increasing the price for those who buy the music legally.
   *]While losses may not matter to millionaire bands, they work against new bands and minority interest genres, harming our culture.
   *]By enabling someone to build a huge collection it devalues music for them big time.

1. 
   Sorry, I guess it sounded as though I was blasting you for those wrongdoings. Thank you for your efforts while on your previous job.
   

   Something I did say is that we have instincts. Are you making category errors though? Reproduction is instinctive, unless you want to include the various ways that we’ve learned to increase fertility. Seeking and eating food are instinctive unless you want to include supermarkets and cooking. We learned to speak but we sure didn’t all learn the same language.

   Well, I didn’t want to write a book. I condensed my thoughts. There’s no question that category errors were made. However, as instinctive as reproduction would seem, that instinct probably did not include the pregnancy part of it. And, fertility is not something instinctive - you are correct.
   
   Seeking and eating food was probably not as simple as mere instinct. What was edible, what was poisonous. How many died as a result. Why did they die? Then, cooking came about. That certainly was not instinctive. Much more trial and error, but, with a certain subjectivity. Did we know then that cooking foods would impart more calories to cause our brains to enlarge, thereby giving us an advantage over all of the other species on earth?
   

   Cohabitation is a widespread problem and denying civil union to monogamous couples of any orientation doesn’t exactly help stop promiscuity. One of the main points of the civil ceremony is to proclaim your love for each other and vow to stick together. Homosexuals who do that and remain together might just teach all those divorcees a thing or two.

   I don’t have the stats immediately at hand, but, it seems to me that there are some that clearly show that promiscuity levels among gays is about the same as P levels among those who merely cohabit. (Perhaps someone has these stats…, or, I’ll look for them, if wanted.) Particularly among the males - as I recall!
   

   No one is asking to interfere with the sanctity of marriage in any religion.

   I’m not sure this is possible when the secular authority interferes and creates laws that annihilate religion’s proscripts. Is it?
   

   The argument for changing the law in my country was simple:
   

   1. 
      *]The status quo wrongly harmed a group of citizens.
      *]A society that does not wrongly harm its citizens is a better society.

   1. 
      Well, if that’s the case, then society might just as well make legal, or, at least decriminalize most - or, better yet - all of the other laws pertaining to sex in society. The laws should be altered to make the age of consent for pedophilia lower. Animals don’t have the perfunctory ability to grant or deny consent, and, they’re just animals anyway, so bestiality should be legalized. And so on.
      

      The harm is in treating citizens differently without sufficient cause.

      But there is sufficient cause. Except that those who are affected by the rule don’t like it. I’m sorry, I definitely hate driving at any speed less than 65.
      

      Let me see if this switches on your icky center: The main police force in Spain is the Guardia Civil, a tough bunch who sign-on for a fixed term just like the army.

      Do Los Gris still exist? Do the Guardia Civil still wear those green uniforms? And the Grays, do they still look like they’re from Hitler youth camps? No disrespect intended. The Grays were always respectful to me and everyone I knew, while I was living in Madrid.
      

      There’s a cafe next to the barracks where some of the cops go for lunch. Two of them are holding hands because they are married (their Capitán allocated them married quarters, where a nanny is looking after their adopted kid). They are both men, and also probably both Catholic because most people are here. None of their colleagues bat an eyelid but one old guy in the corner looks away, remembering the old days. For better or for worse?

      Very anecdotal, I should say.
      
      God bless,
      jd

 

[inocente]

You forget that, as we can see from countries that adopted the marriage to gay couples, it doesn’t help diminish promiscuity either…

Give it time, it probably needs a few generations rather than a few years for such a major change.

What a strange vow, that is broken by almost half the people who in fact commit to it…

Yes, marriage is too darned easy these days. Not a good reason to deny others though.

It is debatable to what that “harm” can be and what “wrongly” is.

Agreed, and in addition by removing a harm any potential resulting harm to others must also be considered.

People are treated differently because they are different and because the state can only support different people.

Did I touch a raw nerve on this subject, or did you learn a habit from a certain other poster? I said, and you even quoted me, “The harm is in treating citizens differently without sufficient cause.”

Don’t forget that the states where gay marriage is permitted still have laws regarding marriage. Are you going to fight to change those last laws?

I don’t think that was ever a concern here. I can’t think of any reason why the existing law would need to be changed.

I see 3 possibilites: …
3 - Either me and Charlemagne are basing our conclusions in a non objective morality (which would result in both of us being wrong).

Nice, adding the bit in parentheses. Interestingly, Charlemagne must be right since he seemed to change his answer between posts #124 and #128. I think I’m beginning to see how well this objective morality works now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

*However, I still think you’re asking me to justify a point of view that I haven’t expressed. Maybe you should be more careful. *

We agreed on a definition of objective morality, and you invited me to prove the definition. Now you are saying you didn’t agree? What goes here?

 

[inocente]

Are you saying that all morals are equally subjective and that all moral values are equally valid, even when you disagree with another person’s morals?

No, I think most people these days would fervently agree that torture in any form is unjustified, which is one of the reasons why people sometimes turn up at the International Court of Justice and why the US lost face around the world over Guantanamo. In earlier times, however, I’m sure we could both think of instances where torture was justified. Times change, along with our collective morals.

You surely cannot cite a scientific study.

But the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Haire gives us a clue as to what the world might be like without religion. She was all for allowing children to have sexual relations as soon as they were interested in it.

So much for subjective moral values.

Without wanting to step on wanstronian’s toes, you are again talking about dictatorships. It would be exceptionally hard to scientifically rerun history. And surely it would only be useful to cite individuals if we were discussing the history of how we reached collective decisions on moral values. I’ve never heard of the woman, but she didn’t seem to have a whole load of impact on this.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

Charlemagne must be right since he seemed to change his answer between posts #124 and #128. I think I’m beginning to see how well this objective morality works now.

I’m not a mind reader, so I’ll let this one pass.

 

[inocente]

JDaniel - just saw your post but the dogs are lined up for their walk, I’ll reply tomorrow.

 

[dskysmine]

First and foremost, we should be careful because we are derailing the topic towards “gay marriage” which isn’t what the thread is about.
Having said that I will still answer your questions:

Give it time, it probably needs a few generations rather than a few years for such a major change.

You think that the possibility for gay marriage will decrease promiscuity in the gay community?
Do you know how much promiscuity there is in the heterosexual community and how many years has heterosexual marriage existed?
They don’t seem to correlate that good do they?

Yes, marriage is too darned easy these days. Not a good reason to deny others though.

I didn’t say that the high rate of divorce was a motive to “deny” “gay marriage”…

Agreed, and in addition by removing a harm any potential resulting harm to others must also be considered.

I wasn’t agreeing with you… I was stating that you were making value claims that were based in your worldview… If you consider that there is no objective morality they are by no means certain or factual.

Did I touch a raw nerve on this subject, or did you learn a habit from a certain other poster? I said, and you even quoted me, “The harm is in treating citizens differently without sufficient cause.”

As I stated before, I wasn’t agreeing with you…
I fail to see how my response was instinctive in any way… please explain the context for your commentary.

I don’t think that was ever a concern here. I can’t think of any reason why the existing law would need to be changed.

So, gays should be helped because gays are good., while brothers who want to get married shouldn’t be helped because they are bad? Explain the logic, if you will…

Nice, adding the bit in parentheses. Interestingly, Charlemagne must be right since he seemed to change his answer between posts #124 and #128. I think I’m beginning to see how well this objective morality works now.

He must be right because he contradicted himself? How did you reach that conclusion? Pray tell…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

*I’ve never heard of the woman, but she didn’t seem to have a whole load of impact on this. *

O’Haire was the woman who got the Supreme Court to ban prayer in public schools back in the 50s. Classroom behavior in most American public schools has been on a downward spiral ever since. O’Haire later founded the American Atheist Society. She repudiated her son as a “post-natal abortion” when he became a Baptists minister. She and the rest of her family were butchered by a fellow atheist. When he later confessed to the killing, it was discovered that their corpses had been cut into pieces and buried. They were only identifiable by their dental records.

Requiescant in pace.

I think she had more of an impact than you think. Much of what is being taught in grade school classrooms today about homosexuality would not have been possible before O’Haire’s revolutionary impact on the public school system and its now frankly godless managers.

You apparently don’t read much about what is going on in the U.S., but there is a rising incidence of sex between children in the lower grades of the public schools, and right in the classroom …

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

*For a literal interpretation of ‘natural’ at least. That may not be the definition you’re using, but if not, then you’re using a subjective definition of the word to attempt objectively to judge another person’s behaviour; so the resultant judgement is utterly empty. *

Whatever all that means!

Well, it doesn’t really matter.

wanstronian
*
I don’t think we ‘brag’ anything - some of us offer opinions, and back them up with observational justification, which I’m sure you’re familiar with so I won’t list them. I’m not sure whether we would be better off without religion. But I’m fairly sure we’d be no worse off*.

Your certainty is rather interesting, given the record of what life was like under the atheist rule in Germany, Russia, and China. What evidence can you bring forward to substantiate the claim that the world would be no worse off? You surely cannot cite a scientific study.

Which German atheist rule are you referring to? We’ve established that there’s no consistent evidence that Hitler was an atheist - he said many things confirming his Christianity, and many things denying it. The man seems to have been - among other things, a theological chameleon, so in the interests of accuracy Christians shouldn’t really cling to him as an example of an atheist.

Stalin and Mao, fair enough. But you still haven’t provided any evidence that their evil acts were a result of their atheism. Have you, during your many quote-mining sessions, ever discovered either of them say something akin to: “I’m an atheist, therefore I’m going to… [insert evil act here]?” No. So you’re making a causal link that doesn’t exist, simply because you believe it supports your cause. But in fact, to make such claims to atheists, who in general are pretty well clued-up on detecting logical fallacies, doesn’t help your cause at all. It just shows that your dogma is stopping you from thinking clearly.

But the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Haire gives us a clue as to what the world might be like without religion. She was all for allowing children to have sexual relations as soon as they were interested in it.

And you make the same logical fallacy here - taking the ideological views of an individual atheist and not only extrapolating erroneous causal relationships between these views and her religious position, but then also ascribing these erroneous views to all atheists! You’re a piece of work!

So much for subjective moral values.

So much for your ability to recognise the discreteness of concepts and treat them correctly.

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian

*However, I still think you’re asking me to justify a point of view that I haven’t expressed. Maybe you should be more careful. *

We agreed on a definition of objective morality, and you invited me to prove the definition. Now you are saying you didn’t agree? What goes here?

Well, no we didn’t agree. In post #69, I defined what ‘objective morality’ means to me. You disagreed in post #84 with some kooky interpretation that involved morality being a physical phenomenen, which I neither stated nor implied. I challenged this in post #111, and haven’t heard from you on that front since.

Then you, in your last post, accused me of evading the question: “What is the exception to the rule that it is wicked to punish the innocent?” However, that question was not directed at me, or at least not obviously. It seems to have been asked generally in fact, so if I have evaded it so has every other poster on this thread since. So your accusation seems a bit rich to me - why are you not levelling it at everyone else?

However, all that said, if you’re happy with my definition of objective morality, fill yer boots. Prove it exists.

 

[wanstronian]

You apparently don’t read much about what is going on in the U.S., but there is a rising incidence of sex between children in the lower grades of the public schools, and right in the classroom …

Well, it MUST be due to the rise in atheism! Correlation IS causation in ‘Theist World,’ after all! Why is it that you guys always equate the rise in bad things with the increase in atheism, and ignore or ascribe elsewhere, the rise in good things? Why is that, do you think?

 

[dskysmine]

Well, it MUST be due to the rise in atheism! Correlation IS causation in ‘Theist World,’ after all! Why is it that you guys always equate the rise in bad things with the increase in atheism, and ignore or ascribe elsewhere, the rise in good things? Why is that, do you think?

Maybe because they are factually connected. You probably haven’t heard of the pushes to sexual education that goes on in the UN to teach children that sex exploration is completely natural and children should have a healthy sex life… >_>

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel - just saw your post but the dogs are lined up for their walk, I’ll reply tomorrow.

Dogs? What breeds and how many?!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Well, it MUST be due to the rise in atheism! Correlation IS causation in ‘Theist World,’ after all! Why is it that you guys always equate the rise in bad things with the increase in atheism, and ignore or ascribe elsewhere, the rise in good things? Why is that, do you think?

Well . . . maybe, just maybe, because it’s True!

You asked for it!! Don’t get mad at me. BTW, how are you doing. It’s been a while. I missed you - sort of.

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian
*
Well, it MUST be due to the rise in atheism! Correlation IS causation in ‘Theist World,’ after all! Why is it that you guys always equate the rise in bad things with the increase in atheism, and ignore or ascribe elsewhere, the rise in good things? Why is that, do you think?*

Gee whiz. I wonder why.

Do you suppose it could be for the same reason atheists like to equate the Inquisition with the Catholic Church?

Or that an atheist like Sigmund Freud could equate religion with mental illness?

By the way, what are all these good things that have come about since the rise of atheism?

Also, you don’t have to admit Hitler as an atheist, but you can’t argue that he was a Christian after he assumed power.

At the end of world War II, the Allies conducted war crimes trials at Nuremberg. General Donovan later preserved confidential reports of these trials which, after his death, were donated to the Rutgers University School of Law. The reports are now available for the public to read online. The first of the published reports, a 120 page document titled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” was produced by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a forerunner of the CIA. The 1945 report includes the following remarks: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.”

Do you think the persecution of Christianity by the Nazis would have been possible if Hitler was a Christian?

 

[wanstronian]

Gee whiz. I wonder why.

Do you suppose it could be for the same reason atheists like to equate the Inquisition with the Catholic Church?

I doubt it - the Inquisition was an organisation formed by Catholic Monarchs with the express purpose of enforcing Catholic orthodoxy. A clear and direct causal link.

By contrast, the increase in good things and bad things has occurred at the same time as an increase in atheism. Only an utter fool would infer a causal link, and only an even bigger fool would proclaim one publicly. Enter the theist.

Or that an atheist like Sigmund Freud could equate religion with mental illness?

There you go again - you can’t help yourself, can you? If an atheist does a bad or questionable thing, you assume it’s because he’s an atheist! Can you really not see the howling flaws in such logic? Or are you so indoctrinated that you’re unable to think clearly? It must be that, as I said before, in Theist World, correlation equates to causation (but only when it supports the argument). Another clear indicator that theists such as yourself are utterly detached from reality.

By the way, what are all these good things that have come about since the rise of atheism?

Are you kidding? Improvements in health care and longevity, in standards of living, in racial tolerance, in morality (ironically enough), in social equality, in environmental safety… the list goes on.

Just to note though - I don’t ascribe any of these things to atheism, because to do so would be to succumb to the logical fallacy that pervades most theists - the fallacy of “Cum hoc, ergo procter hoc.” Translated (with a special addendum just for theists) as: “With this, therefore because of this (but only when it supports my argument).”

Also, you don’t have to admit Hitler as an atheist, but you can’t argue that he was a Christian after he assumed power.

At the end of world War II, the Allies conducted war crimes trials at Nuremberg. General Donovan later preserved confidential reports of these trials which, after his death, were donated to the Rutgers University School of Law. The reports are now available for the public to read online. The first of the published reports, a 120 page document titled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” was produced by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a forerunner of the CIA. The 1945 report includes the following remarks: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.”

To be honest, I don’t much care - the subject of whether Hitler was an atheist or Christian is largely irrelevant, and draws attention away from the actual point, which is that there is no reason, other than to support Christian dogma, to suppose that his acts were a result of his atheism. The argument, whether you apply it to Hitler, Stalin, Freud or anybody else, simply doesn’t hold water. What it does do, is provide a clear indicator of the proponent’s desperation to try and discredit atheism.

Do you think the persecution of Christianity by the Nazis would have been possible if Hitler was a Christian?

Nope. The guy was clearly insane, and appeared to have hopped between atheism and theism as it suited him. It doesn’t change the fact that to ascribe his actions directly to his atheism is to confuse religion with ideology.

You’ve continued to focus on evil atheists - what’s your response to my examples of evil Catholic dictators? Are they somehow exempt from having their religious position blamed for their actions? What are your thoughts?

 

[dskysmine]

There you go again - you can’t help yourself, can you? If an atheist does a bad or questionable thing, you assume it’s because he’s an atheist! Can you really not see the howling flaws in such logic? Or are you so indoctrinated that you’re unable to think clearly? It must be that, as I said before, in Theist World, correlation equates to causation (but only when it supports the argument). Another clear indicator that theists such as yourself are utterly detached from reality.

Maybe it is because when a Christian does a bad thing atheists rush along to say that they did it “because” they are Christians… after all, Christians follow moral laws from Christian morals don’t they?
Or maybe you think that atheism isn’t a moral worldview after all, which would mean that atheists wouldn’t be accountable at all for moral responsability.
It makes for a great excuse for anything an atheist does wrong… All moralities are subjective so you can never talk about what “atheism” does. It is what subject A does, or subjects A through Z…etc. The problem being that atheism is what makes moral relativism possible.

Are you kidding? Improvements in health care and longevity, in standards of living, in racial tolerance, in morality (ironically enough), in social equality, in environmental safety… the list goes on.

One would have to ask on why you included non-moral “improvements”… or why could you not relate those same moral “improvements” to other causes.

You’ve continued to focus on evil atheists - what’s your response to my examples of evil Catholic dictators? Are they somehow exempt from having their religious position blamed for their actions? What are your thoughts?

The problem with that line of though, as I said is that you can in fact compare those people’s actions to Catholic morals and see if they were in fact in accordance with Catholic moral. The same cannot apply to atheism since they argue for no source of morality or, when they do, they assert reason as the source of morality which, regarding all kinds of reasons some one can make to value race, money, life, health, etc… makes it impossible to us to compare such things.
I ask of you: Was Hitler a “good” Nationalist Socialist? If so, what makes Hitler “bad”?
What makes National Socialism “bad”?

 

[wanstronian]

Maybe it is because when a Christian does a bad thing atheists rush along to say that they did it “because” they are Christians… after all, Christians follow moral laws from Christian morals don’t they?

That’s just the point - atheists don’t say that at all, other than possibly to illustrate the theist fallacy that bad deeds committed by atheists are committed because they are atheists.

Or maybe you think that atheism isn’t a moral worldview after all, which would mean that atheists wouldn’t be accountable at all for moral responsability.

Another fallacious argument. Atheism isn’t a moral worldview, it’s an absence of belief in Gods. Atheists are no less moral than anybody else, but their morality is not a product of their religious position but of their humanity and environment. Just like theists, in fact. The only difference is that atheists don’t pretend their morality comes from God.

It makes for a great excuse for anything an atheist does wrong… All moralities are subjective so you can never talk about what “atheism” does. It is what subject A does, or subjects A through Z…etc. The problem being that atheism is what makes moral relativism possible.

It’s clear you don’t feel the need to actually apply any thought to this subject, and you’re comfortable regurgitating foundless dogma. I guess it’s easier to repeat these mindless mantras than it is to spend time thinking it through.

One would have to ask on why you included non-moral “improvements”…

I included several different types of improvement. What’s your point?

or why could you not relate those same moral “improvements” to other causes.

You’ve lost me a bit here. All I did was point out that some things have gotten better over the same period as other things have (anecdotally) gotten worse. I made no claim about the underlying causes because there is no evidential causal link to a religious perspective. To proclaim such a link would be logically fallacious. But that doesn’t seem to stop theists, so desperate are they to misrepresent the tenets of atheism.

Now, the paucity of critical thinking and logic skills of theists doesn’t bother me per se, but when it’s used to wrongly slur an entire demographic of people to which I belong, it’s reasonable for me to want to show these buffoons why they’re wrong. Unfortunately, being buffoons, they’re incapable of believing that anything an atheist says could ever be right, so they don’t even bother to listen, and instead just carry on in their insulated, misguided little world, lowering the overall planetary IQ and holding back the progression of the human race overall. Unfortunately, these superstitious fools hold a fair amount of political sway, and so their dogmatic, narrow-minded, arrogant opinions affect the rest of us who aren’t so mired down in irrationality.

I just find that a bit frustrating sometimes.

The problem with that line of though, as I said is that you can in fact compare those people’s actions to Catholic morals and see if they were in fact in accordance with Catholic moral. The same cannot apply to atheism since they argue for no source of morality or, when they do, they assert reason as the source of morality which, regarding all kinds of reasons some one can make to value race, money, life, health, etc… makes it impossible to us to compare such things.

So what you’re saying is, you can compare a Catholic’s actions to one set of subjective morals because it is subjectively believed they come from God, but you can’t do the same for an atheist, because that atheist, although operating to the same basic set of societally-evolved morals as the Catholic, doesn’t believe they came from God!

Or, in other words, the dogma with which you’ve been indoctrinated tells you that atheists can’t be moral, and it’s easier to believe that than to just look around you.

I ask of you: Was Hitler a “good” Nationalist Socialist? If so, what makes Hitler “bad”?
What makes National Socialism “bad”?

What’s the point of this question?

 

[dskysmine]

That’s just the point - atheists don’t say that at all, other than possibly to illustrate the theist fallacy that bad deeds committed by atheists are committed because they are atheists.

Actually they do… haven’t you heard thousands of times atheists calling on Inquisition as example of “evil”?

Another fallacious argument. Atheism isn’t a moral worldview, it’s an absence of belief in Gods.

It is the moral view that there is no objective morality because they believe there is no God. You really can’t separate religion from morality. No religion asserts for a source of morality outside of that religion.

Atheists are no less moral than anybody else, but their morality is not a product of their religious position but of their humanity and environment. Just like theists, in fact. The only difference is that atheists don’t pretend their morality comes from God.

Which is exactly what I said… relative morality is an assertion on morality. That is why atheism is also a moral assertion.

It’s clear you don’t feel the need to actually apply any thought to this subject, and you’re comfortable regurgitating foundless dogma. I guess it’s easier to repeat these mindless mantras than it is to spend time thinking it through.

It’s easier not to answer the arguments the other person uses and just deem them “bad”.

I included several different types of improvement. What’s your point?

You’ve lost me a bit here. All I did was point out that some things have gotten better over the same period as other things have (anecdotally) gotten worse. I made no claim about the underlying causes because there is no evidential causal link to a religious perspective. To proclaim such a link would be logically fallacious. But that doesn’t seem to stop theists, so desperate are they to misrepresent the tenets of atheism.

He didn’t correlate completely different subjects… moral relativism, which the foundation for atheism is exactly why he can state that there is no morality per se. After all, one would think that a “law” would influence some one else other than one person.

Now, the paucity of critical thinking and logic skills of theists doesn’t bother me per se, but when it’s used to wrongly slur an entire demographic of people to which I belong, it’s reasonable for me to want to show these buffoons why they’re wrong.

You are certainly welcome to try it… but that doesn’t make you right.

Unfortunately, being buffoons, they’re incapable of believing that anything an atheist says could ever be right, so they don’t even bother to listen, and instead just carry on in their insulated, misguided little world, lowering the overall planetary IQ and holding back the progression of the human race overall.

Imagine that was a Catholic answer to one of your assertions and answer it back…

Unfortunately, these superstitious fools hold a fair amount of political sway, and so their dogmatic, narrow-minded, arrogant opinions affect the rest of us who aren’t so mired down in irrationality.

So it is your assertion that instead of “might” makes “right” is that “you” makes “right”?
mmm… wonderful worldview…
We just have to figure out how to make 6 billions of “you”.

I just find that a bit frustrating sometimes.

So what you’re saying is, you can compare a Catholic’s actions to one set of subjective morals because it is subjectively believed they come from God, but you can’t do the same for an atheist, because that atheist, although operating to the same basic set of societally-evolved morals as the Catholic, doesn’t believe they came from God!

What I am saying is that Catholic morals are objective and that being objective you can argue if a Catholic was “good” or “evil”, you have the moral laws written down. For an atheist you can’t do that because anything he might have done could be in accordance to his own subjective morality so you can never state that an atheist is “evil” or was “evil”.

Or, in other words, the dogma with which you’ve been indoctrinated tells you that atheists can’t be moral, and it’s easier to believe that than to just look around you.

Reason tells me that atheists “know” they are always right because their morality is their own and no one else’s. That’s it…

What’s the point of this question?

You stated that Hitler was “evil”… but you provided no evidence of it. He had his subjective morality that what he did was “morally good”…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

wanstronian

Only an utter fool would infer a causal link, and only an even bigger fool would proclaim one publicly. Enter the theist.

*Now, the paucity of critical thinking and logic skills of theists doesn’t bother me per se, *

More ad hominems. A desperate maneuver. This technique wins you no points anywhere.

Are you kidding? Improvements in health care and longevity, in standards of living, in racial tolerance, in morality (ironically enough), in social equality, in environmental safety… the list goes on.

I’m not kidding, but you surely are. It’s a whole lot of blah, blah, blah that you offer here.
I haven’t seen any atheist hospitals (Christian and Jewish ones can be found everywhere). Haven’t seen any atheist orphanages or soup kitchens. Haven’t seen any atheist foundations working among the poor as we have Christian organizations and missionaries all over the world.

Another fallacious argument. Atheism isn’t a moral worldview, it’s an absence of belief in Gods.

It is a world view. It is the negation of all absolutes. What flows from atheism is a certain attitude toward everything … most often a contempt for all objective values and those who hold them, which is the majority of the human race. That’s a world view.