ewmon

You ignore empirical data in front of you. I seem unable to help you to understand what Christ said and to see the empirical data in front of you, and this is the last time I will respond to this sad mantra chanting. What I meant was that you or I cannot personally collect takes or declare wars, and neither are the politicians obliged to act according to the desires of their constituents. I numbered the paragraphs in the above quote, so I could reply more easily below. 1. You say that Christianity derived its morality from western culture, instead of western culture deriving its morality from Christianity? So then, according to you, where did western culture derive its morality? 2. Immoral how? It's a matter of not allowing people to feel they are okay by comparing themselves to others. I'm a pickpocket, but at least I'm not an assailant. I'm an assailant, but at least I'm not a rapist. I'm a rapist but at least I'm not a murderer. Etc. 3. Where in Christianity is punishing one person for crimes committed by someone else? This concept is new to me and seriously contradictory to the Christian faith. 4. True, the Bible tells us that "simply repenting" is not enough. 5. Where have I sidestepped? 6a. Although the idea of centuries elapsing between Christ's life and the writing the gospels is incorrect, how close would they need to be in order to be "valid"? And is this an objective or subjective amount? Even nowadays, we get "news" that's minutes, hours and days or even months and years after the supposed event. So, are molestation claims by supposed "victims" years or even decades after the supposed crimes invalid? 6b. Contradictory and immoral. You didn't support your claims or give examples.

@John Cuthber The law and the prophets refers to the OT — the law being the Torah, and the prophets being the rest of the OT. Christ "fulfilled" the OT 2,000 years ago. Christ could have stoned the prostitute. Christians do what Christ tells them to do. Why would they try to do what their God does when they are not God? In the same sense, citizens don't do what their government does — they don't collect taxes, declare war, legislate, etc. @PeterJ It has been said that similarities exist between Jesus's teachings and eastern philosophies.

@Iggy Yeah, Jesus got angry. He also got angry and cleared the temple of unholy activities. Remember — Jesus is God; I'm not. He exhibited what's called a righteous anger. Christians aren't supposed to do everything Jesus did. You should try resolving your anger issues. You actually can live without it. Don't tell me what sentiments I'm echoing. And I'm not Catholic. I'd be the first person to drop a dime on a pedo, and I did so to a relative. I'd do it again in less than a heartbeat. Again, most westerners of any faith or non-faith would agree that unresolved hatred will destroy one from the inside. @ydoaPs You're too late with this Christian-bashing mantra. Christ fulfilled all the law and prophets. Check my previous posts. @overtone I didn't add. To begin with, if you want to discuss what you said in Post #51, then provide Bible citations and we'll take it from there. For example, Christ said not to go out to the street corner and pray ostentatiously like the Pharisees do. Is that what you meant by Christ's "discouragement of public prayer"? I don't recall any other such statement. Your paragraph that begins with "false choice" and ends with "blackmail" makes no sense to me. Please explain more clearly. Lawrence Murphy? Christ tells us to obey the civil laws. So, yeah, the Roman Catholic [Pedophile] Church is rotten from the fellow priests who knew what was happening all the way up to the Pope, and they should all be sitting in prison for the rest of their lives. Like all the employees of all the financial institutions who gave out sub-prime mortgages and wrecked the world's economy — they should all be sitting in prison for a long time. One bank employee said he approved a mortgage full well knowing that the people couldn't even make the first payment. As an engineer, if I approved sub-standard concrete or steel in a bridge project just because it was a common practice, even though I knew it was wrong and that the first car wouldn't make it across the bridge, where would I be today? Sitting in prison for a long time. And the US government is just as corrupt for not prosecuting them. Action should not be delayed until, or be dependent upon, the presence of hatred. The perception of wrong should — and must — suffice. I have seen hatred destroy a person. Take the local case (for me) of the murder of a kid named Shaun. His mother could work to keep his murderer in prison forever without harboring a self-destructive hatred for him. But she has harbored hatred, and it has ruined her life. She now realizes that her hatred is destroying her like a cancer. It alienated her from family and friends, it wrecked her marriage, she can't hold a job, it served no purpose, and probably most of all — it gives her no real closure. She even became angry and resentful at her community for not hating as much as she did. She has focused too much on Shaun's death (in which he obviously played a passive role), instead of focusing on his life, which was the real "him". The main point here is that a person can forgive without forgetting. (You won't find "forgive and forget" in the Bible.) No one ever asked Shaun's mother to forget what happened. But her hatred has worn a rut in her brain when it comes to Shaun, and it hopefully has not overwhelmed her beautiful memories of the great kid Shaun was. Because that's what hatred does. Shaun was his life, not his death, and hatred toward his murderer can obscure this fact.

ydoaPs: "I highly doubt that lightburst has ever said that they will never change their mind and that their previous posts will be word for word truth until the end of the world." Ewmon: Lightburst questioned whether former statements overruled latter statements or vice versa, and I questioned lightburst's own rules of rhetoric in order to resolve his question. @John Cuthber What did Christ do when the citizens wanted to stone a prostitute? He said, "Those of you who are without sin can cast the first stones", and they left, and he told her to stop sinning. Iggy: "I don't think acts of hatred should be abolished. ... Christianity's reaction to rape and rapists is totally different. They see the child-raping priest and think "well, those children really aught to love their enemy". ... I'm not sure why you were asking that, but there you go. Ewmon: Wow, well I'll pray for you because Christ said even anger and hatred are wrong. I think most people would agree. Hmm. On the one hand, I grew up Catholic and had three pedo-priests in my parish (and was present when one of them did what I later realized was trolling for vulnerable boys), but I don't recall anyone saying anything like that. Can you name any such person? But on the other hand, anger and hatred tend to destroy a person from the inside out, so the victims should eventually resolve any anger and hatred ... and just about everyone would agree, I would think. Well, I asked because you seemed to be equate punishment with hatred. Overtone: adultery ... might be more in line with Christ's direct teachings than ... the stoning [Christ's] discouragement of public prayer, [Christ's] disparagement of heterosexual marriage, [Christ's] dismissal of loyalty to family and friends, [Christ's] advocacy of dispossession and avoidance of wealth accumulation through work, and [Christ's] cheerful rendering of one's money to the government whose coinage it is regardless of legitimacy or purpose. Ewmon: No. See my response to John Cuthber in this post. In fact, he said if you break one law, you break them all, which meant that one sin is no worse than another, and thus, not to compare yourself to others, and so, think yourself "better" (and thus "okay"). Examples —" I overcharge my customers, but at least I'm not a pickpocket." ... "I'm a pickpocket, but at least I'm not a rapist." ... "I'm a rapist, but at least I'm not a murderer." ... Etc. I mostly agree with your statements and have added the reasons why he said them. Christ said not to be a show-off when you pray. Christ meant that marriage can complicate/hinder one's spiritual life. Paul also said it's better not to marry, but to marry if you desire it. Christ said that you may need to — and should — distance yourself from you family's religious practices if they interfere with your faith. I'm not remembering where Christ said to give up possessions and wealth. Can you cite the passage? Christ basically told them to pay their taxes. Where did Christ say "regardless of legitimacy or purpose"? Citation please. Christ meant that money was not spiritual, but an invention of the government. Many of his Jewish followers saw him as a rebel warrior leader, and they hated their subjugation to the Romans, so they wondered if he would lead a movement against paying taxes to Rome. He was a rebel leader in a spiritual sense, but not in any other way.

@John Cuthber This (Matthew 5:17-18) explains the Christian-bashing mantra that you quoted. @Iggy So, sending murderers and rapists to prison as a punishment are merely acts of hatred that should be abolished? @lightburst If the latter (NT) doesn't overrule the former (OT), then I have your permission to hold you to an former post in the forum when you try to amend, clarify or expand on it with a latter post? And you never go back to edit a post?

Human nature would rather do whatever it pleases with only positive, and no negative, consequences ... eg, delicious pizzas and hot fudge sundaes without the calories or the pain of overeating (or the lactose intolerance). Negative physical consequences are obvious — play Russian roulette and you might lose your mind. Moral consequences may not be so obvious or immediate, but we should be warned away from them. Christ's new commandment to love your enemies pretty much overruled most, if not all, of the "bad things" in the OT. There's also dietary laws in the OT that Christ overruled, so Christians don't follow those laws either. There's no dilemma, there's no cherry picking, and there's no need to go outside the Bible. It's not that the OT is wrong, but that some of it served its purpose for the circumstances at that time. For example, there's different rules for a tribe wandering around in the desert than there is for a settled community and, to give an instance, corporal punishment was needed apparently because "incarceration" was next to impossible for a wandering tribe. The Bible is an invariant source, but how people interpret it is another matter. Even today, we have respected SCOTUS justices who differ widely on how to interpret the Constitution, statutes, etc. One reason for this thread was to find out with what to bash atheists when they make a bad moral decision. The reality is, there isn't anything ... there's no Atheist Manifesto or Atheist Mission Statement, etc. Without being facetious whatsoever, I could offer atheists a suggestion for a starting place. When state and federal judges consider an appeal of a lower court ruling, they sometimes consider opinions/rulings/arguments from other jurisdictions, federal districts, countries, and whatnot. In Griggs vs Duke Power Co before the SCOTUS, the justices' opinion included a casual reference to an Aesop's fable (without even crediting/mentioning Aesop), given below, as a fundamental source of morality as though everyone should/would know the fable. Aesop's fables seems to be a good starting place for an atheist moral code.

John Cuthber Ewmon It fits perfectly: that's exactly what it says in the OT and is reinforced in the NT when Jesus says that all the laws of the OT still apply. Why do you insist on pretending the Christ meant something other than what he said? He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law" The interpretation that when Christ said that the OT stands, he meant that the OT stands, is perfectly consistent. What's inconsistent is that there's any love involved. Why do you not accept that he didn't change the old laws: the OT laws (stoning etc) were not abolished? Jesus fulfilled the laws and the prophecies. He said to love God, love your neighbor and love your enemies. And yet, as has been pointed out, the old laws of the OT still apply; so the "an eye for an eye " still holds true. As an aside that has nothing to do with Christianity, it is understood among historical and legal scholars that, in ancient times, the legal principle of "an eye for an eye" actually limited the punishment for a crime to the damage caused by that crime instead of previous, more brutal punishments. For example, instead of hacking off a guy's hand who had hacked off someone's finger, the authorities would only hack off the guy's finger. As odd as it may seem at first, the legal principle of "an eye for an eye" is similar to the Golden Rule, but applied after the fact instead of before the fact. Christians don't recognize" an eye for an eye " as "law", and they don't practice it. Empirical data should not be ignored. So, you are screwed, because anger is part of the human condition Not screwed because we (you too) can control our emotions and rise above our animal selves for the most part, but for Christians (and some others), there's forgiveness. So, once again, it's "don't do as I do: Do as I tell you" from God. Exactly, we are not God. Similarly, in America, we agree to submit ourselves to the government's authority, and the government can tax citizens, seize their property through imminent domain, try them for crimes, convict them, imprison them, execute them, wage wars, make laws, etc; whereas citizens such as you and I cannot legally do such things. If he had meant to change the law (i.e. to say that God had previously got it wrong, which is "interesting") Why not say so? Why, in particular, say the exact opposite? God didn't get it wrong, but he has helped his people to understand the reality of life, step by step. We must know the laws in order to allow us to tell right from wrong. And because we are imperfect (as you intimated above), laws can only show us our imperfections ... in Christianese, the law can only condemns us; it cannot save us. However, if you know with a certainty that Biblical law is actually brutally inhumane, then I trust that you have already contacted the relevant authorities (USAG, US H&HS, etc) and NGO's (the United Nations, the American Red Cross, the many Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, etc) as to the Bible's brutally inhumane commandments to Christians who are perhaps on the verge of recognizing these supposed Biblical truths and triggering the insidiously evil self-destruction of America and the rest of Western Civilization.

I really don’t want to evangelize here. I think you said that you were raised in the faith. Were you ever threatened with, for example, being stoned for being a disobedient child? I highly doubt it, or at least, I hope not. First of all, Jesus took away the sins of the world. Not just sins by Christians or former Christians, but all sin. So, how could a Christian parent, for example, stone a child to death for disobedience? It doesn’t fit the overall Christian faith. Someone who sincerely believes in Christ, believes that God alone punishes the unrepentant sinner, maybe not in this life, but definitely by — or on — judgment day. The New Testament is chock full of talk about love, forgiveness and giving. Our job is to love; God will punish. I think you’re referring to Matthew 5:17-18. Christ says that he hasn’t come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. The Law being the first five books (ie, the Torah) of the OT; the Prophets pretty much meaning the rest of the OT. Remember, at his time, the OT was all the scriptures there were. By “fulfilling” the Law and the Prophets, Christ means that his purpose was to fulfill all the prophetic statements of the OT about the Messiah, and that all such prophecies in the OT point to him. Christ has already done so. When all of Matthew 5 is read, we find Christ’s fulfillment statement sandwiched in between the “Blessed are the meek … Blessed are the merciful … Blessed are the peacemakers” types of extolments prior to verses 17 and 18, and the statements afterward of, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire” as well as “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” and also "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” and “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” So, this alternate interpretation would be contradictory that — in the middle of encouraging us to be to be meek, to be merciful and to be peacemakers, to not be angry, to love your enemies, to turn the other cheek to go the extra mile, etc — Christ basically mentions that, oh by the way, if your kid disobeys you, stone the brat to death. (It's even sinful to think of a child as a "brat".) This alternate interpretation would be a non-sequitor both within Matthew 5 and relative to Christ’s overall extolling of Christians to be loving, giving and forgiving.

Moontanman, I said the OT must be read in light of the NT. On bashing Christians by not doing science The Christian bashers aren't "doing science" when they bash Christians. They interpret the Bible (the "CoA"), then they observe the Christians (the "product") and notice that the Christians do not exhibit the characteristics specified by the bashers' interpretation of the Bible. Do they interrogate the Christians to try to understand why, or do they continue to proclaim their interpretation of the Bible as true? The bashers ignore their own empirical data and they accept their interpretation of the CoA. Bad science. The Christians are the ones who base their life (and their eternal afterlife) on the Bible. The bashers do not (plus, they don't believe in an afterlife). Who's more likely to read it correctly — who has more at stake? (This is not rocket science.) Again, why aren't the bashers notifying NGO's, the legal authorities, Christian church leaders, the Pope, etc. They should tell people of the supposed dangers of having these books around — someone could read it correctly (allegedly) and start stoning their kids, burning witches, raining fire and brimstone down on homosexuals, etc. On Slavery (because at least one person seemed to criticize me for not knowing about slavery) Forms of slavery existed apart from the Atlantic slave trade, which remains such a focal point for many Americans. In ancient Rome, if a slave pleased the pater familias enough, he could raise the slave to the status of a “son”, complete with inheritance. If an actual son displeased the pater familias enough, he could reduce the son to the status of a “slave”, including selling him. (source: Ancient Law, Maine, 1861) In many nations, slavery involving debts was known as debt bondage, debt slavery, bonded labor and pawnship. Keep in mind that becoming insolvent was, a couple of centuries ago, considered almost a criminal act; that is, promising payments that the person knew he couldn't make. Bankruptcy was a quasi-criminal proceeding against the person. (source: Black's Law Dictionary) In antiquity, soldiers went into battle knowing that they might be killed in battle or captured, and if captured, they might be executed or enslaved. Now, to revisit the Atlantic slave trade. This chapter in the history of slavery began with Europeans and Americans buying prisoners of war as a result of the endemic fighting among African nations.

Because we are very off topic, I may as well post this here instead of a new thread. Some people here are more interested in "invariant interpretation" (which is not a part of this thread) than "invariant source" (which is a part of this thread), and other people are ignorant of the New Testament, and other people simply want to bash Christians. So, hey, let's bash some a[nti]theists. Doing science You are a Raw Materials QC Scientist, and you receive a shipment of a product. You open the package and read the CoA which states that the vendor tested the product and found it to be within the nominal range of 5.00±0.05. It doesn't matter what the product is; it could be a chemical standard of 5.0 concentration, it could be 5Ω resistors, 5.0 diopter lenses, etc. You place several samples of the product into the analyzer, and you observe that they all read 0.00 (that is, zero). So, you circle the "5.00±0.05" on the CoA and you write next to it ""Value confirmed by Raw Materials QC Lab" and then you sign and date it. What's wrong with this little episode? Yes, the reality of the product did not support what the CoA claimed, and yet you stated that you confirmed the CoA's wrong values. Your lab manager reviews your work, checks the product you tested, and realizes that they are all labeled "0.00". He quickly realizes that the source lab enclosed the wrong CoA with the product, and that you had drawn the wrong conclusion through inattentiveness. This is bad science on your part. What do we repeatedly hear from a[nti]theists here? * Christians want to stone children to death! * Christians want to burn gays alive! * Christians want to enslave people! * Christians want to murder witches! All, it seems, with much hand wringing and overblown theatrics, including large and/or bold fonts. At the same time, anyone would be hard pressed to have observed one instance of any of these horrific activities happening either in their lives or on the news, etc. But do these a[nti]theists bother to ask a Christian why none of them are perpetrating any of these horrific acts? No, they don't ... they go on blindly believing that Christians secretly want to do these things based on what could be jocularly called the A[nti]theist Version of the Da Vinci Code. Sad, very sad. If these a[nti]theists honestly and sincerely believe that they have corrected interpreted the Bible in that Christians secretly intend to perpetrate these horrific acts, then they should be contacting all sorts of non-governmental organizations, from their local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, their local Wiccan, up to the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as governmental entities, from their local Police Departments, up through their state's Department of Children and Families, their Governor, the US Attorney General, the US President, and even the United Nations. Or at least they could be one of those Internet personas who create websites that expose conspiracy theories ("I have made a new and enlightening interpretation of the Bible and have found Biblical messages that command Christians to commit all sorts of unthinkable atrocities."). But do a[nti]theists perform any of these honorable acts — if they care so much about their fellow humans as they claim they do? If they have the correct morality? I want to hear from you. Call in, the phone lines are open. This is Tom Ashbrook, and you're listening to On Point. (just kidding ) Seriously though, any of you, have you contacted any NGO or any government official or agency about your "correct" interpretation of the Bible about what it supposedly commands Christians to do (otherwise they burn in hell for eternity)? And, if you have, what has been the response?

This should clear up several issues. Any Christian bashing here exclusively using the Old Testament is invalid. Christ preached love above all else. If you don't read the OT in light of the New Testament, then you can't use the OT to bash Christians. And what other Christians do, whether they live elsewhere or lived at a previous time, can't be used to bash me. It's just a waste of the poster's time. That's one nice thing about Christianity ... I'm only responsible for what I do or don't do, everyone is likewise responsible for themselves, and I cannot be held responsible for what anyone else does. But that's the Christian perspective. So-called atheists are doing some bashing here about Christians who are not here, obviously, or who are long dead. That's like bashing modern Americans for the African slave trade. Sorry, we didn't do it, and you can't hold us accountable for supposedly having done it. You're about 150 years too late. What's obvious here is a lot of anger from atheists who aren't as much "atheists" (ie, without theism) as they are "antitheists" (against theism). So the least they should do is admit to this reality. Here's an example of the difference between the two. Atheist — Antitheist —

I would say that they are very versatile, but in what regards are you studying them? I would guess that they are the most common non-aqueous solvents, and methanol is considered as the "universal solvent". Actually, I think the definition of alcohols (ie, having a =OH group) is too broad to have much meaning. Cholesterol is an alcohol, which our bodies need. Ethanol is an alcohol that our bodies can tolerate somewhat. Methanol is rather poisonous to us. There are cyclic alcohols, acyclic alcohols, simple alcohols, branched alcohols, etc depending on shape of their carbon "backbones". It all depends why you are studying them.

ydoaPs If morality is extrinsic to God, then humanity can be moral even in worlds without gods. If morality is intrinsic to God, then morality is arbitrary and/or meaningless (which one depends on your method of trying to claim morality is intrinsic to Her). So, which is it: is morality meaningless and/or arbitrary or are no gods required? And then there's the historical fact that theistic morality has changed throughout time. Whether or not they believe it to be true has no bearing on whether or not it is actually true. The universe doesn't care what you believe. You do know that there's an entire field of what we ought/ought not do (in which gods are conspicuously absent)? Funny how even the nihilists don't say "do whatever you want". Care to try something other than a straw man? Or he could keep the money, kill everyone else in town and take THEIR money, jump off a building repenting to Jesus on the way down, and have no consequences! Regarding extrinsic/intrinsic morality, are you claiming that atheists have a morality that's available without gods and that's meaningful and non-discretionary? Regarding changing morality, are you claiming that atheist morality has never changed? On the universe "caring", if the universe cared about morality, people wouldn't need to think, talk or "do" morality. I've already addressed your false use of "straw man". Atheists probably have difficulty understanding repentance because they believe in judgment/punishment in the here and now. If your child is truly repentant, would you exact punishment? Apparently atheists would, so it seems they don't believe that repentance matters. And if repentance doesn't affect the outcome, then why repent? When one lives in the world, one becomes as cold and uncaring as the world. Hopefully my new format is easy to figure out. I indent my replies to parts of posts that they follow. YdoaPs Ewmon Is slavery, or is it not, moral? When the God of the universe was telling mankind the "invariant moral code", she explicitly endorsed full-on American South-style slavery. She also explicitly endorsed the sex trafficking trade. As well as capital punishment for disobedient children.The fact to learn for today-the above quote is directly opposed to the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament and the words of the God of the universe herself as recorded in the Old Testament. As always, please give citations. For example, Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery was implicitly wrong, but Joseph being a "good slave" had its rewards (even though he was further wronged by Potiphar's wife who lusted after him) and ultimately saved him and his family. I think it's pretty obvious that, if he was a trouble-making slave, no good would have come from it. BTW, do you know the alternative to being sold into slavery was in sub-Saharan Africa during the American slave trading period? I'm not saying that slavery was "good", but that the alternative was death. What would you have chosen? "THINK NOT THAT I COME TO DESTROY THE LAW, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, TIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20) "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."-Jesus (Luke 16:17) Perhaps you should actually read the whole thing sometime rather than just the bits your pastor cherry-picks. I mean, you didn't even know the above quote from Matthew existed even though you paraphrased the part immediately following it in another thread. Come on, man. The atheists here tend to know the Bible better than the Christians-probably because we've actually read the thing. As I said, I read the Bible cover-to-cover twice with plenty of book and topical studies along the way. "... till all be fulfilled" refers to the predictions of the Bible. You stop quoting at Matthew 5:20. Why? From Matthew 5:21 onward, he says that even angry thoughts and words are like murder, lustful thoughts and ogling are like rape, and so on. Do you honestly believe that slavery, sex trafficking, capital punishment for children, etc are secretly lurking in the dark parts of Christian souls ready to act once society comes under Christian control? These are some of the issues that Christians act out against most strenuously. For example, I am thoroughly against slavery, sex trafficking and capital punishment of anyone. When the Illinois governor abolished death row, it brought me to tears, and I thanked him with an email. Any atheists here do that (even without the tears)? I've volunteered my time and energy for more charities than I can remember, and some of them being non-Christian. I was married to a suicidal, delusional, remorseless abuser who would tell my children harmful lies about me, who would then angrily confront me when I came home from work. And I would tell them, when someone tells you something about what I supposedly do, you can believe what you see me do. Otherwise, if I mentioned her name to them, she would fly into one of her rages. Anyway, when people interpret the Bible one way, but see Christians acting contrary to that interpretation, they can believe what they see — and maybe they will ask Christians to explain their morality. Iggy Ewmon Thank you, I've read both and know far more about it than you. I've read the boring bits. I've pronounced the names in the chapters dedicated entirely to genealogy which requires the symbols signifying long vowels, and things about that book you couldn't imagine not knowing. Yeah, good luck to anyone on the pronunciation of names. My first Bible study was in Numbers (ie, how many people in each tribe). Yawn. Everyone who has yet spoken to you has amply demonstrated their ability to speak on that subject far more intelligibly than you. Those are called the beatitudes. Read about them in the secular world. Gain about 20 years more education, then get back to me. That's the Christian-based secular world. People of other cultures/moralities can act far differently than westerners. You don't have one (ie, an invariant source of moral code). What part of those four words don't you understand? The Bible is an invariant source, although interpretation may change slightly over the years. Are you claiming that atheists have an invariant source of moral code, and thus, are better? They don't have anything close to an Atheist Manifesto or an Atheist Mission Statement. People here have yet to show me any source of morality by atheist except for the trivial "living with it" (which means, "makes me feel good"). Atheists don't have one (ie, an invariant source of moral code) — what part of those four words don't you understand? Just because you're claiming that Christian morality is wrong doesn't make atheist morality right. It must be awesome to live without a moral code that you or others can bash you with. How do you know that you've acted morally; do you use the can/can't sleep at night criteria? What are the consequences when you make a moral mistake? What do you do when someone expresses sincere regret? iNow Ewmon The source of morality is the community. Inputs from that community are filtered and perceived through certain tendencies with which we're born. Those tendencies more often than not result in us aligning our beliefs and understandings of norms and social mores closely with the surrounding pack, with our tribal elders, or even just with our parents. This is true for everyone regardless of worldview, ideology, or beliefs. I pretty much agree. If we lived in China, we could more easily believe that aborting female fetuses and killing female babies is morally okay. If we lived in Muslim communities, we could more easily believe that female genital "mutilation" is morally okay. What I have yet heard from atheists here is that western communities/morals were founded on Christianity, not Islam or other beliefs. To suggest that morality comes from a two thousand year old internally inconsistent anthology of fictions written by goat herders in the desert or perhaps through fear of punishment from some imaginary cloud surfing ethereal sky dictator does little more than to betray ones ignorance of the subject. See my reply above. Also, the 2,000+ years relevancy is quite impressive. Even though you're wrong about the Bible apparently being written exclusively by "goat herders in the desert", are you saying that goat herders in deserts can't be morally right? Wow, that would be a slap in the face to goat herders in deserts throughout history. It would be slanderous, defamatory, etc. Besides, parts of the Bible are much older than that, and parts of the Bible were written by non-herders (eg, Luke was a physician, Paul was a tent-maker, some were fishermen, etc). I like "cloud surfing ethereal sky dictator" except that "dictator" makes him sound tyrannical. The Bible clearly shows that he is actually slow to anger. For example, when Adam sinned, God first asked him questions instead of simply punishing him. Iggy Ewmon By the way, Ewmon, I thought this went without saying in my last post (since I pointed it out previously), but I realize you need it spelled out. The verse I gave you about gay people being justifiably burned is in the new testament. It was Romans 1:26 and 27. It isn't the only one. Paul was quite the gay basher. You keep appropriate company. Citations are necessary and scientific. The first thing that Romans 1:26-27 says is that God let them be homosexuals. How do you interpret that sentence? You can find the warrant for slavery in the new testament too. From Jesus himself, "blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes" in Luke 12:37. Some people take that seriously. You probably would if you knew anything about it. Slaves would do well to seek favor with their masters. Consider Joseph in Egypt.As I have said, there were many reasons for slavery, not simply the American-African kind that we're most familiar with and find abhorrent Besides that, Christ was a moral non-conformist in his time, but in a sense, he was a social conformist. Whatever people's social situation, they shouldn't rock the boat directly, but through the goodness of their actions. If you slap someone's cheek, and they turn the other one to you; or if you make someone carry your baggage a mile, and they agree to carry it an extra mile (thus the saying "go the extra mile"), how would you feel? Would you feel like a jerk; would it soften your heart? I would hope so, and so would you. A slave that rebels will confirm his master's idea about slaves being no good as well as bring trouble to himself, but a slave who softens his master's heart can change his master's attitude toward slavery and all his slaves. So, should a slave be selfish, or should he consider others. But, no, you apparently don't even know that the old testament is part of the Christian bible. It's really sad. You've been lied to your whole life by religious authorities, never asking yourself what motives were behind their pontific smile. You just smiled back, handed over your money, and believed every word of it. The Christian Bible is the OT and the NT. All I'm saying is that both apply. You don't know me at all, you don't know what I've experienced, and you repeatedly have taken a lot of liberty with supposedly knowing me. Who I really am may very well shock you. But I know of the mindless drones of which you describe. A few days ago you said that atheists don't have morality. Please link to what you dubiously (and repeatedly) claim. Your repeated failure to give a link is beginning to speak for itself. You said "a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it." How insulated must a person be from the real world to think that? I feel for you. It's extremely sad. So, Iggy, for all the world to finally understand you, what do you base your moral decisions on? John Cuthber has already said that he must live with his moral decisions (ie, it feels good), yet this is merely a fundamental facet of any moral decision-making. How many sugars I put in my coffee is not a moral decision; no one loses sleep over such a decision. A judge sentencing someone to death is a moral decision, something that someone can lose sleep over. Moontanman Ewmon I once found $127 in a small plastic baggie in the parking lot where I worked. The bag smelled of Cannabis sativa, and no one was nearby when I found it. I asked around if anyone had lost any money, i had several people tell me they had but they couldn't tell me how much money was in it. Several others said the money was mine because i had found it, finders keepers, several others told me since it was obviously drug money i should keep it. Every last one of those people were theists, many claimed to be very devout fundamentalist theists. None of them thought I should try and return the money, a few days later a woman come to me in private and named the amount and where she had lost it, I gave it back... I felt relief the moral duty of finding the owner was lifted from me, I was then as now an atheist, they only one I knew at the time. What would your morals have told you to do ewmon? Having found it on company property, I would have turned it into the office. SamBridge Ewmon If the point is that morals are impossible without religion I completely disagree, Morals are possible without religion. I don't have a religion right now but I still have moral standards that I hold myself to regardless of what any religion says. Wasn't religion the basis for all those old wars and even many now? The Crusades even? Burning people alive cause they're gay? Comes from religion. Of course there's religions like Buddhism and Shintoism and Taoism and Confucianism and some old Celtic religion I can't remember the name of, which aren't so bad. Atheists caused plenty of wars, punished gays, etc. Shintoist Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. A Buddhist monk famously immolated himself. So they are as "bad". Also if morals cannot be independent from religion, how did religion get started in the first place? Someone had to have had some moral standard before in order to base a philosophical understanding of the world off of it. Morals are certainly possible without religion; I don't recall saying anything differently. Lightburst Ewmon Well that's not fair. That's just as arbitrary as saying the old testament should be the 'correct' interpretation because of seniority. Not that it's actually older, but you know being called 'old'. haha Then the American Bill of Rights are invalid? I'm wondering why having an invariant code of morality is important? It leaves room to choose the most morally satisfactory choice and choose the most generally satisfactory moral code. I guess I'm a relativist that way. People cannot make moral decisions without any source of morality (ie, principles), written or otherwise. Recording them tends to make them invariant. Imagine how it would be if we honored our wife beating polygamous father because a rock said so. By not following that particular rule, you are already diverging from this 'invariant source of morality' of yours and is applying whatever interpretation you have of what it means to be moral and what the righteous thing to do is. Your argument is invalid. Or are you going to say that you are actually sinning by not honoring your wife beating polygamous father? Who is this wife-beating polygamous father that people honor? Following an invariant set of rules for morality without question or thinking is just as void of morality as is a person accidentally saving a million people from a biological attack because his car crashed and got the terrorists caught in traffic long enough to get caught. If you do do it with question and thinking, then what's the point? Your argument is invalid. I don't know any Christians who do not question or think about their morality; it's what Christians do a lot; by definition, it's what they must do. Lightburst Ewmon Well that's not fair. That's just as arbitrary as saying the old testament should be the 'correct' interpretation because of seniority. Not that it's actually older, but you know being called 'old'. haha Then the American Bill of Rights are invalid, having been written after the Constitution was written? I'm wondering why having an invariant code of morality is important? It leaves room to choose the most morally satisfactory choice and choose the most generally satisfactory moral code. I guess I'm a relativist that way. People cannot make moral decisions without any source of morality (ie, principles), written or otherwise. Recording them tends to make them invariant; otherwise they lose their quality of being principles or standards. Imagine how it would be if we honored our wife beating polygamous father because a rock said so. By not following that particular rule, you are already diverging from this 'invariant source of morality' of yours and is applying whatever interpretation you have of what it means to be moral and what the righteous thing to do is. Your argument is invalid. Or are you going to say that you are actually sinning by not honoring your wife beating polygamous father? Who is this wife-beating polygamous father that people honor? Following an invariant set of rules for morality without question or thinking is just as void of morality as is a person accidentally saving a million people from a biological attack because his car crashed and got the terrorists caught in traffic long enough to get caught. If you do do it with question and thinking, then what's the point? Your argument is invalid. I don't know any Christians who do not question or think about their morality. Wow, it's what Christians do a lot; and by definition, it's what they must do. John Cuthber Ewmon "John Cuthber said he bases his moral decisions on being able to live with them." Oh no he didn't. What I said was that my morals mean that I have to live with my decisions. That's not the same as it being my basis for them. And, since that wasn't (and isn't) the basis for my morality, the rest of your post makes little sense. Please try to avoid strawmanning in future as it's a breach of the forum rules. I'm sorry, I never meant to strawman. I can't do it now, but I must revisit my last post and correct any instances of it there. Yes, we all must live with our moral decisions. "But I'm asking by what "standard" does an atheist judge (ie, base) his moral decisions?" OK, since you ask, (a bit belatedly, after making a silly assumption). ​I generally base my view of right and wrong on "What would happen if everyone did that?" and "Would I like it if other people did that, if not then I probably oughtn't do it" As it happens, those tie in pretty well with the biblical version "do unto others ...". Religion may well have got that right. Then I would guess that you probably grew up in a Christian/western society, although other societies have similar principles. However, I gather there is evidence of "morality" of a sort in non-human animals which suggests to me that we had morals before we were human and that we took those morals and added them to our proto-religions very early in mankind's history rather than the (in my view, absurd) idea that we were immoral until someone suddenly invented religion. I don't know whether morals or religion occurred first. I'm far from sure as to whether it matters. I mean, what if it was moral for a long-ago people to throw virgins into volcanoes sans religion? Maybe a virgin fell into a smoking volcano that then failed to erupt. Maybe their morality came from a sort of science: Smoking volcano + Virgin = No eruption. Incidentally, this" I'm not saying that theists have absolutely unchanging morals, but something is much less likely to change or to change greatly if it's based on an invariant source. " is demonstrably false, Read the Old Testament. The source hasn't changed but attitudes to slavery etc have completely reversed. It's not a case of "less likely to change"- they have changed. So, if people didn't have any record to reference, their attitudes would be less changeable? I can't agree. PS — Please cite the OT verse about slavery. As far as I can tell, it wasn't looked favorably upon. Joseph being sold into slavery in Egypt was portrayed as wrong, and that was in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, actually ¾ of the way through.Genesis.

I think RyanJ got it right in Post #2 — versatile, multi-valent, stable, abundant, and dr.syntax has twice indicated a fifth property — small enough to bond with other elements involved with life. Carbon seems to be the "social butterfly" of elements.

Note: Although I have not read thoroughly through all these posts, I hope someone is addressing the atheist source of morality and are not just bashing me with the Bible. There IS the second part of the thread’s title — What is the source of morality for atheists? Just because you claim Christians don’t have it doesn't mean that atheists do. @Iggy Iggy may have given us a real-life example of morality. Iggy slightly misquoted me twice, and it has made me look bad. Where I said “invariant source of moral code”, Iggy misquoted as “invariant morality”, and where I said that both heterosexuals and homosexuals spread disease, Iggy quoted me as saying that homosexuals spread disease. So, possibilities exist as to how Iggy’s misquotes happened. 1 — Maybe Iggy is dyslexic or illiterate. 2 — Maybe Iggy is ignorant. 3 — Maybe Iggy intentionally misquoted me to make me look bad. 4 — Other. So, my questions to Iggy are — Did you intentionally misquote me, and if so, by what morality can you justify doing so? Also, if you intentionally misquoted me, can you live with it? That is, for example, are you losing any sleep over it? And if you can live with it, does that make it morally okay? @YdoaPs You have repeatedly used the term “straw man” with me when I present an example of a claim that someone has made and then ask the person to address that claim as it applies to that example. Here you do it with my example of a person finding some money, and previously you did it with the idea that it’s supposedly impossible for someone to “do science” and “do religion” (whatever that's supposed to mean) at the same time. You use the term “straw man” incorrectly. A request to explain the application of a claim to a specific instance is not a “straw man”, otherwise, no one would ever need to justify their claims. If I ask what I must stop “doing” religion-wise in order to pipette fluids, operate a chemistry analyzer, and compute results, then I am not setting up a “straw man” as you might think, and my question cannot simply be dismissed by calling it a “straw man”. It is actually unscientific to make a claim and then to refuse to address a specific instance in which it supposedly applies. Someone may claim that all dogs bark, but if I ask them to explain that claim regarding basenjis and dingoes, I am not setting up a straw man, and the person cannot simply dismiss their obligation to explain their claim as it applies to those examples. Using the term “straw man” as you have done is simply illogical and, consequently, bad science. Ouch. @others There are many statements here to address, as I should have known that this would be controversial. To begin with, I have read the Bible cover to cover twice, and I have studied many of its books individually and repeatedly as well as having done topical studies. And sorry to disappoint, but I don't have a pastor. Second, I can’t be held accountable for the decisions and actions of Christians in the past, just as you atheists cannot be held responsible for decisions and actions of other atheists, both past and present. Okey dokey? As for the crusades, slavery etc, I certainly wasn’t alive at the time. Just because some Christians got some strange idea stuck in their craw and acted on it, doesn’t make me responsible. I acknowledge that some of it was certainly wrong. For example, I certainly would not have gone on the Crusades. Third, of all these claims of what Christians are supposedly to be, if you are not seeing it in real life, do you truly, truly believe that Christians are mentally/morally lurking in the shadows waiting for public sentiment to change so they can practice these alleged Christian morals (such as capital punishment for disobedient children), or is it much more likely that you have misinterpreted what the Bible says? Hmm. Ockham’s Razor? I am still reading here and still answering posts, but I also have a blizzard to contend with, and I have an obligation to go into work this weekend, although I don’t know how.

I highlighted some parts of this quote that I address below. hyperactive_iodine: There were a few comments made by ewmon in another thread that I wanted to address here as the setting is more appropriate. The argument made by him and many others is that morality is impossible without religion. I disagree with this for a number of reasons, the predominent one being that I do not believe the evidence is in support of moral instincts evolving from religion, but rather developing much earlier than and independant of religion. The claim that athiests do not ascribe to moral codes and do 'whatever feels good' is as false as it is offensive. We owe a great deal of our success as a species to our ability to cooperate with other members of the same group to achieve greater goals; this cooperation is dependant on prosocial mechanisms, which in turn give rise to standards in our instinctive moral judgement. Since this level of interaction has been present in societies predating religious factions and is present across all societies irrespective of the predominant religious belief (or lack thereof, as the case may be), it's hard to argue that its origins may be found in any religion, let alone one in particular. More prudently, studies (http://www.sciencedi...364661309002897 has a good overview of these) have shown that inituitive moral judgement is not only the same between people of different religions, but also between religious and non-religious people. And of course, regardless of all that, the Bible is full of atrocities that no sane person would call good moral behavior. How can the Bible be the source of ethical code when, for instance, it codones acts such as slavery? To begin with, I don't recall saying that morality is impossible without religion. If I'm wrong, then I apologize. Someone please show me where I ever said that. In fact, I said that "atheists are moral". It is, however, a question of on what they base their morality. John Cuthber said he bases his moral decisions on being able to live with them. That is a rather minimal and trivial answer and, in fact, it seems to be part of the definition of having morals. So, what are the consequences of John Cuthber making the wrong moral decision besides, say, not getting a good night's sleep? So, there's two questions actually — the standard by which an atheist bases his morality, and the consequences when the atheist makes the wrong moral decision. If I understand atheism correctly, the consequences of having to live with it only lasts until he dies because atheists don't believe in an afterlife — and, in fact, it's a really good reason not to believe in an afterlife. As a scientist, I have run 100's of thousands of tests on samples — mechanical tests, electrical tests, and chemical tests. And with every test I used a standard full well knowing that if I didn't, then the results would be baseless. Hypervalent_iodine believes evidence supports moral instincts developing much earlier than, and independent, of religion. But I'm asking by what "standard" does an atheist judge (ie, base) his moral decisions? Atheists seem to enjoy bashing Christians with the Bible, but what can be used to bash atheists? On what do they base their morality? Getting a good night's sleep? Does the moral decision made by an atheist yesterday still hold true or today and for tomorrow? I'm not saying that theists have absolutely unchanging morals, but something is much less likely to change or to change greatly if it's based on an invariant source. As to atheists ascribing to moral codes, I consistently said that atheists don't have an "invariant source of moral code". Anyone, please point out where I said atheists are immoral, and I will apologize. As to atheists doing what feels good, this is attested to John Cuthber himself admitting that he bases his moral decisions on being able to live with his decisions (ie, what makes him feel good). As to the Bible condoning slavery, western culture thinks of American masters and African slaves. Before I continue with this form of slavery, realize that slavery in other cultures often meant something different. I once sat and talked with a woman whose father owned slaves (and I seriously doubt anyone else here experienced anything similar). People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts or as a form of protection from addiction (substances, gambling, crime, etc), knowing the master would enforce good behavior as a crude form of social security. Some men ended up slaves as an alternative to execution as an enemy soldier. This is how the American-African slave trade began — instead of tribes capturing and killing their enemies, they would capture, imprison , and sell them to slave traders (which is actually more difficult than just capturing and executing them). So, what would be more cruel if it happened to you — to be executed, or to be sold into slavery? But I'm not saying that the Africans should have been grateful to be slaves, but the alternative seems to have been death. Certainly, slavery occurs in the Bible and, in fact, some of the most notable enslavements happened to the Israelites because they were screwing up. If you screw up, you might end up a slave. Any mystery there? Even if God didn't exist, if you screw up, you might end up a slave. And people (including atheists) might well say that they "deserved it". You live next door to an aggressive people, you let your guard down (as it were), and they enslave you. I admit that I don't know every instance of slavery in the Bible, but I do admit that Christ said that, if you're a slave, then be a good, hard-working slave. Joseph did exactly that, and it won him his freedom and much more. Many of America's founding fathers owned slaves, but I don't see here any condemnation of American's today. Why is that? Because they don't believe in slavery. And the same goes for Christians. Does any atheist here honestly believe that Christians are plotting in secret to, say, somehow enslave atheists? Oh my. I must announce something here. Because of my current work, I have an extremely busy schedule, and I can post here only briefly every day. If you notice my weekday posts, they almost always occur in the morning. I will certainly post here again, and I want to answer everyone looking for a response from me. Thank you.

The phrase to learn for today — "invariant source of moral code". The fact to learn for today — Bashing Christians with the Jewish Bible doesn't work. Ewmon: Let me say then that theists thoroughly "believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences. John Cuthber: Then they need to look up the word invariant. . It's not so long since the church approved of slavery. No, you need to look up the word "source". And I said "invariant source" not "invariant interpretation". It's not so long since America approved of slavery. Likewise, the SCOTUS has the US Constitution, which is pretty much an "invariant source", and SCOTUS is constantly re-evaluating and updating its interpretation of it. (However, from time to time, an Amendment is added to it, so it's not exactly an "invariant source".) Ewmon: An atheist man who can't escape the knowledge that it's "wrong" can only do so if he lives by some moral law; however, where does he get this moral law — what does he use? As I said, there isn't any Atheist Manifesto. He could easily justify keeping it. John Cuthber: No he couldn't. You seem to think atheists don't know right from wrong. He might keep the money anyway, but he would know it was wrong (For what it's worth, it's "Theft by finding" as far as the law is concerned) I never said that atheists don't have any morals; I said they don't have an invariant source of moral code. You have said yourself that you make up your own morals, and that you had to make sure you got it right. So, what's "right"? Ewmon: If they really wanted the money, they would have kept looking for it, right? Finding so much money rarely happens, so everyone expects people to behave like this, right? "Finders keepers, losers weepers", right? Anyone else who found the money would keep it, right? He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, right? The money and the bag are so old, that it must have been stolen/lost a long time ago and everyone has forgotten about it, right? John Cuthber: No. Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong, and wrong again. Why don't you think atheists are moral? Why this constant defamation? Atheists are moral, but I said that they don't have an invariant source of moral code ... no Atheist Manifesto; you just said, essentially, that you make it up as you go. Ewmon: Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves? John Cuthber: We do. That's why, in spite of the bible telling people that they should stone their children to death for swearing, people don't. They make their own moral judgement. The atheists are the ones who have noticed this. Sure, lots of people get to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves — and you list yourself among them — and it's especially difficult for them to do when they don't have an invariant source of moral code. Let me try to say once and for all that bashing Christians with the Jewish Bible doesn't work. Think of the New Testament as an amendment to the Old Testament. in the same way that the Amendments modified the Constitution. Go bash Jews with the Jewish Bible — oh, wait, you can't do that because it's not politically correct, and they'll sic the JDL, the Massad and maybe the ACLU on you. Okay then, go bash Muslims with the Qur'an — oh, wait, you can't do that because they'll declare a jihad or a fatwa — or both — on you. John Cuthber: It's not so long since the church approved of slavery. That doesn't depend on what I believe: it's a straightforward fact. ​They firmly believe something which is obviously false. Iggy: I wouldn't trust that fact to work on Ewmon. I tried the same thing as far as "burning homosexuals alive" being immoral. His response, which was admirably un-hypocritical, was that they deserve to be burned alive. They sin, and spread disease, and whatever the hell else he said... it was altogether awful. So, I think we have a fairly straight firing line. The religious want to kill and maim (and keep slaves if they're consistent), and they think all of humanity deserves to suffer. The anti-religious think the opposite. Let's just see who wins the moral high ground here. Hopefully for the last time, bashing Christians with the Jewish Bible doesn't work. Please read the New Testament, and then get back to me; otherwise, you can't talk knowledgeably about Christianity. Here are some Cliff Notes on the New Testament — Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Turn the other cheek. Go the extra mile. Feed the hungry. Welcome the stranger. Clothe the naked. Tend the sick. Visit those in prison. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who mistreat you. Be merciful. Iggy: "invariant morality" HA! And again, hopefully for the last time — invariant source of moral code.

Please consider these three posts as the start of this thread; they were copied from the "Are all religious people hypocrites?" thread. (One little mechanical comment: I have trouble quoting quotes on this forum.) ​You rather seem to have missed the point that the theists don't have one either. Well, theist believe they do, but you don't believe they do. You're obviously someone who doesn't believe, so you don't know how believing can so strongly motivate a person. Let me say then that theists thoroughly "believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences. Let's say a man finds a money bag labeled "First National Bank of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota" loaded with $1 million of randomly numbered small bills, so he knows to whom it belongs. Society and the government think it is "wrong" (ie, illegal) for him to keep the money, but the man is socially and legally safe because, in a moment of weakness, he kept the money and destroyed the bag, so only he knows the true owner of the money. A theist man believes that God already knows what he has done, and if he doesn't confess and repent and return the money, he will suffer supernatural judgment and eternal damnation. So he confesses his greed, and repents from greediness, and returns the money. And yes, he can forget that he had committed this momentary wrong that he did. Otherwise, if he feels guilty and condemned for the rest of his life (ie, does not gain any moral relief, or feel absolved) as if he kept the money, he may as well actually keep the money and gain some benefit/compensation from feeling guilty and condemned. So it makes perfect sense that he no longer feels guilty and condemned. An atheist man who can't escape the knowledge that it's "wrong" can only do so if he lives by some moral law; however, where does he get this moral law — what does he use? As I said, there isn't any Atheist Manifesto. He could easily justify keeping it. By their own rules, the First National Bank and the government police forces will have spent a certain amount of money/effort to try to find it and then they will stop, knowing that the FDIC (or whatever) will cover such losses, and assuming that, most likely, the money will eventually be found by someone and that most people would keep it. If they really wanted the money, they would have kept looking for it, right? Finding so much money rarely happens, so everyone expects people to behave like this, right? "Finders keepers, losers weepers", right? Anyone else who found the money would keep it, right? He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, right? The money and the bag are so old, that it must have been stolen/lost a long time ago and everyone has forgotten about it, right? John Cuthbar, in your last sentence, you basically say that an atheist gets to decide how s/he will feel for the rest of his/her life, so s/he is required to get his/her moral decision "right". This is circular reasoning. To paraphrase Bill Cosby's response to the idea that marijuana enhances one's personality, let me say: What if the man who found the money is a jerk? Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves? Andrew Kehoe was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. Lee Harvey Oswald was morally right, he just got caught too. Jack Ruby also. And all those pedophile priests. And, of course, reductio ad Hitlerum, Adolf Hitler was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. To top it all off, the pain of guilt only lasts, as you said, for the rest of the atheist's life, so death comes as a relief — there's no pain after that. Life's a bitch and then you die, right? May as well go for the gusto while you can. Start a bucket list. This is all there is. Look out for Number One. Keep the money. I wouldn't trust that fact to work on Ewmon. I tried the same thing as far as "burning homosexuals alive" being immoral. His response, which was admirably un-hypocritical, was that they deserve to be burned alive. They sin, and spread disease, and whatever the hell else he said... it was altogether awful. So, I think we have a fairly straight firing line. The religious want to kill and maim (and keep slaves if they're consistent), and they think all of humanity deserves to suffer. The anti-religious think the opposite. Let's just see who wins the moral high ground here. "invariant morality" HA!

​You rather seem to have missed the point that the theists don't have one either. Well, theist believe they do, but you don't believe they do. You're obviously someone who doesn't believe, so you don't know how believing can so strongly motivate a person. Let me say then that theists thoroughly "believe" they have an invariant source of moral code with inevitable and eternal consequences. That's the wrong way round. I might escape punishment by others (as long as I don't get found out) but I can't escape the knowledge that I did something wrong. However, if I belonged to the right faith, I could go to confession and then forget about it because I would consider it "absolved". I'm the one who has to consider how I will feel for the rest of my life so I'm the one with a requirement to get the moral decisions right. Let's say a man finds a money bag labeled "First National Bank of Frostbite Falls, Minnesota" loaded with $1 million of randomly numbered small bills, so he knows to whom it belongs. Society and the government think it is "wrong" (ie, illegal) for him to keep the money, but the man is socially and legally safe because, in a moment of weakness, he kept the money and destroyed the bag, so only he knows the true owner of the money. A theist man believes that God already knows what he has done, and if he doesn't confess and repent and return the money, he will suffer supernatural judgment and eternal damnation. So he confesses his greed, and repents from greediness, and returns the money. And yes, he can forget that he had committed this momentary wrong that he did. Otherwise, if he feels guilty and condemned for the rest of his life (ie, does not gain any moral relief, or feel absolved) as if he kept the money, he may as well actually keep the money and gain some benefit/compensation from feeling guilty and condemned. So it makes perfect sense that he no longer feels guilty and condemned. An atheist man who can't escape the knowledge that it's "wrong" can only do so if he lives by some moral law; however, where does he get this moral law — what does he use? As I said, there isn't any Atheist Manifesto. He could easily justify keeping it. By their own rules, the First National Bank and the government police forces will have spent a certain amount of money/effort to try to find it and then they will stop, knowing that the FDIC (or whatever) will cover such losses, and assuming that, most likely, the money will eventually be found by someone and that most people would keep it. If they really wanted the money, they would have kept looking for it, right? Finding so much money rarely happens, so everyone expects people to behave like this, right? "Finders keepers, losers weepers", right? Anyone else who found the money would keep it, right? He just happened to be in the right place at the right time, right? The money and the bag are so old, that it must have been stolen/lost a long time ago and everyone has forgotten about it, right? John Cuthbar, in your last sentence, you basically say that an atheist gets to decide how s/he will feel for the rest of his/her life, so s/he is required to get his/her moral decision "right". This is circular reasoning. To paraphrase Bill Cosby's response to the idea that marijuana enhances one's personality, let me say: What if the man who found the money is a jerk? Do we really want to live in a society where everyone gets to decide what's morally right or wrong for themselves? Andrew Kehoe was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. Lee Harvey Oswald was morally right, he just got caught too. Jack Ruby also. And all those pedophile priests. And, of course, reductio ad Hitlerum, Adolf Hitler was morally right, he just got caught, that's all. To top it all off, the pain of guilt only lasts, as you said, for the rest of the atheist's life, so death comes as a relief — there's no pain after that. Life's a bitch and then you die, right? May as well go for the gusto while you can. Start a bucket list. This is all there is. Look out for Number One. Keep the money.

Thank you for correcting me. I'm not saying that non-Christians (rather than "atheists", which was poor wording on my part) don't/can't identify any behavior as wrong, I mean that Christians accept that some behavior is wrong because the Bible identifies it as wrong, and that some non-Christians may think that some behavior is wrong, and yet, they may not have an invariant source upon which to found their thoughts, or inevitable and dire consequences (ie, eternal damnation) to avoid should they think or act otherwise. As far as I can tell, atheists don't have an invariant source of moral code or inevitable and eternal consequences to avoid. Who knows, maybe one of them has written an "Atheist Manifesto" upon which all atheists swear allegiance under the pains and penalty doled out by fellow atheists for the rest of their life, but I have never heard of one. By definition, because atheists don't believe in a supernatural (all-knowing and all-powerful) being, they can't believe that they can never escape judgment. And because atheists likewise don't believe in an afterlife, they can't believe in eternal damnation. So what I should have said was that, although a Christian and an atheist might commit a wrong, the Christian believes he cannot escape judgment and punishment unless he confesses and repents, but an atheist does not believe this. This gives atheists a lot more moral wiggle room than Christians. There's another antithetic dimension involving Christians and atheists. Christians believe in after-life judgment and condemnation for everyone, but an atheist believes that any judgment and condemnation must occur in this life. So maybe that's why "the atheist" is seen from the Christian perspective as being so hot to criticize (ie, judge and condemn) Christians for being "wrong" — because the atheist's perspective is that Christians (and everyone) must be judged and condemned in this life.

You may not want to hear this, but your perspective is in perfect unison with the mainstream Christian perspective. I kid you not, you could very well hear what you say above,verbatim, in a sermon on any Sunday in just about any Christian church. The Jewish Law can only point out that everyone is a loser. Because no one can perfectly adhere to it, it can only condemn us, it cannot save us. What does everyone in every culture know? Tell your child that s/he is a loser, useless and can never please you sufficiently, and what might that child do? Commit suicide. It is inherent in the human nature. It is universal. Christianity recognizes this — that any law can only condemn and can never offer dignity and self respect. That's why Christ could give salvation to those who believe in him ... that he took our failures and bore them and was sacrificed because of them, so that Christians (ie, those who believe this) can live with "dignity and self respect". Otherwise, we would walk around with a dark cloud over us, wanting to put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger (several times, if it was possible ). Given that both Christians and non-Christians share this unified perspective, the only difference between them is that Christians believe that certain thoughts or words or acts are wrong, and the non-Christian does not believe so. That is, that the Jewish Law correctly defines specific wrongs. So, I think what's central to the issue here isn't that homosexuals were burned alive (I think you were referring to Sodom and Gomorrah), but that God condemns their lifestyle in the first place. Today, we have some people who think that homosexual behavior is normal/natural, and some people who think it's not. In both camps, you will find some people who call themselves Christians and some people who don't call themselves Christians.

Okay, so what part of the Jewish Law do you want to discuss?

The same exact chapter I paraphrased immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased? Did you really mean to say that? But I didn't paraphrase the chapter immediately prior to the bit I paraphrased. So, chapter and verse please. Atheists may not believe it, but that doesn't make it immoral. Don't tell me that you've never done anything wrong or bad. Give me a general description of something wrong or bad that you've done.

Could you give me chapter and verse, please? Ask a Christian — the entirety of mankind deserves pain, suffering and death. That may be a basic difference between a Christian and an atheist — a Christian is able to admit that some acts are wrong, whereas atheists tend to think that, if doing something feels good, then do it. Never mind that the transmission rates for AIDS and other STDs is several times higher among gays than among heterosexuals or that the Red Cross won't touch your blood if you are a male who has had sex, even once, with another male since 1977. Never mind what the researchers and the scientists and the doctors say, it's natural just because we say it is. Yeah! Imagine the pastor dismissing children below a certain age to another part of the building so he can preach on "adult" topics to adolescents and adults. My God! For example, I've listened to a sermon on fisting, not that it didn't make a few of the old ladies turn purple (the sermon, that is, not the fisting ). Everything possible? Christians already know how quickly non-believers become jaded if someone does "everything possible" to get them interested.

I'm tempted to ask who these bozos guys are, but I agree pretty much with the guy who did most of the talking (even though he makes funny faces). Christians try to live and mature toward a set of principles, and they'll be the first ones to tell you that they're not perfect and never will be, but that they try a lot. And the set in the video was too posed. I thought the coffee cups were overdone. I mean, how does one drink from a cup that's sitting nipple high. You don't seem to be suggesting that atheists can't be or aren't hypocrites. Because they don't have any standards to hold themselves to, it's hard to measure them. I like what Bob Dylan said about atheists. He said that there's a lot of angry people with knives and forks, but nothing on their plates, and they want to cut something. When it comes to killing infidels in the Bible, you're talking the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible), and mostly about God getting the Israelites into the promised land. Have you noticed how modern Israelis behave toward their neighbors in order to protect their promised land? Besides, if you really have read the Bible, you would have noticed that God is not above killing bunches of errant &$#%! Israelites who can't get their act together. God isn't about killing only infidels, he also beat the snots out of the Israelites when they screwed up. And when they really screw up, he sent them into slavery for hundreds of years. Now, if you want to talk Christian beliefs, Christ said for you to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, and to do good to those who do evil to you. So, yeah, definitely read the whole Bible. You'll find Christ in the New Testament.