ATHEISTS CAN’T BE MORAL!

23

Apparently atheists can’t be moral. Only an ancient book of fairytales and lies enables you the ability to distinguish right from wrong. His video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMjQFKXftWg
Subscribe to MrRepzion! https://www.youtube.com/user/MrRepzion

See my ice bucket challenge video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOajbANIyNU&list=UUravYcv6C0CopL2ukVzhzNw

ATHEIST / LOGIC shirts: http://www.jaclynglenn.com
BE MY PATREON! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Main channel: http://www.youtube.com/Jaclyn
Vlog channel: http://www.youtube.com/JaclynVlogs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jaclynglenn
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JaclynGlenn
Tumblr: http://jaclynglenn.tumblr.com/
Google +: https://plus.google.com/+JaclynGlenn
Instagram: http://instagram.com/jaclynglenn
Vine: https://vine.co/u/1098021519956815872

I only accept friends that I know, but this is if you want to follow my personal facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JaclynLovesCats

BUSINESS INQUIRIES ONLY: [email protected]

Special thanks to Dave for my outro song: https://www.youtube.com/davedays
Free download: https://soundcloud.com/jaclynglenn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BE MY PATREON! http://www.patreon.com/Jaclyn

*Please help support this channel!*
Use the email [email protected] to donate via PayPal, or go to https://www.youtube.com/user/JaclynGlenn?feature=watch and click the “donate” button at the top right corner.

Send me snail mail!
PO BOX 643051
LOS ANGELES CA 90064

23 COMMENTS

  1. Is the guy in the car Mr Repzion ?

    If so Jacklyn 60, MrRepzion 0.

    Jeez, I lived in San Francisco for a few years, but I never met anyone like him ! God’s perfect little automaton robot, worthy only to bring the cocktails to the “saved” as they watch the “sinners” swimming in the lake of fire, from the Grand Balcony in Heaven, and enjoying the show so. so so, so much, and into eternity…….

    And by the way MrRepzion, what the hell’s the problem with being made of matter ? The fact that MrRepzion’s body is made of “star stuff” is probably far beyond his comprehension.

  2. From what I’ve seen, MrRepzion’s argument seems quite ill conceived and badly constructed. I chose not to watch his whole video, as I have very little patience for bad appologetics, from theists or atheists alike so I didn’t finish watching Jacklyn’s video either. The plain fact is this. If there is no God, then there is no true moral line to adhere to. Murder cannot be concidered imoral, and surely can’t be called wrong. If I kill of as many oposing males, or males in competition with a female I prefer, then this insures my dna to survive. Natural selection is it not? Survival of the fittest! You can call it a bad thing if you want. But from an atheist perspective there is no such thing. Many animals kill of rivals so that the strongest can mate. Non consensual sex is a daily occurance in nature, but when you rape woman that is concidered wrong? You can tell me it’s obviously wrong to do these things, but from a non god universe perspective it obviously is not. Mr Dawkins seems to be in a bit of hot water lately with his statement that down sindrome babies should be aborted because it is immoral to have them. This from Mr.Atheist himself? Immorality? By what standard of Morality? I often here Mr.Atheist tell Cristians how cruel and hatefull their religion has been. On what grounds is it wrong for one nation to kill another nation? Why or how could genocide be wrong? I’m not saying Atheists can’t be “morral” but that there is no morral ground to stand on as an atheist. You cannot tell me that murder is obviously wrong! Or rape! Or slavery! Or genocide! A muslim decapitating another is after all just one animal killing off another. What inside you makes your stomach turn? What tells you inside that this or that action is wrong? For an atheist to declare one action moraly right and another moraly wrong, is as much hipocrasy as it is for a christian to hate gays, or condemn atheists to hell because they don’t believe. In a godless universe any action is only that another action. Now sure you can argue that “mass concensus” has decided what’s wrong and right. Or the benefit to the group is what drives morality. You can think of any argument you want in order to explain your current morral beliefs. But your personal feelings on what is acceptable to you and what is not, that feeling you get when you see someone murdered or raped, that feeling can surely only be a chemical signal. It means nothing in the godless universe. I’m not gonna try and make the argument that without God there can be no morality. I argue that the word morality is only what is acceptable at the time, what’s agreeable to the masses, of a godless universe. If you believe there is no God, then your current belief of morality is no different than the average christian’s belief in their faith. But then why do we feel for the homeless the destitute? Why do feel sorry for the orphin? Why do we oppose murder? What “evolutionary” benefit could we have for this behaviour? And if there is none then how do we come to posess these feelings? Is it not Religion’s rules that turned us from a barbaric history of sacrifing children, ruthless unhindered conquering of nations, the mistreatment of woman etc? Where do these ideas for what is morral and what is not come from? Who preaches these values to the masses? There are only two answers that can make any sense towards the origins of morality. It was either brought in to the population through religious beliefs, or we were born with it. But in a godless universe surely we wouldn’t be born with morality? We can only be taught what is morally right or wrong? But as an atheist surely your reason can surpass this thinking? Are you then not locked up inside the same “brain washing” you claim christians are suffering from? The real question of morality, true morality would be, “Is there a God?” If not then morality doesn’t truly exist and it’s just another “virus of the mind” one that for the benefit of mankind should be iradicated along with christianity and all other such beliefs? Do we really want to accept that? Because if there is no God that is exactly what we are faced with. This is an atheistic website for the most part. So let’s look at the question that is truly at hand. We might not be able to test various theories on the existance or non existance of a god. But we are and the end faced with only three solutions. Either our universe/or omniverse(whichever you wish to argue) is past eternal. Or our universe/omniverse is uncaused from nothing. Or our universe/omniverse is caused. There are no other options available. And you can jump from one stupid theory to the next but a few things require only logic to understand. If past time is eternal, neverending forever, then the present moment cannot occur. Please don’t argue, think about it logically. If the time before now is eternal into the past it means litterally never ending. Any fraction of infinity leaves you with infinity. This should not require scientific proof. It only requires some basic logic. Then we have the option of a causeless beginning. Richard Dawkins especially likes this idea it seems. He seems to at least be able to grasp the idea that an infinite past is not logical, and after all quantum fluctuations in space clearly shows according to mr.Atheist that nothing can and does becomes something at a whim and with no reason. Causeless. So then the matter must be settled? How did Hawkin put it? “Because there is such a force as gravity the universe must and will create itself” brilliant… Or is it? If we can except and understand that past infinite time is illogical and impossible then Time had a beginning(uncaused or caused no matter) space then also would have a beginning for If space does not have time it will not exist. Similar to matter and energy. If there was no Time and no Space then where does one put this matter. So this also had a beginning. Now this all seems straight forward and seemingly pointless to mention. But in it lies the dilema. No Time, No Space, No Energy. Where does Mr Dawkins quantum fluctuation that causes the universe reside? What processes govern Mr Hawkins Gravity? The atheist seems to conveniently forget a couple of basics here. Without time space and matter/energy there is no gravity, there is no quantum fluctuations. You need at the very least Time for these things to occur and effect and space for them to occur and effect inside. And gravity for one will merely be a number that cannot have any effect without introducing either matter or energy. You see it’s the dishonesty of men like mr Dawkins, to conveniently leave crytical errors out of their explinations of things. Quantum fluctuations occur inside space time, this so called “nothing” is two of the three fundamental pieces that make up our universe. And no logical person can equate mr dawkins “nothing” to what we all know true nothing would be like. Now I’m sure Mr Dawkins would Imediately state that the quantum fluctuations show uncaused events. The truth is we don’t know what causes it, His and others verdict of “uncaused” is no less unscientific that saying “God did it” This kind of thinking means others of mr Dawkins belief system will not look for a cause to quantum fluctuations because they have convinced themselves that it is uncaused. That type of refusal to investigate based on belief is exactly what Dawkins has been accusing the faithfull of. He is truly the ultimate hipocrate. Now we get to the obvious conclusion all atheists hate and refuse to look at. That the universe cannot be past eternal, cannot be uncaused from true nothing, and therfor had to be caused. And yes I also already know the final atheistic reply for my argument. “You cannot prove that this cause is inteligent” and you know what to an atheist and evolutionist I guess I can’t, your bias has already refused a Deity and Inteligent design. But the fact remains there is a Cause to this universe. And as the Cause of time, It must itself be uncaused and timeless, as the cause of space it must be spaceless and omnipresent, and as the cause of all the energy we can ever know of It surely can be concidered allpowerfull. So there is a eternal omnipresent omnipotent Cause to our Universe.

    [Last paragraph removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use, which prohibit preaching. You’ll find a link to the site’s Terms of Use at the foot of each page.]

    • Hi Riaan, Even if God’s existence could be proven, this would not suggest that the doctrine of Christianity is true. Islam might be true, in that case. Muhammad assured the readers of the Koran that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75) and that Christians who believe otherwise will end up in hell. Why don’t you lie awake at night worrying about whether you should convert to Islam?

      • Hi Bob

        It was not my intention to suggest that the existence of God means Christianity is true and correct. I fully agree with you If there is a God then any religion could be true.

        You do however ask me a Question and I’m more than willing to answer it. Why do i not lie awake worrying whether to convert to Islam or not?

        To be honest because I’ve already done that. I was raised in a christian house, but as a passionate learner and a lover of science, I was faced with the inevitable “fact” of evolution. A “fact” that disagreed with the Bible and what it teaches about almost everything. So the only thing left to do for me was to reject the obviously wrong Bible. So i did.

        But the understanding that this universe cannot be infinite or uncaused, including the clear belief in a clear unmovable moral line, left me with the logical conclusion that there was a cause to this universe. If you look at what was caused, the assumption at least that this cause has a mind must surely be a possibility, and one i personally believed. If this was true then surely this Deity would have interacted with his creation, especially a conscious one.

        So i started to study religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism(which coincidentally does not believe in God either but is still considered a religion and belief-curious?) In order to see which would be the “correct” one to follow. I finally settled on the Wicca Religion, as it seemed to be the most peaceful, most thoughtful, and closest to nature of all the religions.

        But my study of religions did leave me with one inescapable fact, I’ve never spent this much time researching Christianity itself. So to be fair to intellectual progression i decided to start studying it. My study has revealed many things to me over the years. The first and foremost it got it right at the beginning.

        Surely those of us who can truly practice logic knows that all logical as well as current scientific evidence shows a clear definite beginning to time space and matter. Hawkins, Dawkins both of these man have come to an intellectual understanding that there is a finite past “space-time” boundary.
        At a point Time had to begin, to govern Space, So that matter/energy could begin. You cannot really have one without the other. The Bible starts with these words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” the hebrew for “the heavens and the earth” “haš-šā-ma-yim wə-’êṯ hā-’ā-reṣ” literally means everything, defined as two seperate components, heaven which is the non touchable(space) and earth, which is the touchable(matter) The difference is driven home in Genesis 1:2 where where the earth is said to be “formless and void” meaning not formed yet. thus verse 1 cannot imply the earth is formed in the beginning.

        So the Bible this ancient text gets it right on line 1, and in the sequence it needs to be for it to exist at all “In the beginning(Time) God(Cause) created the heavens(Space) and the earth(Matter)

        now the general atheistic answer is what i say “falsifiable” or will i just make it fit whichever way it lands. Well If the Bible said for instance ” God made the earth, then He created the Heavens. And then the universe began. Then It would be false straight from the get go. One cannot have matter if there is no Space for the matter to reside in and one cannot have space if there is no time to govern it.

        So i had to ask myself the Question ‘This ancient religious text gets a concept correct thousands of years before science catches up to the understanding of Time Space and Matter. What else could it hold that has truth?

        Now i don’t want to accuse you personally but i have found many atheist are so biased to the idea of no God that they are completely unwilling to sift through material, if it seems on face value that it’s wrong. Personally I have never suffered of this illness and I’m happy to read any material presented and weigh all the evidence, even if that evidence goes against what i believe, I’ve always been in search of truth, Evolutionary, religiously, atheistically, I’m happy with whichever position provides the proof.

        Personally I understand the appeal of atheistic “thought” (spare me the “It’s not a belief speech please”) I’m a sci fi nut! I watch star trek more than i care to admit, and i swear at times i think i can understand clingon. I love the idea of this universe where life evolves anywhere and everywhere. Live life to the full and who cares what happens after death, It’s the impact you leave on the universe you leave behind which is important. Seriously I don’t even find the idea of a godless universe offensive. Why would I? But after really careful consideration and many years pondering the question, I personally find it illogical to either believe a infinite past time could at all be possible or conceivable. And i find it illogical to think that the entire universe can come into existence from nothing. Not mr Dawkins “nothing” but true timeless space-less energy-less nothing.

        I’m sorry you can still try and convince me of evolution I’ll listen to anything you have to say. But i find the notion of “no god” personally illogical.

        whereas the more i study science and the Bible the more i come to realize that the Bible holds too much knowledge that science took many many years to discover, that at least for me I cannot deny that the Bible is not true, and I have never encountered proof, factual reproducible proof, that the Bible is incorrect.

        If there are any passages that you would wish to bring to my attention I’d be most glad to look at it and respond, though I’ll be honest with you, looking for and answering Bible “contradictions” is one of my hobbies, so I’m unlikely to be presented with something I have not come across. I would be happy however to discuss any part or parts of the Bible you wish.

        Now in order to cut a very lengthy reply down I’d like to say this finally. For me personally I find countless proves in the Bible for the correctness of my faith.

        from Genesis1:1 all the way to new testament prediction of what is to come 2 Peter 3:5 that even predicts the arrival of people such as yourself “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”

        But in the end, To accept any theistic religion as the truth, You have to come to the realization that God does in fact exist. The past eternal model is not logical, and neither is the idea that absolute something will or can turn into something as awe inspiring as our universe.

        Surely the atheist will not have himself bound by magical thoughts of matter coming into existence from nothing. If i told you my car or any other possession materialized out of nothing, surely your argument would be that it is impossible. but when it’s the universe, then it’s plausible?

        I’m sorry but it’s as weak and illogical an argument as I’ve ever seen.

        Thank you for your reply and question, Sorry but even in this lengthy reply, there is not enough space to document all the reasons why i believe in the Bible.

        I hope this at least gives you an idea of my point of view, if nothing else.

    • Riaan,
      First, you’ve associated atheism with the concepts of ethics and morality. Atheism is the lack of belief in the claim of any gods. Nothing more, nothing less.
      Secondly, you don’t seem to understand that religion didn’t create ethics or morality. There are religions that pre-date christianity/islam/judaism that could lay claim to ethics/morality simply because they’re older, but no one argues for those old gods… why is that? Humans created these concepts. The fact that they were hi-jacked by religion doesn’t change that fact. Humans created rules/laws out of a sense of self-preservation. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that religion is not a common uniting factor in any ethical/moral system? Even followers of those different religions don’t completely agree with the barbaric rules/laws written in their special little books… and these are people that were more than likely raised since birth in the religion and they still can’t agree with all of it.

      • Hi Fujikoma

        My argument was not that there will be no morality in a godless universe. I’m sure that some form of morality will form in any social behavior, be it chemical, psychological, circumstance or heard mentality.

        The point remains. In a godless universe what you claim as morality, will only be your belief, your indoctrination, chemically genetically or socially does not matter.

        The point has always been and will always be. That in a godless Universe, murder cannot be considered right or wrong, merely beneficial or non beneficial. According to general atheistic consensus, popularized by mr Dawkins himself, “religion is a virus of the mind” and the advance of the human species will benefit if all religions are eradicated.

        Then why not just kill off every man woman and child that believes in a God. With religion eradicated the human mind can fulfill it’s true potential, It cannot be considered wrong to do this. Sure you can have the feeling it’s wrong for whatever reason you wish to conjure up. But realistically if you are willing to follow reason as atheists often ask others. then surely you must except that your feeling of what is right or wrong, does not determine what is right or wrong. For nothing is neither right nor wrong.

        My appeal was not that without religion or God we cannot have morality. The point and a pretty undeniable one is that in a godless universe morality is completely subjective, determined by the user, and nothing more. there is no true right or wrong in such a universe.

        I then continue my appeal that if you can feel the distinct moral code inside yourself, If you know beyond reason that murder, rape, and things of this sort is wrong then i implore you to then inspect the possibility, and the logical likely hood that there is a God, and there is a right and a wrong. And our morals are guided by an absolute right and an absolute wrong.

        I hope this in some way answers your objection? If not please get back to me, I’ll try and make myself as clear as possible in a hope you would not accept what i say, but at least understand what it is that i say

        thanks for reading

    • The plain fact is this. If there is no God, then there is no true moral line to adhere to.

      I know that you are knew here but this argument has been disposed of ad nauseam in this and other secular forums. There is a belief among the religious that you can only have morals and values through god. There is a belief among the religious that you cannot have a meaningful life without religion. Both are demonstrably wrong.

      Ask yourself this question. What did the Israelites do the day before Moses came down from the mountain and delivered the 10 commandments, with the rules on morality and how to behave. Where they murdering, raping, stealing and coveted their neighbour’s ass. for the previous 2000 years?? No. They were living in tribal communities, following the commonsense rules for tribal living, developed in part through evolution, because Homo Sapiens, with a propensity to be able to live in communal tribal settings, did better that loners who murdered, raped, stole and coveted bulk asses. Tribes all over the world developed these very same rules for living. They’re nothing special. They’re not handed down from god. They are just commonsense. So the claim made by the religious that they and they alone have a monopoly on morals and values is just wrong. The 10 commandments were just one example of this commonsense code for tribal living, written down by preliterate societies. The secular world has superseded the religious Golden Rule with “First, do no harm.”

      And as for a meaningful life without a god… Where does one start. Do I not have meaning in my life. When I hold my grandson and look at the moon, am I not expressing values. When I donate from my meager retirement pension to good causes, some of which are administered by religious organizations, do I not have values. When I care for my 102 year old neighbour who’s family all live interstate, do I not have values. When I retired and it was said in the speech about me that my gravestone would have the epitaph, “Here Lies an Honourable Man.” Do I not have values. Being a good person doesn’t require a god with a gun to your head. Being a good person is just the right thing to do. Again, commonsense. My children, both are “good” people. Both went to religious schools. Both are highly respected professionals and neither believes in god.

      The mistake you have made is a common one. A mistake that has been shouted from the pulpit for time immemorial. The religious like to think that only they can wear the White Hats. But it’s not so. Anyone can wear a White Hat.

      • David.

        once again you fall into the trap of not trying to understand what someone of faith has to say, because of your biased beliefs, before you start reading.

        I’ll reiterate it clearly!

        My argument is not that a sense of morality cannot be formed in a godless universe. The point, one i often find people like you refusing to acknowledge, is that in a godless universe, the morality that any society lives by is in the end not an absolute morality, nothing can truly be right or wrong good or evil about any action. that society for whatever reason might adopt a code of conduct and i’m not suggesting that they cannot have that code of conduct without a god or religion, but that any such code of contact, in the end, is meaningless. It cannot mean anything. nothing can be considered truly evil or good in a godless universe.

        your welcome however to debate this at nauseam, telling me how we arrive at our moral stance and all that, but the inescapable truth and reason must be that in a godless universe morality is not a real definable line. It can change as society changes, in another 1000 years rape and murder can become acceptable, there is no absolute morality, no clear line of right and wrong irrespective of the beliefs of a species.

        But thanks for the miss quote, I always love it when atheists do to me what they accuse creationists of.

        good day

        • Riaan Aug 24, 2014 at 4:47 am

          once again you fall into the trap of not trying to understand what someone of faith has to say, because of your biased beliefs, before you start reading.

          On the contrary, i think many atheists know only too well and across a whole range of conflicting religions – not just the only one some believer assumes to be a default position.

          I’ll reiterate it clearly!

          My argument is not that a sense of morality cannot be formed in a godless universe. The point, one i often find people like you refusing to acknowledge, is that in a godless universe, the morality that any society lives by is in the end not an absolute morality, nothing can truly be right or wrong good or evil about any action.

          The problem with believers is that they fail to recognise, that no such thing as “absolute morality” exists, or has ever existed.

          First of all there are thousands of conflicting moralities based on thousands of gods and religions.
          Secondly, even confining the claim to one religion, the interpretations of what their holy books say about morality has been cherry-picked and varied greatly over the centuries: – and that is before we even look at the branching diversity of sects and denominations, which are in conflict with each other as to what morality is!

          that society for whatever reason might adopt a code of conduct and i’m not suggesting that they cannot have that code of conduct without a god or religion, but that any such code of contact, in the end, is meaningless. It cannot mean anything. nothing can be considered truly evil or good in a godless universe.

          Nothing can be considered absolute in a godless universe, and nothing can be considered consistent across the diversity of gods and religions.
          The delusion, is that the individual’s god (of whatever religion), is the default god, with a default “absolute” moral code.
          These conflicts, based on bigoted positions, are the basis of religious wars, genocides, inquisitions, and persecutions.

          your welcome however to debate this at nauseam, telling me how we arrive at our moral stance and all that, but the inescapable truth and reason must be that in a godless universe morality is not a real definable line. It can change as society changes, in another 1000 years rape and murder can become acceptable, there is no absolute morality, no clear line of right and wrong irrespective of the beliefs of a species.

          As has been evident throughout history. Slavery for example, is no longer considered to be moral by most Xtians – as it was in OT biblical times and only a few hundred years ago.

          Atheists simply accept that moral codes need to be thought out in terms of interested parties and consequences of actions, whereas those accepting preachings on blind faith, make no mental effort to think this through, and delude themselves that pre-packaged absolutes exist.

    • Why does the atheistic reply always start with an attack on spelling or grammar.

      Firstly any one replying in a browser can claim intellectual superiority on his spelling even though the browser does the spell check for you. I wrote my first response on mobile which does not.

      Secondly English is my second language.

      I have found that people who’s only real reply ends up an attack on spelling or grammar has nothing really to say.

      and your response proves the point.

      did you have a question? or did you merely want your swing?

    • Riaan Aug 23, 2014 at 7:35 pm

      Now we get to the obvious conclusion all atheists hate and refuse to look at. That the universe cannot be past eternal, cannot be uncaused from true nothing, and therfor had to be caused.

      You have no basis for these assertions or for anthropomorphic speculations. Why not just give the honest answer, and say we do not know the details of early cosmology.

      And yes I also already know the final atheistic reply for my argument. “You cannot prove that this cause is inteligent” and you know what to an atheist and evolutionist I guess I can’t, your bias has already refused a Deity and Inteligent design.

      Science has debunked intelligent / creationism design / creation-pseudo-science many times over.
      Not one evidenced hypothesis or theory has ever been produced to support “intelligent design”, but millions or research papers supporting evolution refute it.

      But the fact remains there is a Cause to this universe. And as the Cause of time,

      Really? A “fact” with no supporting evidence?

      It must itself be uncaused and timeless, as the cause of space it must be spaceless and omnipresent, and as the cause of all the energy we can ever know of It surely can be concidered all powerfull.

      All these “properties” of areas where we have no evidence or knowledge!
      How could you possibly know about these?

      So there is a eternal omnipresent omnipotent Cause to our Universe.

      Or an infinite regression of causes, or made-up speculations, or just plain wish-thinking about an absence of information – with the usual god-did-it-by-magic gap-filler to cover the information blank!

    • Sorry like you said, I ran out of patience when reading your essay, so I didn’t finish, I did get sidetracked onto TheMadEnglishmans reply though and he sums aspects of it up pretty well.

      However, if you look at a bigger picture, step back and have a little look a the news. When was the last atheistic war? When was the last persecution of x, by a horde of angry atheists?

      Gaza, sorry until that shit is sorted out, “religion” has no moral high ground.

  3. "The plain fact is this. If there is no God, then there is no true moral line to adhere to. Murder cannot be concidered imoral, and surely can’t be called wrong. " —

    The existence of an all-seeing, all-powerful deity who threatens transgressors with eternal punishment is (if you believe) a pretty powerful motivator for doing [whatever the deity says is] the right thing. If the deity says "kill the unbeliever!", you surely will obey (or suffer yourself). This is morality?

    "If I kill of as many oposing males, or males in competition with a female I prefer, then this insures my dna to survive. Natural selection is it not? Survival of the fittest! You can call it a bad thing if you want. But from an atheist perspective there is no such thing. Many animals kill of rivals so that the strongest can mate. Non consensual sex is a daily occurance in nature, but when you rape woman that is concidered wrong?" —

    that's roughly what lions do; drive off or kill male rivals, take over a small harem of females, even kill cubs belonging to previous males. Sometimes brothers cooperate (they share half each other's genes) but otherwise it's every (male) lion-for-himself.

    Labelling this behaviour as "immoral" or "wrong" just seems inappropriate when talking about lions. They follow their instincts, or equivalently, they pursue an inherited pattern of behaviours (that we see as a strategy) which maximises their reproductive potential. Those lions that follow strategies that don't maximise their reproductive potential will be outcompeted and outbred by lions that do; this is a tautology, it's not remotely controversial. Regardless of the "right or wrong" aspect, a strategy that's successful for one species doesn't necessarily work for another. So if you're a lion, killing rival males and "raping" females is a killer strategy. If you're a human, it's usually a strategy of last resort for "nothing to lose" desperadoes. Following the strategy means you'll probably end up dead (or incarcerated) which kind of puts a damper on your future reproductive prospects, whereas if you do leave any progeny behind from your spree they will likely be disadvantaged because of your actions. All of which does not address "right" and "wrong", just whether it's a sensible/viable strategy in an evolutionary sense (in a human population); it is not (except possibly as a last throw of the dice for someone with no future anyway and nothing to lose).

    "You can tell me it’s obviously wrong to do these things, but from a non god universe perspective it obviously is not." —

    so, from the perspective of someone who lives in a god universe, when considering obviously wrong behaviours, you can imagine a non-god universe clearly enough to see that those same behaviours are obviously not wrong? Did I get that right?

    "Mr Dawkins seems to be in a bit of hot water lately with his statement that down sindrome babies should be aborted because it is immoral to have them. This from Mr.Atheist himself? Immorality? By what standard of Morality?" —

    regardless of the statement (which sounds misquoted or out of context, be that as it may), you seem outraged that an atheist make commentary on morality, whether framed in a non-god universe or merely imaging a god-universe; whereas you have no difficulty in making absolute statements on morality in either a god-universe or a non-god-universe frame of reference

    "I often here Mr.Atheist tell Cristians how cruel and hatefull their religion has been. On what grounds is it wrong for one nation to kill another nation? Why or how could genocide be wrong?" —

    if you need a deity to tell you right from wrong, and fear of eternal punishment to do the right thing, does that make you a moral person? And if your deity (or religious leaders) tell you to go commit genocide (or some other "obviously" wrong act), will you not comply? If not, why not?

    "I’m not saying Atheists can’t be “morral” but that there is no morral ground to stand on as an atheist. You cannot tell me that murder is obviously wrong! Or rape! Or slavery! Or genocide! A muslim decapitating another is after all just one animal killing off another. What inside you makes your stomach turn? What tells you inside that this or that action is wrong?" —

    seems that you don't either; the bible in various places seems to justify murder, rape, slavery and even genocide, so where exactly do you get your morality?

    "For an atheist to declare one action moraly right and another moraly wrong, is as much hipocrasy as it is for a christian to hate gays, or condemn atheists to hell because they don’t believe. In a godless universe any action is only that another action. Now sure you can argue that “mass concensus” has decided what’s wrong and right. Or the benefit to the group is what drives morality. You can think of any argument you want in order to explain your current morral beliefs. But your personal feelings on what is acceptable to you and what is not, that feeling you get when you see someone murdered or raped, that feeling can surely only be a chemical signal. It means nothing in the godless universe." —

    err, there's a bit of gay-hate in the bible, so you've got that backwards too. And yes, "mass consensus" is roughly what does decide right and wrong. And yes, empathy does boil down to chemical signals etc. at a mechanical level, driven by some mixture of genetics, environmental factors and learned behaviour.

    "I’m not gonna try and make the argument that without God there can be no morality. " —

    I'm confused, I thought that was what you were setting out to do, albeit unsuccessfully "I argue that the word morality is only what is acceptable at the time, what’s agreeable to the masses, of a godless universe. " — very broadly speaking, that's true. Slavery was "acceptable" at the time in antebellum south, and christian clergy were quick to defend it, using the bible

    "If you believe there is no God, then your current belief of morality is no different than the average christian’s belief in their faith."

    — most "atheists" don't actively believe there is no God, they just don't see why they would in the absence of any evidence whatsoever for a god, and in the presence of far more sensible explanations for whatever needs explaining — by "belief of morality" you are presenting your god-universe interpretation of what a non-god-universe person may or may not hold to be true about morality, a markedly more challenging view than — the average christian's belief in their faith; what on earth is an "average christian"? Do you really mean, a typical christian who lives near you and attends your local church? There's a lot of christians out there (past and present) and they don't agree on a whole lot. Christ: divine, mortal, or a bit of both? Universe: 6000 years old, or whatever-the-scientists-say-we-don't-take-the-bible-literally? Slavery: bad, or justified by the bible? Etc. Etc. "But then why do we feel for the homeless the destitute? Why do feel sorry for the orphin? Why do we oppose murder? What “evolutionary” benefit could we have for this behaviour?" — Good, I'm glad you finally asked a sensible question. Google "evolutionary stable strategy", follow the links, and learn. Perhaps even read some of Mr. Dawkins' works. Particularly his first two books, The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. "And if there is none then how do we come to posess these feelings?" — well there is a plausible explanation, so it's a bit of a superfluous question "Is it not Religion’s rules that turned us from a barbaric history of sacrifing children, ruthless unhindered conquering of nations, the mistreatment of woman etc? Where do these ideas for what is morral and what is not come from? Who preaches these values to the masses?" — the sacrificing of children was in the name of (a) religion, as is or has been various episodes of nation conquering, mistreatment of woman etc.; there is no Religion, just lots of religions "There are only two answers that can make any sense towards the origins of morality. It was either brought in to the population through religious beliefs, or we were born with it. " — There's "innate morality" and "learned morality". Learned morality comes from your parents and the culture you were born into. Innate morality is biological. We are not blank slates (read some Pinkner). There is a biological basis to our behaviour (including morality), though through cultural influences (including religion) it can express itself in many forms. "But in a godless universe surely we wouldn’t be born with morality?" — wrong " We can only be taught what is morally right or wrong?" — that's not true " But as an atheist surely your reason can surpass this thinking? Are you then not locked up inside the same “brain washing” you claim christians are suffering from?" — because atheists (in general) behave in a moral fashion, which you think is based entirely on what they initially were taught, but which you fell they should be smart enough to outgrow and think past, and start behaving immorally when it suits them? From the other side of the mirror, I wonder when christians (in general) will start following JC's words instead of finding rationalisations to continue doing as they want e.g. rallying behind the flag and invading foreign countries on the slimmest of pretexts, making money at the expense of others, not turning the other cheek etc. "The real question of morality, true morality would be, “Is there a God?” If not then morality doesn’t truly exist and it’s just another “virus of the mind” one that for the benefit of mankind should be iradicated along with christianity and all other such beliefs?" — morality as a meme? assuming it were, would it truly be for the benefit of mankind to eradicate it? you truly think that "belief in morality" is an intellectual position dependent on a "belief in God"? any god in particular? would Zeus or Odin do? Do we really want to accept that? Because if there is no God that is exactly what we are faced with. — so you're "proving" the existence of God? You imagine that morality comes only from God, a world without morality (not to mention an afterlife) is just too bleak to contemplate, and therefore God exists? Leaving aside that I disagree that morality can come only from a deity (or that it requires any deity in particular), just because you dislike a conclusion doesn't mean it's false. "This is an atheistic website for the most part. So let’s look at the question that is truly at hand. We might not be able to test various theories on the existance or non existance of a god. But we are and the end faced with only three solutions. Either our universe/or omniverse(whichever you wish to argue) is past eternal. Or our universe/omniverse is uncaused from nothing. Or our universe/omniverse is caused. There are no other options available. And you can jump from one stupid theory to the next but a few things require only logic to understand." — only 3? No. One possibility, as you pointed out, is that the universe is eternal and has always been, so no cause is required. Next, as you say "uncaused from nothing", call this 0 for zero cause. Then, as you say, the universe has a creator, call this 1 for one cause. But why stop there. The creator could have a creator. Call this 2 for two causes (before stopping). Clearly we could have 3 causes. Or 4 causes. Or why stop; an infinite chain of causes, turtles all the way down. "If past time is eternal, neverending forever, then the present moment cannot occur. Please don’t argue, think about it logically. If the time before now is eternal into the past it means litterally never ending. Any fraction of infinity leaves you with infinity. This should not require scientific proof. It only requires some basic logic." — that's logic? seriously? "Then we have the option of a causeless beginning. Richard Dawkins especially likes this idea it seems. He seems to at least be able to grasp the idea that an infinite past is not logical, and after all quantum fluctuations in space clearly shows according to mr.Atheist that nothing can and does becomes something at a whim and with no reason. Causeless. So then the matter must be settled? How did Hawkin put it? “Because there is such a force as gravity the universe must and will create itself” brilliant… Or is it? If we can except and understand that past infinite time is illogical and impossible then Time had a beginning(uncaused or caused no matter) space then also would have a beginning for If space does not have time it will not exist. Similar to matter and energy. If there was no Time and no Space then where does one put this matter. So this also had a beginning. Now this all seems straight forward and seemingly pointless to mention. But in it lies the dilema. No Time, No Space, No Energy. Where does Mr Dawkins quantum fluctuation that causes the universe reside? What processes govern Mr Hawkins Gravity? The atheist seems to conveniently forget a couple of basics here. Without time space and matter/energy there is no gravity, there is no quantum fluctuations. You need at the very least Time for these things to occur and effect and space for them to occur and effect inside. And gravity for one will merely be a number that cannot have any effect without introducing either matter or energy. You see it’s the dishonesty of men like mr Dawkins, to conveniently leave crytical errors out of their explinations of things. Quantum fluctuations occur inside space time, this so called “nothing” is two of the three fundamental pieces that make up our universe. And no logical person can equate mr dawkins “nothing” to what we all know true nothing would be like. " — I think it's more a case of, "here are the rules, now start with nothing at all and apply the rules and voila you've got a universe". That's all very plausible, and reminiscent of how mathematicians start with some rules and the empty set and derive natural numbers, integers, rationals, reals, complex numbers etc. The unanswered question is where did the rules come from? Which can be answered in the same way as the original question: the rules have always existed and provide/need no further explanation; plus explanations 0, 1, 2, 3, …, infinity. Not to mention the possibility of an infinite regression of rules that create rule sets that create rule sets etc. "Now I’m sure Mr Dawkins would Imediately state that the quantum fluctuations show uncaused events. The truth is we don’t know what causes it, His and others verdict of “uncaused” is no less unscientific that saying “God did it” This kind of thinking means others of mr Dawkins belief system will not look for a cause to quantum fluctuations because they have convinced themselves that it is uncaused. That type of refusal to investigate based on belief is exactly what Dawkins has been accusing the faithfull of. He is truly the ultimate hypocrite." Mr. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, not a quantum physicist or cosmologist. You, I imagine, are none of these. Why you need to accuse a world-renowned biologist of being a hypocrite for apparently not being intimate with the finer theoretical details of quantum physics or cosmology (which only a small number of experts fully understand anyway) is curious, when you display even less understanding (though you clearly imagine you understand more). "Now we get to the obvious conclusion all atheists hate and refuse to look at. That the universe cannot be past eternal, cannot be uncaused from true nothing, and therfor had to be caused. And yes I also already know the final atheistic reply for my argument. “You cannot prove that this cause is inteligent” and you know what to an atheist and evolutionist I guess I can’t, your bias has already refused a Deity and Inteligent design. But the fact remains there is a Cause to this universe. And as the Cause of time, It must itself be uncaused and timeless, as the cause of space it must be spaceless and omnipresent, and as the cause of all the energy we can ever know of It surely can be concidered allpowerfull. So there is a eternal omnipresent omnipotent Cause to our Universe." — A hackneyed argument, which you haven't even done justice to. You did not begin to "prove" that the universe cannot be past eternal, and you distinguished yourself on the "uncausation" argument by unnecessary name-calling. — And even if – despite all that – we assume a cause (and a single cause at that), it really doesn't inform us on the nature of this presumed creator, whether it's intelligent, if it's even aware of our tiny planet in a huge space-time continuum, or care if it does, nor does it have any relevance to the iron age fairy tales that you cherish.

    [Response to preaching removed by moderator]

  4. I’ve seen some of Richards’ videos and understand all the arguments. But, as an average man and an Evangelical Christian I see or envision more then just the physical world that we all live in. I see more then just our ordinary lives. I will share part of my story…

    One sunny evening I went for a bike ride to be by myself and talk to the Lord. I’m not the greatest Christian but I was definitely in a situation beyond my abilities to handle. So I was seeking the Lords help. I asked the Lord to at the very least in some way tell me that he was there… all this after arguing about this or that..about those things which were bothering me in my life. At the point of my question and to be honest I don’t remember what and how I said it… but at the end of the statement I suddenly had the feeling of understanding, not sound but in my mind, that said look up. I had my head down as I argued with God and rode down this country road by Hoytville Ohio. I looked up and saw what I think is the Alpha Omega symbol written in cloud directly ahead of me at about 45 degrees up and sort of by itself. To the left was an approaching storm and the right nothing but blue sky. To me this experience was an answer to my prayer or argument with God. To happen at exactly that moment was startling to say the least.

    I of course understand all the arguments about what this was and what it most likely should mean to me. But my experience tells me to ignore those arguments and believe that God did indeed “Text” me saying that I shouldn’t worry about my problems cause he is in control. This has helped me deal… I think that is a good thing.

    What’s your response.

    One last thing… My son is an atheist. I also have a muslim daughter. The rest of my 6 children are Christian oriented. We are an American family. At times I discuss many topics with my son who is an atheist. The one topic that comes on strong is After Death Experiences. For me they seem to back up Biblical stories. Many who have had such experiences are good and decent people who by definition are not prone to lies or deceit. Plus some are very young children the same can be said about them but I think with more emphasis. It seems to me that more is going on here then just random last minute electrical impulses in the brains of so many.

    What’s your take on this?

  5. I looked up and saw what I think is the Alpha Omega symbol written in cloud directly ahead of me at about 45 degrees up and sort of by itself. To the left was an approaching storm and the right nothing but blue sky. To me this experience was an answer to my prayer or argument with God. To happen at exactly that moment was startling to say the least.

    For this to have happened, the laws of physics need to be broken, something that has never happened. So you can discount miracles or god. You were in a situation where you were seeking just such a sign. Earnestly seeking. A cloud in the sky looks vaguely like a symbol you recognize. You overplay the sighting and your brain, wishing it to be true, Photoshops your memory to fill in the fuzzy bits.

    If you think you see what your eyes tell you they are seeing, you are wrong. Your eyes and brain cannot take in and process all of the data. Your brain has this neat trick where it fills in the blank bits with what is likely to be there, but it’s not sure. This is a sample of that research.

    Researchers from the University of Glasgow have shown that when parts of our vision are blocked, the brain steps in to fill in the blanks.

    The team from the Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology conducted a series of experiments that showed how our brains predict what cannot be seen by drawing on our previous experiences to build up an accurate picture.

    The results show that our brains do not rely solely on what is shown to the eyes in order to ‘see’. Instead the brain constructs a complex prediction.

    You cannot trust your brain. It is not a reliable witness. Only third party empirical / repeatable evidence can be used for decision making. A “Vision” is not evidence.

  6. I prefer the word ‘ethics’ to the word ‘morality’ because I do think there is some confusion over whether the word ‘morality’ implies a god. Granted, words like ‘sin’ or ‘evil’ have even more religious implication then ‘morality'; however I think it’s well understood that ‘ethics’ are a human concern.

    Regardless, it’s fairly obvious to me how ethics have come about. Lets look at something like professional standards for accountants. It should be clear to everyone that the accounting profession could not exist if no one could trust accountants to do the job with out embezzling!!! It may seam from a certain point of view that the individual practitioner would benefit from the appropriation of funds for personal gain with out fear of legal or professional consequences. So why should ethical standards exist? Wouldn’t all accountants everywhere be better off if they could abscond loot with out worrying about losing their professional license?

    The answer should be obvious. It’s really the same thing when it comes to ‘civilization’ as a whole when you think about it. And yes, human emotions can evolve to be repulsed by murder just as surely as human taste buds can evolve to be repulsed by poison.

  7. Riaan having been well answered, changes tack, and the goalposts to:

    Why does the atheistic reply always start with an attack on spelling or grammar.

    Believe me Riaan, in the mist enveloped land of religion, you have far more to worry about than grammar or spelling. You have a world to lose.

  8. I have a simple analogy when it comes to this question of morals and Atheism.

    If someone punches you in the arm, it hurts, does it not? You punch them back, and you see that it has the same effect on them. Do you really need God to come to the conclusion that punching hurts, and therefore is bad or wrong? Replace punching with stealing, adultery, etc, and you still get the same answer.

    We base our morality, whether religious or atheist, from our own experiences, or for things that we don’t come across every day such as killing, rape, etc, we hear from others who have experienced the pain caused by it.

    We have the capacity to understand emotions and what they signal, and we certainly don’t need a book to tell us these things. A child brought up in a non-religious household does not become an evil degenerate, as much as religious fanatics would love to suggest, since the holy books are apparently the only source of morality.

  9. Call the set of rules we live by morality or ethics or whatever you like … THIS is how they came about:

    Humans evolved as social animals. We do not have the strength, speed, and fighting ability to survive long alone – so we have evolved to co-operate with each other as a society.

    Natural selection very quickly weeded out those social groups in which the members killed each other, reproduced with their own offspring, and so on. Thus we evolved the most fundamental of our “morals”.
    Later, as our societies became more complex, new rules were enforced – taboos against theft of personal property, adultery etc.

    Finally, humans invented religion. I’ll not go into why this happened as that is a whole other interesting topic. However, given that they postulate the existence of one or more supernatural entities who created the world and who control what happens within it (not to mention your destiny in the “afterlife”), naturally they had to become the “moral” authority so they took all those rather obvious pre-existing rules and claimed that God had decreed they be followed. Of course they added some more like not worshipping other gods; they’d have been mad not to do so.

    These “moral” rules mostly predate even the development of spoken language. Even the “lower” animals who live in social groups share most of them.
    All religion ever did was, for a tiny fraction of the time for which these “morals” have existed, claim them falsely as their own special invention.

    I follow these rules (except the brand new ones the religions added) not because I’m afraid of being punished but because I believe that other people have the same rights as me and I would not feel right doing to them that which I would not want done to me.

    Of course atheists can be just as “moral” as theists. Any other position simply cannot be defended.

Leave a Reply