The Elephant Man

So you think that it's impossible to have morals without getting them from an immortal lawgiver? That's just responding to punishment, not forming a system of right and wrong. If there was no punishment (either from earth or heaven), you'd just say "screw it, I'm gonna go murder some people"?There is also some advantages to acting morally (people will be nicer to you), and feeling bad after doing something wrong could be seen as being an evolutionary response to make people capable of living in a society. Social contract theory also comes into play; people need to give up some freedoms (killing, stealing, etc.) in order to live in a society.I'd also take issue with you saying atheists take a Christian worldview, what with all the other religions (Christians largely base their worldview on Judaism, anyways).According to many estimates, Sweden is the most atheist country in the world.   See 7 other replies

While atheism may or may not be “unethical at its core” it cannot provide a foundation for any ethical or moral values. You admit that evil exists; therefore, you must admit that good exists. If good and evil exist then will you admit that a moral law exists to differentiate one from the other? If so, then a moral lawgiver must exist. If there is no moral lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law to differentiate the good from the bad, then good and evil do not exist. If atheism is true, then whatever a person, subjectively, deems as good or evil is valid for each individual. If that true, then you cannot criticize anyone for any view, or practice, they may be so inclined to. That is, it is based on the individual’s personal preference. I am not saying that atheists, philosophically, are immoral people; however, they do not have any more reason to act morally than they do immorally – it is strictly based on preference. By the same token, I am not saying that all Christians act morally – some do not. However, when a Christian acts immorally they are being inconsistent with the worldview of Christianity. Conversely, if an atheist acts “morally” or “immorally” it does not matter because their worldview cannot prescribe any such morals. However, since the atheistic worldview cannot, foundationally, prescribe any such morals, when an atheist acts or adopts morality they are borrowing from the Christian worldview. The atheistic worldview cannot provide any moral standard.   See 7 other replies

Any complaint about "writing style" would be better directed at the 2000 character limit in posting. Tomes have been written for thousands of years regarding the spiritual nature of mankind; I'm sorry they can't all be summarized here for your pleasure. However, there is a quizzical significance in your first post not being included on the front page, perhaps because of its contained outrageous allegations and actually incoherent directions (which continue.)Your initial response included three: That "truth and progress" are inherently separated from spiritual knowledge, the excellence in evolutionist morality can be witnessed by considering China and N. Korea and that I "trashed" evolution. Your continuance contains others: That Christianity massively "wiped out" people, it is "stagnant", Christian Doctrine has been, or can be changed by a "figurehead" and that morality can be gained by watching TV. There are others just as absurd. It would take the above mentioned tomes to reply to the errant exaggeration and falsehoods stated and implied in each assertion.Let it suffice to say, it is vacantly illogical to claim that Christianity both caused the Dark Ages and extricated mankind from the same. Evolution theory was not being discussed, but the philosophical impact of belief systems. Should evolution doctrine have guided the emergence from the commonly held Dark Ages, we would see Art, Sculpture, Architecture, Literature(s) and Social Morality more like "The Planet of the Apes", than the excellence and hope achieved by modern mankind in Christianity alone.Every instance of a non-faith guidance of societies being practiced in the world has resulted in phenomenally more tortuous death and malaise, than the positive directions of Christianity have allowed: 50 to 70 Million dead in China, drab, gray slavery and starvation in N. Korea, many tens of Millions dead in the old Soviet, gleeful mass murder in Cuba... There is no comparison in Christianity.   See 7 other replies

i dont see any correlation between evolution and ethics.... thats like saying the color blue is unethical. atheism is not unethical in its core. its is more simply a rejection of faith in a higher power.... just because one does not believe they will be judged by a deity does not mean they have no ethics or morals. although i do not agree with socialism, i definately think there is a degree of morality. it does "enable" laziness, but it shows some form of compassion, so i cant completely dismiss it as unethical.
if what you say about my "manufactured morality" is true, than your arguments, by your own admission, are no better than mine.i am unsure of who you mean when you say "And, they can totally control you because you can't muster the strength of a spiritual nature to say anything is wrong"... in fact that whole sentence is lost to me... although i can muster the strength to say that, even with my failure to follow your convoluted wording, you are wrong.i see the corruption in the world because its blasted all over the media. you cant turn on a tv, look at a internet news site, or even walk down the street in certain areas without witnessing the lack of compassion and general disregard for other people that our world practices.i agree that victoria and alexandra couldnt have cowed a population that thinks for themselves. and to some degree i think theres a large part of the population that still NEEDS religion to hold onto/recognize their morals and ethics. if you werent so set on imagining things, i would argue that this is could be the "evolution of society."   See 7 other replies

let me start by saying your writing style is abnormal and designed to confuse. as a result im forced to reply in incoherent, unconnected responses.paganism is just as tyrannical as christianity... at least paganism isnt dictated by a figurehead who may change doctrine as he chooses.i can watch this film and see people acting like trash.... but that is not a dark age. and if you consider it to be, you probably think that the entire history of humans is "the dark ages". I cant show you anything spiritual about evolution because there is nothing spiritual about it. thats the point.if you think that spiritual advances are so robust, how come the christianity worked so hard throughout the latter half of the second millennium to abolish other religions, destroy scripture that was not deemed worthy of the bible (by a small group of figure heads in comparison), and to essentially wipe out those who would not blindly follow? i do agree that religion is calming (i say stagnate, you calm... same diff).   See 7 other replies

Nonsense... Paganism (and its inherent tyrannies) alone was the cause of the Dark Ages. If you can watch this film, or study the state of English society at the time of Victoria, you'll see the disgusting continuance of a Dark Age. You can show me nothing spiritual about "evolution." The spiritual natures of mankind have been its only progressive and calming attributes. There is no and can be no morality, nor core ethic in evolution, nor atheism, nor socialism. Within your manufactured "morality" there is nothing you say that is any more important, or hopeful, than what anyone else can say... And, they can totally control you because you can't muster the strength of a spiritual nature to say anything is wrong. This is precisely why you see the corruption and distemper in the world today... Because of a lack of the humility gained only in a spiritual nature. Victoria, Alexandra, et. al. would never have been able to direct, calm and progress the English societies within an evolutionist non-dogma.   See 7 other replies