10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[cybercoma]

You said it yourself. You have a moral framework because you're human. So there's something about the species that creates this morality, not a supernatural deity.

I never said a deity creates the moral framework. I said each person creates their own moral framework based on what they believe. If you don't believe there is a god then that is the basis for your moral framework.

Having no belief in deities doesn't have to have anything to do with one's moral framework. What makes you think it does?

[cybercoma]

Just because neither can be proven with any sort of certainty doesn't mean that God is even probable

you keep missing the point, post after post, day after day.

Maybe because you haven't made a point, post after post, day after day.

[Riverwind]

Having no belief in deities doesn't have to have anything to do with one's moral framework. What makes you think it does?

Your cannot seperate your beleifs on the way the universe works from your moral framework. You might try to pretend that they are seperate, however, you would be simply fooling yourself.

[guyser]

Your cannot seperate your beleifs on the way the universe works from your moral framework. You might try to pretend that they are seperate, however, you would be simply fooling yourself.

If the universe is composed of planets, stars, matter, gas and heat, and my morals are derived from merely being respectful to another inhabitant of said universe without any thought of the universe in determining those morals , how can I be fooling myself?

[Riverwind]

If the universe is composed of planets, stars, matter, gas and heat, and my morals are derived from merely being respectful to another inhabitant of said universe without any thought of the universe in determining those morals , how can I be fooling myself?

Your moral framework is based on the assumption that there is no deity or other higher power.

[guyser]

If the universe is composed of planets, stars, matter, gas and heat, and my morals are derived from merely being respectful to another inhabitant of said universe without any thought of the universe in determining those morals , how can I be fooling myself?

Your moral framework is based on the assumption that there is no deity or other higher power.

I asked how am I fooling myself, not asking for a repeat.

You posted this..."You cannot seperate your beleifs on the way the universe works from your moral framework"

I posted that I do not think about the universe when making a moral call, thus I have separated them.

So why can I not do this?

[Riverwind]

I posted that I do not think about the universe when making a moral call, thus I have separated them.

Any moral call you make is implicitly based on your metaphysical beliefs. You cannot separate them. It is impossible.

Let's put it another way. You believe that there is no god so there is no connection between a deity and your moral framework. That means your moral framework is based on the assumption that there is no deity and that it is possible to seperate the two. If you believed there was a deity then your moral framework would be different.

[Mad_Michael]

No, not at all. Who says I have a moral framework? Maybe I just make it up as I go along? Maybe I don't.

Then 'making it up as you go along' is your moral framework. My point is you have a moral and ethical framework because you are human. You cannot avoid having one. Even psychopaths have a moral framework that is built on self gratification (i.e. worship of themselves).

I don't dispute this, but your Christian doctrine seems a bit shaky here... you do appear to be acknowledging that morality may have a source other than religion. Not that I care, just sayin'.

Every person's moral framework incorporates their belief or non-belief in a diety.

I don't agree with this. Morality may stand independent of supernaturalism. However, Kant's rational moral system, for example, is a moral system that stands entirely without any reference or relevance to deism at all.

Put it another any way: you can refuse to make a choice between two options but you still make a choice. Your choice to 'not choose' becomes your choice.

Yes, not chosing to believe in God is a choice. However, non-belief in God is not the same as a belief that God does not exist.

Rejection of belief in God does not engender belief in the non-existence of God.

I don't believe in God. I do believe that it is theoretically possible that a God may exist. Your argument is thus logically flawed.

[Drea]

Is your moral framework based on the belief that there is NO Santa Claus?

Of course it isn't.

Its based on what you were taught growing up. If you were taught to be moral you will be. If you were taught to be immoral you will be.

We get morals from our parents "Junior! Don't spit milk all over your grandmother, its rude"... teaching a moral that others don't want to be spat upon.

Whether or not a person was brought up in a religious household does not matter on the "morals" front. The little suicide bomber is being taught by his religion and his parents that it IS moral to kill yourself if you kill an infidel.

If everyone believed in human rights and no one believed in god we would all be better off.

[Riverwind]

I don't dispute this, but your Christian doctrine seems a bit shaky here... you do appear to be acknowledging that morality may have a source other than religion. Not that I care, just sayin'.

Where did you get the idea that I am Christian or even a theist? I am simply stating that atheism and theism are similar belief systems.

Morality may stand independent of supernaturalism. However, Kant's rational moral system, for example, is a moral system that stands entirely without any reference or relevance to deism at all.

Such a moral system implicitly assumes that no diety exists or is irrelevent. IOW - it is a moral system built on a specific metaphysical view of the universe. Someone with a different metaphysical view of the universe would have a different moral framework.

I don't believe in God. I do believe that it is theoretically possible that a God may exist.

That belief forms the basis for your moral framework.

[Riverwind]

If everyone believed in human rights and no one believed in god we would all be better off.

The doctrine of "Human Rights" is simply another form of religious dogma which can be as oppressive as any theological dogma.

[cybercoma]

How does a non-belief in the supernatural premise of God have anything to do with morality?

Are you prepared to show how they're inseparable?

People who believe can be moral or immoral, people who have a non-belief can be moral or immoral. The connection is not there, or everyone who had an equal investment in belief would exhibit the same morals. Everyone who has a non-belief would show the same morality. Everyone who believes in a deity would have the same morality as each other; however, a different morality from the non-believers.

To disprove their inseperability, one only has to show that non-believers could have the same morals as believers and that people of the same belief can have all different morals. I've got a feeling they're completely unrelated, but I'd like to see what you have to say to show that they're not.

[Riverwind]

How does a non-belief in the supernatural premise of God have anything to do with morality?

Nobody can maintain a contradictory system of beliefs over a long period of time. This means that a person's moral beliefs must be consistent with their metaphysical beliefs. If someone's metaphysical beliefs change then their moral beliefs must also change. The two are not separable.

You do not believe that there is a deity. That is your metaphysical belief system. This belief allows you to construct a moral framework that does not directly reference a deity. However, that does not mean your moral framework exists independently of your metaphysical beliefs. They are interconnected.

[Mad_Michael]

An atheist rejects belief in God. It is a negative act.

No, an Atheist believes that there is no god.

Please substantiate your argument. As it stands, it is merely a naked statement of your own opinion.

Please explain how a negative act (rejecting belief in God) produces a positive belief.

Well since neither position can be proven, neither one can be shown to be either negative or positive.

Faith in God can be rejected on the basis of logic (using Ockham's Razor). This assertion in no way shape or form denies or disproves the existence of God - but one can logically assert that faith in God is irrational and that irrational acts may be rationally rejected.

No 'faith' is used or required here. Ergo, 'atheism' does not require faith.* Ergo, 'atheism' is categorically different than 'religion' since all religion requires faith.

*Note: Notwithstanding Kant's First Principle that is logically required for our discussion here to have any epistemological validity. This statement is only given here to pre-empt any solepscist based arguments in reply.

Alternatively, atheism (fundamentally speaking) is not a doctrine or set of beliefs or something that is consciously adopted or 'believed in' as a matter of faith. It is a generic label that is applied to describe a rejection of belief in any given God or religion.

Your qualms with grammer and linguistics do not add logic to yoru argument.

This assertion is spurious since it is an entirely a self-serving subjective opinion.

You may reasonably assert that my argument is unpersuasive to you personally, but my arguments are always addressed to a wider audience since this is a public forum. Others may perhaps appreciate the nuance of the distinction that you may choose to reject.

[cybercoma]

My moral framework makes no such reference to any deity.

Deism/theism isn't even a consideration for me.

[Riverwind]

My moral framework makes no such reference to any deity.

Deism/theism isn't even a consideration for me.

I fixed a typo in my post after you read it.

[cybercoma]

Regardless, I still don't see how they're connected. You've shown no connections, you're just repeating the same line using different words.

[Mad_Michael]

Nobody can maintain a contradictory system of beliefs over a long period of time. This means that a person's moral beliefs must be consistent with their metaphysical beliefs. If someone's metaphysical beliefs change then their moral beliefs must also change. The two are not separable.

You do not believe that there is a deity. That is your metaphysical belief system. This belief allows you to construct a moral framework that does not directly reference a deity. However, that does not mean your moral framework exists independently of your metaphysical beliefs. They are interconnected.

Immanuel Kant (who was a real puissant!), a man who by all accounts was a devout Christian, logically constructed a rational-based moral system that stands entirely outside of the realm of God or religion. Indeed, according to Kant's own reasoning, God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise.

In other words, it is entirely possible that morality and metaphysics may be disjunct. There is no logical reason that morality and metaphysics must be identical in any given subjective being.

[Mad_Michael]

If everyone believed in human rights and no one believed in god we would all be better off.

I emphatically disagree. Members of the human race have shown themselves to be quite capable of the most horrible acts. Taking 'belief in God' out of the equation is not likely to change this fact. Human nature is not pretty. I refuse to blame this on some imaginary God.

Indeed, if God doesn't exist, how is it that a mere idea could cause so much bloody mayhem for so many thousands of years? Ergo, it is illogical to assert that religion or belief in God is responsible for so much bloodshed - if one claims to be an atheist.

[Riverwind]

Indeed, according to Kant's own reasoning, God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise.

That should read: 'Kant's metaphysical belief system placed God outside of human reasoning'. This belief system allowed him to develop a rational case for morality. IOW - his moral beliefs and his metaphysical beliefs are inseparable.

In other words, it is entirely possible that morality and metaphysics may be disjunct. There is no logical reason that morality and metaphysics must be identical in any given subjective being.

I said they must be consistent - not identical. You cannot develop a moral framework without first deciding on a metaphysical context. Kant started his discussion on morals by 'saying that God was outside human reasoning' which states the metaphysical context for his moral framework.

[Mad_Michael]

Where did you get the idea that I am Christian or even a theist? I am simply stating that atheism and theism are similar belief systems.

As I noted, the point about Christian doctrine was entirely spurious to the line of discussion. I apologise if I have offended you with the assumption.

The assumption is based upon the nature and character of your argument following the classic journalistic theory of 'follow the money' - that is to say, who benefits from granting the general principle of your argument? That is who is likely to be your team.

Like I alluded to in the statement itself, that point is entirely irrelevant to the point of the argument at hand.

Morality may stand independent of supernaturalism. However, Kant's rational moral system, for example, is a moral system that stands entirely without any reference or relevance to deism at all.

Such a moral system implicitly assumes that no diety exists or is irrelevent.

You are not familiar with Immanuel Kant?

Kant was a devout Christian and a believer in God. Yet the rational-based moral system that he logically constructed stands entirely independent of any existence or non-existence of God. God is irrelevant to the rationality of the moral system constructed - yet not denied. Kant logically reasons that God exists outside of human understanding.

IOW - it is a moral system built on a specific metaphysical view of the universe. Someone with a different metaphysical view of the universe would have a different moral framework.

What is "IOW" ???

Yes, people with different metaphysical views of the universe would likely have different moral frameworks, but not necesarily so. People who share the same metaphysical views often have entirely different moral frameworks.

I don't believe in God. I do believe that it is theoretically possible that a God may exist.

That belief forms the basis for your moral framework.

So you say. And you apparently have nothing to substantiate your statement since you've given nothing here save a repetition of your point. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Where's the logical basis for this conclusion that you assert?

[Riverwind]

Yet the rational-based moral system that he logically constructed stands entirely independent of any existence or non-existence of God.

He was only able to construct such a system because he started with the assumption that 'God is outside of human reasoning'. The statement: 'God is outside of human reasoning' _is_ a statement of metaphysical beliefs. This means that Kant's own arguments are based on his metaphysical beliefs and cannot be separated from them.

Consider the equation: 1+1 = 10. Is this equation true or false? You cannot answer that question unless you make an assumption about the number system. If you assume that the number system is Base10 then the statement is false. However, the statement is true if the number system is Base2.

A moral framework without a statement on metaphysical beliefs is like an equation without a stated numeric base. The metaphysical belief provides the context that allows someone to develop a moral framework. That is why I say they are inseperable.

Yes, people with different metaphysical views of the universe would likely have different moral frameworks, but not necessarily so. People who share the same metaphysical views often have entirely different moral frameworks.

Of course, a person's metaphysical beliefs are only one part of their moral framework.

Where's the logical basis for this conclusion that you assert?

Your moral beliefs and your metaphysical beliefs must be consistent. If they are inconsistent then you would experience 'cognitive dissonance'. Over time one (or both) of these beliefs would change to ensure consistency. That is why I say the two are always connected.

[cybercoma]

I emphatically disagree. Members of the human race have shown themselves to be quite capable of the most horrible acts. Taking 'belief in God' out of the equation is not likely to change this fact. Human nature is not pretty. I refuse to blame this on some imaginary God.

Indeed, if God doesn't exist, how is it a mere idea could cause so much bloody mayhem for so many thousands of years? Ergo, it is illogical to assert that religion or belief in God is responsible for so much bloodshed - if one claims to be an atheist.

Emphasizing faith-based belief over reason and putting children on certain "sides" before they're capable of understanding these ideas can and has caused bloodshed. It's not the sole reason for all bloodshed, but do we really need another reason? Especially one that masquerades as the moral truth.

The only difference between catholic and protestant children in Ireland was their religion. These children had the unfortunate fate of being born into families that labeled them with a belief system which put them on a certain side of a conflict. The children on the other side were no different other than the fact that they were born into a different family with different beliefs. When the in-group/out-group mentality kicks in, they begin taking revenge on the out-group for things they perceive as actions against their in-group.

Like I said, it's not the sole reason for bloodshed, but it is another reason that breeds ignorance and I would say is abusive to children by putting them on a side before they can even understand what those sides are. Catholics and Protestants in Ireland may not even be the best example, perhaps Jewish and Muslim children in the middle east or Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq are better examples.

People will always segregate based on perceived differences. When those differences are based on nothing more than superstitious belief and labels that are placed on children by their parents, colour me thoroughly disgusted. It's unnecessary and should be questioned by anyone with any sort of rationality.

[Figleaf]

A religion is a beleif system. If you are an atheist then you worship the idea that there is no god.

Folks, just ignore Riverwind. He'll no doubt have some totally idiosyncratic meaning for 'worship' that makes such a grotesquery 'true' in his mind.

Also don't bother asking for an example or citation that supports his assertion. It won't be forthcoming.

[Figleaf]

If you believe that there is no god then your worship the idea that there is no god.

Because Riverwind says so.

Yep, having an idea is the very same thing as worshiping an idea. It's a mere quirk of fate that people don't say "I'm worshiping about leaving town for the weekend." or "What did you worship of that movie? I worshiped that the F/X were pretty good."

Riverwind says so.