How 'bout some of the kosher laws? Would that count? That's a sort of morality that's only relevant within the religion.

Hitchens has done almost as much good for atheism as Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, and Jim Bakker have done for Christianity. 

Yeah, I'm really curious about this, too.  I'm not a big follower of Hitchens, but only because I have 24 hours in the day, and I am not a speed reader.  Even so, all I've seen from Hitchens is a basic "in your face" approach to what he believes with regard to atheism, the middle east, etc.

Where exactly has Hitchens lied to extract money from his followers?  That's a Fallwell, Haggard, and Bakker trademark.  Fallwell encouraged parents to confiscate and burn all of their children's records.  Has Hitchens done something similar?  Fallwell said that 9/11 was because of gays.  Haggart used church money to pay for blow jobs from prostitutes.  Bakker went to jail for being a thief and an embezzler.

Where's the connection?

Did you notice how many teeth I had to pull just to get a straight answer to the question? They were mad at me because they said my question was irrelevant, slanted towards the answer I was looking for... they said I kept changing it, even though I quoted myself repeatedly, demonstrating that it had always been the same question. They argued with me about what I was trying to "prove." They accused me of asking impossible questions. They claimed I was being too restrictive.

And only one or two liberal theists had the guts to go on record and answer my question as worded.

Yours, of course, is going a slightly different direction, and todangst has covered this a time or two, without ever receiving a satisfactory response.

Theism must steal from secular morality in order to have any morality at all.

If morality really were a supernatural, unalterable constant, we would not recognize it as morality! It would be more akin to a shopping list. Because we can make sense of morality, even when we disagree with it, it is materialist in origin.

I won't hog your thread by detailing the objections to what I just said. I'm sure someone will make them for me, and then you can have a crack at them.

I'm speaking solely on image.  Let's face it:  Hitchens is the guy that every Christian looks at when O'Reilly has him on, and feels justified in saying "Look!  See?  I told you they were all like that."  He's just a total and complete insufferable asshole about everything.  He exudes an unrivalled bitterness and hatred towards everything that isn't his brand of kamikazi atheism.  It's just ironic that his only arguments are ad hominem, yet he represents this unsavory caricature of atheism for the entire world, and just to be honest, it's not like you guys have a huge arsenal of figureheads to take up the slack.  Other than Hitchens, you've got Dawkins (who isn't much better), Sam Harris (whose bombastic sensationalism is paper thin), and most recently Sapient (who is probably the most respectable and even tempered of the bunch).  I'm sure there are a few minor figures that I've missed, but those are the ones that are the most prominent on a national/world level in pop culture.  

Needless to say, I take everything that Hitchens says with a grain of salt.  He's like a bad B-movie character from the early 60's.   

jmm, I'm sorry, but you have a very slanted view of some of these guys. Like I said, I'm not here to take up Hitchens' cause. But, have you seriously watched Dawkins? He never raises his voice. He smiles constantly. He is polite. When he says something is ridiculous, he apologizes, for pete's sake! "I'm sorry to have to say this. Really I am, but that's just poppycock." That's a standard Dawkins style reply!

Harris, well, I have written him a few letters, actually. I disagree with some of his editorials, as I feel they are resorting to scare tactics the Rethuglican Party would be proud of. I don't think the world's going to end if we don't eradicate Christianity. I'll just leave America, because it's already almost too fucked up for me to want to stay, and I couldn't stand much more theocracy.

No offense to Sapient, I think he's one of the best spokesman we've got, but to categorize Dawkins as anything other than polite is just plain wrong. Sapient will get angry and has had some head to head arguments. I've never heard Dawkins do that.

Surely you have noticed that many of the atheists here are upset with Dawkins because they don't feel he's "in your face" enough.

Dennet, I've never really seen, so I can't say, but I've never heard anything about him being bombastic or rude.

Out of curiosity, jmm, assuming that you had been involved with the media for a few decades, and everybody... literally, everybody but you had drank the koolaid, do you think you could keep from being bitter for long?

I'm not saying that it's a great public image. It's not. But, is it fair to demonize the guy for being pissed off that nobody has listened to him or anybody with his opinions for the last 30 years?

Have you noticed that nobody gets any face time on FOX unless they're angry?

Would you rather he just disappear from the scene?

We've already seen that religion will exploit the media. What do you propose that we do if we can't get on TV? Just let the theists say what they want, without rebuttal?

Well there's a problem, many theists just aren't moral in the sense that level headed people would understand.  Suicide bombings, terrorism, theft, murder, all moral acts to the fundamentalist.  Christians thought it was moral to keep slaves because they were too stupid and lazy to live on their own, the slaves I mean.

When a theist does something good with the expectation of a reward he isn't doing a moral act.  He is doing a job.  A theist who does something without the expectation of a reward is being moral, but that's what Atheists do all the time.  So the only time a theist is moral is when he behaves like an Atheist.

So the challenge cannot be met. 

Yeah, I'd say I jumped the gun a bit on Dawkins.  I've seen quite a bit of him.  I watched the 6-part special that was posted here a few months ago.  I do enjoy Dawkins quite a bit, but I think more than anything it just frustrates me when scientists feel the need to assume authority over theological matters.  I know we could take that last statement for 100 pages, but let me just say this:  Dawkins is clearly a very special man.  He's one of if not the most gifted evolutionary biologists living today.  I just think he oversteps the intellectual boundary with his conclusions, that's my main gripe with him.  

 Oh, I've seen video of Sapient getting angry, and the time I'm remembering he was totally in the right.  Todd Friel was being a douchebag (as usual), and they got into it.  I think it was after the televised debate with Ray and Kirk.  I think that Sapient is actually quite a good spokesman for the atheist cause.  

As for being able to hold back bitterness after decades of media dismissal...I don't really know.  I haven't even been alive for 3 decades yet, so it wouldn't be fair of me to comment on something like that.  I'm very low-key with my spiritual beliefs.  I do get angry when rights are infringed upon from either side, but I've never been an activist of any sort, so it would be hard for me to say.

I totally understand that FOX News is a sensationalist spin machine of the highest order.  I mean, it's entertainment above everything else, whether it means to be or not.  They're not going to have guys on there with even tempers.  Shouting keeps people from changing the channel, at that's the bottom line.  

I don't think that Hitchens or anyone else should just disappear.  I think we live in an exciting time for the age-old God question.  It's certainly on the collective mind of the populus, and it's really exciting for me to be able to turn on the television and see intense, passionate debates on the question that has burned my mind the most.  It's just that sometimes the networks opt for the loudest or most shocking figurehead of each side of the debate, rather than the most qualified, and while this may do a great deal for ratings, it leaves a little to be desired in the actual debate itself.  I'd really like to see both sides gradually steer away from the ad hominem attacks and focus more on the meat of the issue itself.  I think we're getting there.  

jmm, that was a much more reasonable answer as to the atheist "spokesman."  Now, we have one more bit of business.

Good.  So, admit that you lied, or misrepresented, or misspoke, or whatever makes you happy.  I did not change my question.  You misunderstood it.

LOL. I sometimes forget this site is a more "militant" place than some. I guess I don't find it that intimidating. Stimulating? Absolutely. But Ah ain't skeered.

I can't disagree with anything you said. The morality of fundamentalism is definately a "supernatural" thing for which there can be no emperical evaluation of its veracity.  As soon as supernatural is invoked, any damn thing can be claimed.  

Curious way of putting it. I guess I tend to hedge my bets about a lot of things. I'm pretty certain that much of what I think of reality is either woefully inadequate or just plain wrong. So even things that seem accurate on the face of it (such as your statements) get filed in the section "worth deeper evaluation". I'm relatively patient. I don't have to have all the answers TODAY. I'm quite content to let the stew cook for awhile.

There are more possibilities than that.

- God might only let atheists into heaven. The world is Gods test to see if people will think rationally

- God may only let those who chose the correct God and those who abstain from chosing into heaven.

- God might only let those who live good lives get into heaven regardless of their religious belief.

- God may be evil and reward those who lives out their lives commiting immoral acts.

Etc, etc, etc.

That all being said, just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I couldn't convince someone to become a Christian either. But more importantly, you haven't established that becoming a Christian is a moral act in the first place.

Christianity is Christian theology. A religion is its teachings. The actions taken by the adherents to the religion are the result of them believing the theology. Therefore, the theology and the actions are the same, assuming the actions are consistent with the theology.

Notice that this leaves open the objection that Christians acting badly are not following the theology correctly. I did not attempt to define a "true" Christian, instead leaving open any interpretation that a theist wished to pursue. How, other than theology, would you communicate the teachings of Christianity?  You can't, because the theology IS the communication of the teachings of Christianity.  They are one in the same. 

This is sort of like what you said about Paul later. You're not even splitting hairs. You're pointing out that I used a different word that means the same thing. That's not a caveat.

Bullshit.

Christianity was the word I used in the question. Christianity didn't exist until after Jesus. End of story.

But your answer IS nothing. You answered a question I didn't ask, so it doesn't matter that you would like for your answer to be relevant. It isn't. After I explained what I was asking, you said, nothing. You never liked the question, and that's not my problem. Would you like to correct me? Is there something that CHRISTIANITY did? Or, is the answer to my question nothing?

What are we debating? Jesus historicity? No. The impact of Christianity? Yes.

Again, YOU are the one twisting my question to suit the answer you'd like to give.

You'd have done better if you learned what ad hominems are, I suspect.

False. Again, only one of us read "Christianity" and gave an answer from before the religion even existed.

You don't have to like the question. It's valid.

What?

Bullshit. Find a definition of ad hominem, and plug in the parts of my paragraph that fit the definition. Otherwise, take this back.

Really, you have not demonstrated anything.

1) I said "Christianity." You answered before Christianity.

2) You didn't like it when I pointed this out to you, even though it's PART OF THE DEFINITION.

3) You still have not provided any evidence that I changed the question. Theology is what defines a religion. I left a door as wide as the Vatican for anyone to define the theology any way they want. Christianity post-dates Jesus. Theology is the religion.

4) Nothing I wrote was an ad hominem. Learn what it is before you accuse me of it.

5) Victory lap? You said, "Of course Pauline Christianity has done nothing unique for the physical world." So, your answer to my question was, "nothing." I used the exact word you did. "Nothing." I didn't misquote you. I even addressed your statement about Pauline Christianity, and received no rebuttal.

JMM, you've lost this. You didn't like the question, and you didn't like the fact that you couldn't answer it the way you wanted because it wasn't part of the question. This is not my concern. My concern is that you continue to misrepresent me because you don't want to admit that you were wrong. I did not change the question, nor did I commit an ad hominem, nor did I misquote you.

Feel free to write your own post about Jesus' unique contribution to the world. It's not my business, and I don't care to argue it. But for my thread, admit that the answer you gave is "nothing" and that I did not change the question. You were the one twisting it so that you could give the answer you wanted.

It's a wise position to take, if you ask me.

Are we talking about what's real, or what's perceived to be real? A person who believed that killing newborn babies so that they could go to heaven would be decried by everybody because there's a rational reason for not killing babies, and we can agree that it's immoral from a survival of the species point of view, from a parental point of view (assuming the baby was wanted) and from a legal point of view (after they are born, it's legally murder to kill them.)

This person would believe that he was committing a moral act. The argument that this person was stealing from materialism is completely irrelevant to EVERYONE who disagrees with him.

The fact is, morality is the description of human behavior towards other humans and to a lesser extent to the world/environment/etc. "Individual morality" is meaningless until another person is involved. So, the question of whether or not a Christian thinks he is being moral is irrelevant until another person is involved. At that time, we can examine whether or not it is in this person's best interest to become "saved." Without a supernatural point of reference, it's awfully difficult to assign it any value.

I don't see how their misunderstanding of the definition of "axiom" gives them a free pass.

No. An atheist takes the fact that logic and science cannot define the supernatural for exactly what it is. A total lack of evidence. Since there is no other evidence other than logic or science which can be quantified, the atheist reverts to the default position -- lack of belief in the claim.

It is not positive evidence. It is a lack of evidence. Once again, the default position in a debate is negative. Without evidence, the answer is "no."

Again, the theist's misunderstanding of the burden of proof and the foundations of critical thought are not good reasons for giving them a free pass.

Always so noted with you.

But, you fail to take the last step and just say that the theist view is inherently flawed. This is provable by at least three or four separate paths, most notably reductio ad absurdium.

Until it can be demonstrated that there is an alternative to logic, logic stands as the only way humans think. This IS axiomatic, because logic is the description and codification of human thought. To say we think without it is contradictory. To ask the question of logic's validity is to use logic.

(Remember, invalid logic is still logic, and is still part of the description and codification!)

I have many bruises.

"Can't" is such a strong word. Some do. I was a Christian. Sapient was. Rook was. Kelly was. To change the belief system takes a level of intellectual honesty that is not often seen. It's much easier to believe than not to, so long as logic is not properly used or understood.

 Oh... one last thing.  I don't want to get into neurology.  I know there are actions taken by humans that happen with a lower level of brain activity than "thought."  Reflexes, instinctual, and automatic responses don't concern me here.  I mean to say that when someone "thinks" about something, they are using logic, whether it is valid or invalid.  They are using either induction or deduction to move from one idea to the next.  That is logic.

Lies! Atheists can't tell the truth!  

What is perceived.

No free pass given. I am pointing out the nature of that misunderstanding.

This is a distinction of theological non-cognitivism, if I understand it correctly. It a distinction not held by all atheists and most assuredly lost on most Christians.

Again, no free pass given. I am only pointing out the magnitude of the differences.

I personally fail to take the last step? I have no use for supernatural constructs. I'm not sure what you mean.

Can't may be a bit strong. But I think ther are those like yourself that never stop asking questions. Then there are those that never really ask any. It is the second group that can't.

Ok, then a connection needs to be made.  As I pointed out, individual perception of morality only gains value when other people become involved.

Fair to say.

Not exactly.

I used the word "atheist" a little too broadly.  True, all atheists are not theological non-cognitivists.  However, the most logically sound defense of atheism is essentially non-cognitivist.  If a thing has no meaning, talking about it is meaningless.  Atheism goes one step farther and says that the logical belief is that god does not exist.  If I understand the common t.n.c. position correctly, it does not necessarily lead to atheism.  In fact, there are theologians who blithely prattle on about the existence of god despite the fact that they admit freely that any discussion of god is meaningless.

My primary meaning originally was essentially this: The default position for the brain is "off."  In other words, without evidence for something, we don't believe it.  Therefore, atheists are correct in assuming god's non-existence until and unless someone provides proof.  Faith defies logic.  Logic is the definition of the way we think.  Therefore, anything that employs faith can be tossed aside without a second thought.

In this case, yes.  Maybe I missed it?  Did you ever say that the supernatural constructs necessary for faith are invalid in this thread?

I know you believe it personally. I was just pointing out that your posts seem to be neutral regarding the objective quality of the two approaches.  I see now that you weren't trying to make a value judgment.  I forget that sometimes you preach to the choir.

I still prefer "don't" or "won't" to "can't."

You've read all those studies on teaching methods, haven't you?  Where teachers who speak as if their students already know things, or can easily grasp them have better students than those who speak as if things are terribly difficult, or unlikely to be understood.

Wave, what do you think of this?

Essentially.  In a hypothetical world with only one human, every action that human did would be morally neutral, regardless of what he believed.   While he might harbor beliefs about the inherent goodness or badness of his individual actions, his beliefs would hold no external validity.

 Of course, in this hypothetical world, the human would not have invented the idea of morality on his own.  He would have invented practicality and utilitarianism.  If this thing keeps me alive and comfortable, it is good.  Doing things that keep me alive is good.

We could call this morality, but it's not.

The extension of this mental exercise is the realization that since morality cannot exist in a vacuum, there is no "ultimate morality."  It's kind of a back door to the statement that theism must steal from naturalism.

 One moral action a theist would do that an atheist wont: pray for a sick or dying person.

Atheists can be moral. No one denies that. The only problem is that when an atheist excerizes morality (I have yet to see a moral atheist), they are leaving the atheist worldview and stepping into the Christian worldview. Atheists can count, but they can't ACCOUNT for morality.

As for Hitchens, he's just a Christ hating Jew and probably a secret Freemason. I don't give a damn what he thinks. He's nothing.

Can you prove this? I highly doubt it. To say humans are rotten at birth has no basis in any kind of evidence we have.  Yes there are rotton people, but its a matter of both their genes and their environment.  

I dispise any belief system that says that humans are rotten to the core.  This is a horrible way to look at humanity, and my only conclusion i can think of is that they people who believe this are either a) projecting or b) its just a purely learned thign. This thinking leadswould typically, imo, lead to a state of low-self esteem, very depressed mood.

Prove this please.

Have you checked your racist ego lately?  It seems to be causing you some issues with your asshole.

That is not an action that is inaction.   

so, Apotheon, your doing exactly what I criticized in my initial post. you claim that the only basis for morality is christianity:

 That's just so arrogant. Just because you think you couldn't be moral or even keep yourself from murdering and stealing without being observed by a supernatural authority you project this on everybody else. I don't have to switch off reason, borrow your fairy tale belief for a minute and switch reason back on to act moraly.

 And one question: following your statement, what does an atheist in the islamic world do when acting maroly? believing in Allah for a second? or do greeks tend to flirt with the ideaof reinstalling Zeus when they help the poor? see what I mean?

By the way: thanks everyone in this thread for your posts and discussion!