You're avoiding the question. The question is about the fact that you can find an atheist who doesn't conform to the morality you presented.
Atheism is not a big part of our personality or something we value much , we don't believe in fairytales and that's it. Atheists do not have a set of morals because we are a very diverse group, our morality is relevant to our personality , culture and logic , we are not moral because we fear hell or something equally boring in the "afterlife" ... because you know there is no afterlife . To directly answer OP's question atheism is unrelated with morals.
Of course not. Atheists learned morals from christians in the past, now they have turned their back on us. they are simple savages today.
If I read you correctly, then if no mroality is based on atheism, then any adopted morality would mean the atheist is not being true to his beliefs correct?
Except for the fact that the behavioral traits that Christians claim are "Christian morality" were invented prior to the existence of Christianity in civilizations independent from it.
I'm not sure how any of that posts is an argument for atheism being anything more than a lack of belief in god.
Not to me. My morality is based on objective and inviolatable right that an individual has to their life and the ownership of their own body. However, under your belief system, if God told you to rape a 4 year old, would it still be wrong to do so?
I would examine if that was God who told me, then I would examine scripture, and then if I was in my right mind acknowledge that it wasn't God. Now back to you. So you're saying it can never be absolutely determined to be wrong to rape a 4 year old child?
There is an ontological problem: it does not make sense that a culture identifies itself opposed to an organized ontology. reasonable??? I am your best dialectic, smartest atheist, most compassionate humanist, and ruthless Cynic.
To me, it absolutely can. My beliefs have an objective standard. They are right and should be followed by others, however, since others do not follow my beliefs, I cannot dictate what they believe is right or wrong. BTW, why would determine that God didn't tell you to do it? Your God is the same one who commanded the murder of every man, woman, and child in cities except for the young virginal girls who were given to the warriors as sex slaves. Clearly he has no problem with rape.
well, I believe God speaks through the scriptures, and I haven't seen him advocating me raping a 4 year old child. I also believe that as the prophet Jeremiah said "the heart is deceitfully wicked", and I believe that I could definitely be deceived into hearing something other than God. What is this objective standard that you appeal too? While you maybe can't dictate what they believe, do you feel you could enforce that standard?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31:15-18&version=NIV Numbers 31:15-18 "Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Your God clearly has no problem with commanding rape. The inalienable right of ownership of one's own body and the property rights associated with that. I could enforce a legal standard. However, I can not nor would I even try to enforce a moral standard.
I failed to see where God commanded them to rape someone. When does this ownership of ones body start? Also you could enforce a legal standard, but you wouldn't enforce a moral standard of not raping a 4 year old child?
What exactly do you think he commanded them to take virginal girls for while simultaneously commanding the murder of innocent boys? Life. The instant you are alive you own your body and your life. I would enforce the legal standard that it is a violation of the law to violate the rights of another person. That would include rape. However, you can't force morality (which is a belief) on other people. It doesn't work like that unless you have a magic mind control beam.
It establishes that the government is obligated to enforce the assigned aspects of the morality. Morality is not subjective - that theory is a failure, and is probably a product of compromised reasoning that you find to be practical, instead of amusing. Morality is a social construct of community. Subjective ideas are individual psychological perceptions. The people of Edinburgh must be very proud of you, though.
scripture doesn't elaborate on the issue, so I'm not at liberty to say, concerning the girls in "numbers". When are you "alive"? Ok, I see what you mean about enforcing morals, I think I was talking about "murder" laws and such, but thats probably what you meant by "legal", so I understand. - - - Updated - - - I'm beginning to believe its immoral to respond to you.
That's a cop-out and you know it. I'm willing to bet that you can't even condemn God as evil for commanding the murder of innocent young boys during the same passage. And I'm willing to bet you think murder is evil. That is a difficult question to answer, but I would say conception. The morality of a law is entirely seperate from its legality in my opinion. Just because a law is enforced, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its morality. Similarly, just because something is "immoral" that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Why do you bother to entertain such arguments??? The concepts presented in the Bible are for antiquated societies - they may be helpful for those of humble station, or otherwise, resigned to allow others to rule their communities. Those of us who are more inclined to solve the problems of Mankind would be better advised to solve the problems of our own kind - don't you think. What are you smart in, what do they pay to do in your community - pour coffee?
